[Senate Hearing 112-731]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-731
Senate Hearings
Before the Committee on Appropriations
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of the Interior,
Environment, and
Related Agencies
Appropriations
Fiscal Year 2013
112th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
H.R. 6091
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, 2013
(H.R. 6091)--Part 1
S. Hrg. 112-731
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 6091
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
30, 2013, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Agriculture
Department of the Interior
Environmental Protection Agency
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-332PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Ranking
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
PATTY MURRAY, Washington LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana MARK KIRK, Illinois
JACK REED, Rhode Island DANIEL COATS, Indiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROY BLUNT, Missouri
BEN NELSON, Nebraska JERRY MORAN, Kansas
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies
JACK REED, Rhode Island, Chairman
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
BEN NELSON, Nebraska ROY BLUNT, Missouri
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Peter Kiefhaber
Ginny James
Rachel Taylor
Ryan Hunt
Leif Fonnesbeck (Minority)
Rebecca Benn (Minority)
Brent Wiles (Minority)
Administrative Support
Teri Curtin
Courtney Stevens (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Page
Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary.............. 1
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management............ 77
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.... 86
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement.................................................... 91
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Department of Agriculture: United States Forest Service.......... 125
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Environmental Protection Agency.................................. 175
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 235
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Reed, Leahy, Tim Johnson, Tester,
Landrieu, Murkowski, Alexander, Cochran, Collins, and Hoeven.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DAVID J. HAYES, DEPUTY SECRETARY
PAMELA K. HAZE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET, FINANCE,
PERFORMANCE, AND ACQUISITION
opening statement of senator jack reed
Senator Reed. Let me call the hearing to order and on
behalf of the members of the subcommittee I'd like to welcome
the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Secretary, thank you very
much for taking time to be with us this morning and to talk
about the fiscal year 2013 budget for the Department of the
Interior.
I would also like to take a moment to thank you for all the
time that you spent in our States during the past year visiting
our shared priorities. I very much appreciated your trip to
Rhode Island last summer and your support to create the John H.
Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Historic Park.
I am also grateful for your participation, you and your
staff, along with Senator Murkowski, for our very interesting
and informative trip to Alaska. And I would also like to thank
Senator Murkowski not only for her gracious hospitality in
Alaska, but for her extraordinary efforts last year on a
bipartisan basis to bring forward an Interior bill which I
think was a good one. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski,
for your great work and for the work of your staff.
Mr. Secretary, I also want to thank you for your intense
interest in all these issues and for your accessibility and
collaboration with us throughout the process last year, and we
look forward to the same collaboration going forward this year.
Turning to the budget, it appears that the administration
is seeking $10.4 billion for Interior programs under the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee. That is an increase of $139
million, or about 1 percent more than the equivalent fiscal
year 2012 enacted level.
Within that amount, funding for the operations of our
national parks, refuges, and other public lands is essentially
flat at $4.56 billion. Tribal programs are also flat-funded at
approximately $2.53 billion.
The budget request does include a few new investments,
including a $115 million increase for the Interior Department's
Land and Water Conservation (LWCF) programs, for a total of
$332 million. That amount is a 53-percent increase more than
the fiscal year 2012 level and includes a new emphasis on
landscape-scale projects in Montana, Wyoming, and Florida.
I look forward to discussing how this proposal fits in with
other land acquisition priorities particularly since I notice
that there are no projects in some of our States, Rhode Island
included, with respect to land acquisition. And it is very
important, I think you recognize this, for urban parks and
refuges and also for the whole country that we have an active
acquisition process going forward.
The budget request also includes $222 million for the
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), a 13-
percent increase for inspections and enforcement. I understand
the Department intends this funding increase to continue the
transformation of its offshore energy program.
The request also proposes substantial increases in science,
including a 3-percent increase in the U.S. Geological Survey's
(USGS) budget for a total of $1.102 billion. Within that amount
is $18.5 million for hydraulic fracturing research to support a
multi-agency research effort to address environmental questions
related to energy development.
Of course, as is often the case during these fiscally
difficult times, the administration's budget request also
contains reductions to other important programs, including a
19-percent cut to land management agency construction programs
and an additional 14-percent cut to the construction of tribal
schools. And finally, it requires yet another round of belt-
tightening by the Department's Bureaus to produce $80 million
in administrative savings.
As we discuss the details of this request, it is very
important to note that, for decades, resources provided to the
Department through the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill have created jobs by enabling oil
and gas development, supporting outdoor recreation, and
building facilities, roads, and trails on our public lands.
The Department now has the opportunity to spur economic
growth through new sectors like renewable energy, and that fact
makes it even more important that the right resources and
policies are in place to permit these projects to proceed
quickly and responsibly.
In particular, I would like to have a conversation about
the role of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in
permitting new offshore wind projects, which have the ability
to create hundreds of new assembly and manufacturing jobs all
across our coastal areas, but in particular at Quonset Point,
Rhode Island. I think some of my colleagues also have some
interest in those projects.
We have worked in Rhode Island and in adjacent States, but
particularly Rhode Island, to develop an ocean special area
management plan (SAMP), first in the Nation effort to
streamline the planning process for the siting of these
facilities. And despite all this work, I am concerned that
BOEM's environmental assessment and planning process for Rhode
Island is falling behind schedule, that we are not keeping pace
with other areas of development.
And finally, I would also expect to discuss how the
Department's budget request will support and expand other types
of energy development. The subcommittee has been very involved
in the reorganization of offshore oil and gas programs, and I
am anxious to hear a progress report from the Secretary
regarding how the Department's three new Bureaus are addressing
their management challenges.
I anticipate that we will also discuss the changes the
Department is proposing to its onshore energy development
budget, including a proposal for a new inspection fee for oil
and gas development on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands,
and I look forward to a good conversation on all of these
important issues.
And now, Mr. Secretary and colleagues, I would like to turn
to the ranking member for any of her comments.
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
the panel.
We had the opportunity yesterday to have Secretary Salazar,
Assistant Secretary Hayes, and Ms. Haze before the Energy
Committee. So I had a chance to do some warm-up questions then,
but it is good to welcome you back to this subcommittee.
And Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the trip that we took to
Alaska this summer. I, too, want to thank the Secretary and
thank you and your staff. Peter Kiefhaber, who is no longer
with the subcommittee, but did a great job with us as we worked
that Interior package last year. So thank you not only for the
time that you took to look at some issues that are very
important to my State and to the country, but also for the good
work of your staff as we built that bill last year.
This morning, Mr. Chairman, I think we recognize that this
is just the first of several of our subcommittee hearings that
we will engage in an oversight role we exercise during these
hearings. It is especially critical in this challenging fiscal
climate where we are forced to make some very difficult
decisions, difficult choices between many worthy programs that
are funded by this bill and by others.
It is imperative that we work with the executive branch to
improve the efficiency and the quality of the programs that are
administered by all of the agencies that are under our
jurisdiction. I think we all recognize that in this time we are
all having to figure out how we do more with less.
As you have indicated, Mr. Chairman, the Department's
budget request is essentially flat at $10.4 billion. But before
I describe some of the concerns that I might have, I want to
applaud you, Mr. Secretary, for including the full amount of
contract support costs for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
request.
These funds are absolutely, absolutely critical for the
delivery of so many programs to Native Alaskans. As you know,
this is a top priority for me, and I hope that we can encourage
Indian Health Services to adopt your approach in future
requests. So I thank you for that.
There are a number of concerns that I have with the
Department's budget proposal for fiscal year 2013. Similar to
last year, it does propose to increase by 39 percent the amount
for LWCF programs while at the same time we are cutting the
construction accounts for all of the land management agencies
and BIA.
I think it is somewhat shortsighted to continue
underfunding essential construction and maintenance programs
while at the same time we are increasing the operational
demands on the Department by expanding the amount of land under
its jurisdiction. That was something that I had noted
yesterday.
I do find it curious that at the same time that the budget
proposes to dramatically expand Federal land acquisition that
it eliminates the National Wildlife Refuge Fund, which
compensates States and localities for the loss of tax revenue
due to Federal ownership.
And while the budget proposes to extend mandatory Payments
in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) that expire this fiscal year by just 1
additional year, it doesn't provide for offsets. I think that
before we commit funds to additional land acquisitions that we
should make sure that we have got a definitive way to honor our
existing commitments to States and counties that already have a
large Federal land base which is not subject to property taxes.
I was in Ketchikan on Friday. It is the southernmost
community in southeastern Alaska, sits in the middle of the
Tongass National Forest. I was reminded that in Ketchikan, only
1/30th of 1 percent of the Ketchikan borough is taxable, is
subject to any taxation, 1/30th of 1 percent.
So when we cut back on PILT, when we cut back on Secure
Rural Schools program funding, there is no way to expand their
tax base. They are sitting in the middle of a national forest.
So it was a good reminder to me of the importance of some of
these mandatory payments.
Also, a number of troubling proposals in the request for
new fees that would raise the cost of domestic energy
production, mining, and livestock grazing. I am concerned with
what I would describe as a budget gimmick, and this relates to
the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP).
There is an offset of current discretionary programs by
rescinding the $200 million within CIAP. This was established
by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in recognition of the direct
impacts that are caused by Federal offshore Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) development on our OCS-producing States.
Alaska, for instance, would lose $16 million of the
remaining $45 million that it is entitled to under the program
for environmental mitigation and infrastructure improvements.
This is an unacceptable situation in my opinion, particularly
in light of the fact that we have yet to enact legislation that
would provide for State revenue sharing for OCS-producing
States so that the projects that are currently supported by
CIAP would continue to have a funding source.
On a positive note, and as I said yesterday, you can't have
conversations like this without--and being critical in areas
without recognizing where we truly have made significant gains,
and I thanked you for the contract support. But I would also
like to thank you, Mr. Secretary, and the Department for the
approval of Shell's Arctic spill prevention plan on the 17th of
this month. I am very, very hopeful that after a number of
false starts on this exploration of both the Beaufort and the
Chukchi Seas that we can actually begin this summer.
And again, Mr. Hayes, I thank you for your very personal
efforts. You have been engaged at a level at the Secretary's
request that I think has helped to facilitate this process.
I am also very optimistic that language that was included
in last year's Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriation bill that transfers the authority over air
quality issues in Arctic OCS from the Environmental Protection
Agency to the Department of the Interior will finally provide
some much-needed regulatory certainty for the environmentally
safe and timely development of our resource.
So I thank you for your assistance in many of these areas.
Look forward to furthering our conversation today.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Mr. Secretary, while we anticipate your testimony, I would
like to give my colleagues present here an opportunity to make
a brief statement before you begin.
Senator Collins.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Mr. Chairman, let me say how much I look forward to
working with you and the ranking member this year in crafting
this important appropriations bill. And of course, it is always
a pleasure to welcome back to the subcommittee our former
colleague Secretary Salazar. I told Secretary Salazar this
morning that he was my favorite Cabinet member, to which my
colleague Senator Alexander quickly replied that I tell all the
Cabinet members that.
Senator Collins. But truly, we do have a special
relationship from having served together. I also want to thank
the Secretary for traveling to Maine last August to see the
exciting new deepwater offshore wind technology that is being
developed there.
While I have looked forward to learning more about the
broad range of activities included in the Department's budget
request, I am particularly interested in discussing the BOEM's
efforts with regard to leasing and permitting deepwater
offshore wind, an issue that I know is of great interest to the
chairman of this subcommittee as well. Specifically, I look
forward to discussing BOEM's efforts in Maine, including the
Renewable Energy Task Force and Statoil's unsolicited lease
application.
I know that you share my interest in streamlining the
development of our offshore wind resources permitting so that
we do not lose the global race in the development of this
abundant, renewable energy source.
In addition to advancing our goal to responsibly develop
our energy resources, partnerships are paramount for striking
the right balance in meeting our shared conservation goals. On
that foundation, our open spaces, recreation, and working lands
can continue to coexist for the benefit of future generations.
One of the most important Federal programs to assist in the
preservation of recreational and environmental resources is the
LWCF. Secretary Salazar, you have been such a leader in this
area, and I know you well recall how hard we worked together in
this area to increase funding during your time in the Senate. I
appreciate the administration's continued commitment to LWCF,
which has funded the acquisition of key parcels within Maine's
treasured Acadia National Park and strategic forest legacy
projects.
In addition, I am pleased to see partnerships highlighted
in the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, including two
community-led signature projects in Maine, the Keeping Maine's
Forests and the Penobscot River Restoration Project. The
Penobscot River Restoration Project is the largest river
restoration project ever undertaken in the eastern part of the
United States. It has been a true private-public partnership.
I look forward to working together, particularly
considering the challenging budget constraints, to ensure that
the Department continues to provide technical assistance and
seed money to help match the considerable private funding that
has been raised to complete these flagship projects.
These are just some of the issues I hope to touch on today,
and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to give an
opening statement.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Are there any other colleagues that wish to give an opening
statement? Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER
Senator Tester. I will be brief. I want to thank you,
Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski, for holding this
hearing.
And I want to thank Secretary Salazar, flanked by the two
``Hay-zes'' here today. I appreciate the work you have done.
I just want to look back. I think we had an incredibly
successful year last year with wolf delisting, with the Cobell
settlement, with the Crow water settlement. And I think that
the ground-up strategy that you folks have used for land
management, I think, is critically, critically important, and I
applaud you on that.
As we flesh out this budget, I think we need to continue to
work to make things as good as we can for your Department and
for the Federal lands around the country.
So thank you very, very much.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
And I am going to try to abide by the early bird rule with
one exception. Senator Leahy has asked that he be recognized in
the proper democratic order when he arrives, and I will do that
and wanted to let my democratic colleagues know that.
And with no----
Senator Alexander. Wait. Could I make a brief statement?
Senator Reed. Absolutely. Senator Alexander, please.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. Mr. Chairman, I want to join in the
welcome of Secretary Salazar, who is well known and well loved
here in our--in the Senate and thank him for his travels,
including to the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, where he
appeared with, among others, Dolly Parton, rendering everybody
else who was present unimportant.
But, one, I want to remind the Secretary and this
subcommittee of the disparity in funding of our great national
parks. The Great Smokies is the only park, only big park, that
was actually given to the United States. It wasn't carved out
of Federal land. And as a result of that, we don't collect a
fee on people who come into the Great Smoky Mountain Park. So
we have about one-half as much money to spend and two or three
times as many visitors as even the big western parks in the
Great Smokies.
Last year, $35 million for Yellowstone National Park, $29
million for Yosemite National Park, 19 million Federal dollars
for the Smokies. And the people in the area have worked hard
to--and of course, at Yellowstone National Park and Yosemite
National Park, you have the fees on top of that. And at
Smokies, you don't.
Now we make up for that with a lot of volunteer work on the
trails and efficient management. But I would hope, Mr.
Secretary, you would look for ways to recognize the Smokies
doing so much for itself, and you and I have talked about the
joint curatorial collection facility there that would benefit
five national park properties, which is competing for
construction funds, which I know are diminishing, but a place
to put important papers from the area, including President
Andrew Johnson's papers.
And we hope it has a priority and maybe a little equity
since the park is not as well funded as others, even though it
has two or three times as many visitors as other parks.
The second thing I will be asking you about are fish
hatcheries, which supply--one of which supplies the whole
country. And I learned a long time ago that there are probably
more people with hunting and fishing licenses in Tennessee than
who vote. And so, this is serious business for us, and I will
be asking you if you will give me some assurance you will not
close the two fish hatcheries in Tennessee until we find a
funding solution.
We are working with the Corps of Engineers (COE), the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), to try to find a solution to
this. We understand you will have to reduce some Federal
funding. But if they close before we find a solution, that will
be very, very disappointing.
So I welcome you, and I look forward to my opportunity to
ask questions at a later time.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary before you begin, I want to
again recognize Deputy Secretary Hayes and Deputy Assistant
Secretary Haze.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF KEN SALAZAR
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Reed, and
thank you for the recognition of my colleagues, members of the
subcommittee, Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes and Pamela K.
Haze, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Finance,
Performance, and Acquisition.
Ranking Member Murkowski, Senator Susan Collins, Senator
Alexander, Senator Johnson, and Senator Tester, as I appear
before you this morning--and I hope I am your favorite
Secretary, Senator Collins--I can only tell you that when I
look at the five of you, six of you, you are some of my
favorite Senators.
Secretary Salazar. I think if the rest of the U.S. Senate
were like the six of you who are here today, I think we could
solve every problem in the world. So I just wish there were
more of you, both Democrats and Republicans.
Let me also just acknowledge the great work of your staff.
Rachael, congratulations on your appointment. We will miss
Peter, but we know you will carry on and do a great job, and
the great bipartisan relationship that you also have on the
subcommittee reflects back on the staff. It has been great
working with you as well and the staff on both sides.
Let me say in this position as Secretary, I am very, very
honored to be able to be the custodian of America's natural
resources and the custodian of America's heritage. From the
Crown of the Continent in Montana to the Great Smoky Mountains,
to Mount Rushmore and the Dakota Grasslands to Acadia and the
Penobscot River, to Mount Denali and the North Slope down to
the Blackstone National Heritage Area, you reflect much of my
job in the work you all do on behalf of your States. I very
much have enjoyed visits to your States and spending time with
you, working on solving problems because I think all of you and
I are committed to doing that.
FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET
Let me just spend a few minutes talking about the budget
proposed for fiscal year 2013. It is a squeeze budget. It is a
tough choices and painful cuts budget. Senator Reed made the
statement that it is a basically a flat budget, but there are
also some very significant cuts to make the budget balance.
It is a budget that cuts Government and asks us to do more
with less. That is what the President has directed us, and as
we all deal with these tough fiscal times, that is just a
reality we have to face. It is a budget that supports huge job
creation in energy, both in conventional energy, oil and gas,
as well as renewable energy, where we have all made some major
strides.
It is a budget that supports conservation and tourism and
the major dollars that are brought into each of your States
from the conservation and outdoor recreation program, including
all those hunters and anglers, bikers and hikers, and wildlife
watchers. It is a budget that also does as much as we possibly
can to honor the principle of our responsibility on the trust
relationship with Native Americans.
Now look at this budget in context. It is 3-percent less
than where we were in fiscal year 2011. That is 3-percent less
than. As Senator Reed remarked, it is about flat with where we
were in fiscal year 2012. I want to spend a few minutes on some
of the key points of this budget.
CUTS AND EFFICIENCIES
The first are cuts and efficiencies in Government. This
budget, as it has been presented, will result in a reduction of
the Federal workforce at Interior by 591 full-time equivalents
(FTE). We continue to look at how we do the job assigned to us
by this Congress over the years and to do it in the right way
with, frankly, fewer people. We are asking a lot of our people.
We also move forward with some program terminations and
downsizing. Some of these cuts are painful cuts and they end up
reflecting a $517 million cut.
In administrative efficiencies, we have taken a hard look
at how we are doing information technology, procurement, and
other functions of the Department, and there is a total of $207
million of administrative efficiencies that are also set forth
in this budget. Cuts and efficiency in Government, we are going
to be doing more. We are going to be doing it with less.
OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION
On jobs, with respect to energy, it is one of the hottest
issues here in the Capitol these days. We continue to move
forward with onshore oil and gas production, as well as
offshore oil and gas production. The President has directed us
and we are implementing the program to move forward with the
program that produces America's domestic energy.
ENERGY
The budget reflects $662 million for conventional energy
resources. We are moving forward with a number of initiatives
in the Gulf of Mexico. As Senator Murkowski said, we may be
moving forward with some programs also in the Beaufort and the
Chukchi Seas in Alaska and onshore in Alaska in places like the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, which had basically not been
developed, and we are moving forward there as well. We have an
aggressive program for oil and gas development, both onshore as
well as offshore.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
The renewable energy effort contemplates $86 million, which
is really only about 1/10th of what we are putting in the
conventional energy area, but still there. Our high priorities
are to move forward with both offshore wind energy, as well as
onshore solar, geothermal, and wind energy. By the end of this
year, we expect to be at more than 10,000 megawatts permitted
onshore in the United States of America. The 2005 energy bill
that I worked with you all on had a goal of less than that, and
we actually will be surpassing the goals that were set forth in
the act.
TOURISM
Let me finally just say outdoor recreation and tourism, it
is important for all of you to note that wherever I have gone
around the country, including with Senator Collins as we stood
there at L.L. Bean, we spoke about the importance of tourism
and conservation and job creation. Independent studies have
indicated tourism and conservation, outdoor recreation, and
historic preservation bring in about 8 million jobs to this
country every year.
A report from McKinsey International indicates we can grow
the economy from where it is today with an additional 2.1 to
3.3 million jobs over the next 10 years by investments in
conservation and outdoor recreation. Hence, the request we have
for LWCF and other investments in conservation.
INDIAN COUNTRY
Let me finally just say on tribal homelands, I am proud of
the work we have done there. I think Assistant Secretary Larry
Echo Hawk and his team have led the effort to make some of the
most dramatic changes. Senator Tester spoke about some of the
achievements just in the State of Montana. That has swept the
country, and the Deputy Secretary, David Hayes, has been
involved in many of those initiatives.
It is a new beginning in our relationship with Indian
country. The 566 tribes of the United States recognize that. We
recognize we have a lot more work to do. But when you look at
programs like the beginning of the Navajo water supply pipeline
that will bring for the first time potable water to the 70,000
Navajos on the reservation, we are making significant progress
there. I am very proud of the work that we have done there.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished friends and
members of this subcommittee, this is a tight budget. It is a
squeeze budget. There are painful cuts included.
I don't like many of them, frankly. I would rather be doing
a lot more if we had that luxury. But it is a budget that is
balanced, and it invests in job creation through energy,
conservation--not just in this subcommittee, but also in other
committees on the water side. We are doing a lot with water,
tribal homelands, and I appreciate all the great work that all
of you did in getting a fiscal year 2012 budget that allowed us
to move forward with the plans for 2012.
So thank you all very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ken Salazar
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here today to present the details of the fiscal year 2013 budget
request for the Department of the Interior. I want to thank the members
of this subcommittee for your efforts to enact a fiscal year 2012
appropriation. The fiscal year 2012 appropriations process was
challenging for the Congress and the agencies--it required a coming
together of diverse philosophies and views. We appreciate the support
of this subcommittee for our priorities including the America's Great
Outdoors Initiative, which enhances our efforts to be responsible
stewards of the Nation's lands and resources, expanded responsible
development of domestic energy sources with reforms in the oil and gas
programs, high levels of youth hiring and education in all of our
programs, and support for improved living and economic conditions for
American Indians and Alaska Natives. Last, I appreciate the ongoing
support of this subcommittee and your strong interest in our programs.
Although we may not always share the same views, we have been able to
accomplish a lot in these last 3 years.
The fiscal year 2013 budget builds on this strong foundation with
$11.5 billion requested in the President's budget for the Department of
the Interior. This includes $10.5 billion for programs under the
jurisdiction of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee and included in the Interior bill. The budget for current
appropriations is $140.3 million or 1 percent more than the fiscal year
2012 level. The request includes reductions and savings of $516.8
million. We made difficult choices in this budget, sacrificing in many
areas, deferring projects, and programming savings for efficiencies in
order to maintain funding for key priorities and investments that will
contribute to strengthening the economic vitality and well-being of the
Nation.
As the President has detailed in his ``Blueprint for an America
Built to Last'', the budget proposes investments in an economy that
works for everyone. Our budget request supports responsible domestic
energy development, advances an America's Great Outdoors Initiative to
maintain our legacy and stimulate new opportunities, applies science to
address the most formidable natural resource challenges, and invests in
self-determination and economic development to strengthen tribal
nations. This subcommittee has been an active partner in advancing
these priorities. I look forward to our continued collaboration during
the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process.
INTRODUCTION
The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and
manage the responsible use of America's natural resources, support our
cultural heritage, and honor the Nation's trust responsibilities to
American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Interior's people and programs impact all Americans. According to a
Department study, in 2010, Interior programs and activities supported
more than 2 million jobs and approximately $363 billion in economic
activity. The Department is the steward of 20 percent of the Nation's
lands. Interior manages the resources of the national parks, national
wildlife refuges, and public lands and assists States, tribes, and
others in the management of natural and cultural resources.
Interior manages many of the Nation's natural resources, including
those that are essential for America's industry--oil and gas, coal, and
minerals such as gold and uranium. On public lands and the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS), Interior provides access for renewable and
conventional energy development and manages the protection and
restoration of surface mined lands. The Department of the Interior
oversees the responsible development of 24 percent of America's
domestic oil and gas supplies, while striving to ensure safety and
environmental protection and the effective collection of revenue from
this development. We estimate that energy and minerals development on
Federal lands supported 1.3 million jobs and $246 billion in economic
activity in 2010.
The Department is also the largest supplier and manager of water in
the 17 Western States, promotes and assists others to conserve water
and extend water supplies, and provides hydropower resources used to
power much of the Country. The Department estimates that the use of
water, timber, and other resources produced from Federal lands
supported about 370,000 jobs and $48 billion in economic activity.
Interior works to ensure that America's spectacular landscapes,
unique natural life, and cultural resources and icons endure for future
generations, tells and preserves the American story, and maintains the
special places that enable the shared American experience. In 2012,
visitors made 476 million visits to Interior-managed lands and
supported an estimated $47 billion in economic activity.
Interior manages and delivers water, arbitrates long-standing
conflicts in water allocation and use, and actively promotes water
conservation. As one of the Nation's primary natural and cultural
resource stewards, the Department makes decisions regarding potential
development on the public lands and offshore coastal areas that can
greatly impact the Nation's energy future and economic strength.
Factored into this balance is the Department's unique responsibility to
American Indians and Alaska Natives. The Department supports cutting-
edge research in the earth sciences--geology, hydrology, and biology--
to inform resource management decisions at Interior and organizations
across the world and in earthquake, volcano, and other hazards to
protect communities across the Nation. Maintaining and building the
capacity to carry out these responsibilities on behalf of the American
people is Interior's primary focus.
POWERING AMERICA'S ECONOMY
Stewardship of America's lands and natural resources is at the
heart of the national spirit and the economy--from the responsible
management and development of natural resources and increasingly, the
economic power of outdoor recreation.
In 2011, the Department of the Interior generated a total of $13.2
billion in receipts benefiting the U.S. Treasury--from a combination of
fees, royalties, rents and bonuses from mineral, timber, and other
natural resource development. The Department estimates that
conventional and renewable energy produced on Interior lands and waters
results in about $230 billion in economic benefits each year. In 2011,
of the total receipts generated by the Interior, $11.3 billion was
collected from energy production on public lands, tribal lands, and
Federal offshore areas--a $2 billion increase more than the previous
year--with receipts disbursed and revenues shared among Federal, State,
and tribal governments.
Since 2008, oil production from the Federal OCS has increased by 30
percent, from 450 million barrels to more than 589 million barrels in
2010. Balancing the need for safety and environmental enforcement,
Interior currently manages 35 million acres of the OCS under active
lease. A recently proposed 5-year oil and gas leasing program would
make more than 75 percent of undiscovered technically recoverable oil
and gas estimated on the OCS available for development.
Onshore, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) held 32 onshore oil
and gas lease sales in 2011. BLM offered 1,755 parcels of land covering
nearly 4.4 million acres. Nearly three-quarters or 1,296 of those
parcels of land offered were leased, generating about $256 million in
revenue for American taxpayers. This was a 20-percent increase in lease
sale revenue more than 2010, following a strong year in which leasing
reform helped to lower protests and increase revenue from onshore oil
and gas lease sales on public lands. BLM recently has seen a 50-percent
jump in industry proposals to lease for oil and gas exploration. Oil
and gas companies nominated nearly 4.5 million acres of public minerals
for leasing in 2011, up from just under 3 million acres the year
before. Industry nominations are the first step in the BLM leasing
process. After evaluating the parcels, BLM may offer them at auction.
Successful bidders can then apply to drill for oil and gas.
Interior is moving aggressively to put the President's energy
strategy, ``Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future'', into action and
expand secure energy supplies for the Nation--a strategy that includes
the responsible development of renewable energy sources on the public
lands. At the start of this administration, there were no solar energy
facilities sited on the public lands, and wind energy development was
relatively limited compared to development on private lands. Since
March 2009, 29 onshore projects that increased approved capacity for
production and transmission of power have been approved including the
first ever utility-scale solar project, five wind projects, and eight
geothermal projects. The Cape Wind Energy Project, approved for
construction and operation, is the first ever offshore commercial wind
operation. The 2013 budget reflects an expansion of these
accomplishments with the goal of permitting 11,000 megawatts by the end
of 2013.
The President's ``Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future'' recognizes
the economic potential of renewable energy development. The economic
benefits could be particularly significant in America's remote and
rural places near public lands. The Department's 2010 estimates
identified nearly $5.5 billion in economic impacts associated with
renewable energy activities, a growing economic sector that supports
high-paying jobs.
GROWING THE ECONOMY OUTDOORS
Interior is at the forefront of the administration's comprehensive
effort to spur job creation by making the United States the world's top
travel and tourism destination. In a recent statement, President Obama
cited Department of Commerce figures showing that in 2010,
international travel resulted in $134 billion in U.S. exports.
International travel to the United States is the Nation's largest
service export industry, with 7 percent of total exports and 24 percent
of service exports. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates
that every additional 65 international visitors to the United States
can generate enough exports to support an additional travel and
tourism-related job. According to the travel industry and BEA,
international travel is particularly important as overseas or ``long-
haul'' travelers spend on average $4,000 on each visit.
President Obama has asked me to co-chair an interagency task force
with Commerce Secretary John Bryson to develop a National Travel and
Tourism Strategy to expand job creation by promoting domestic and
international travel opportunities throughout the United States. A
particular focus of the task force will be on strategies for increasing
tourism and recreation jobs by promoting visits to the Nation's
national treasures. The Department of the Interior manages iconic
destinations in the national parks, wildlife refuges, cultural and
historic sites, monuments, and other public lands that attract
travelers from around the country and the globe. According to a
Departmental study, in 2010, 437 million visits were made by American
and international travelers to these lands, contributing $47.9 billion
in economic activity and 388,000 jobs. Eco-tourism and outdoor
recreation also have an impact on rural economies, particularly in
Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon,
Utah, and Wyoming.
Interior is working to maximize the benefit of the outdoors for the
millions of Americans at home. Hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation
contribute an estimated $730 billion to the U.S. economy each year.
More than 12 million Americans hunt; more than 30 million Americans
fish; and 3 out of 4 Americans engage in some kind of healthy outdoor
activity. One in 20 U.S. jobs is in the recreation economy.
Through the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, the administration
continues to expand opportunities for recreation--through partnerships
with States and others and the promotion of America's parks, refuges,
and public lands. The fiscal year 2013 budget requests $5.1 billion in
support of this initiative, a $145.6 million increase compared to
fiscal year 2012. Funding is focused on programs supported through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) land management operations, and
other grant and technical assistance programs that promote conservation
and improve recreational access.
By encouraging innovative partnerships in communities across the
Nation, the administration is expanding access to rivers and trails,
creating wildlife corridors, and promoting conservation while working
to protect historic uses of the land including ranching, farming, and
forestry. As part of the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, Interior
is supporting 101 signature projects in all States across the Country
to make parks accessible for children, create great urban parks and
community green spaces, restore rivers, and create recreational
blueways to power economic revitalization. Projects were selected in
concert with Governors, tribal leaders, private landowners, and other
stakeholders, and were evaluated based on the level of local support,
the ability of States and communities to leverage resources, and the
potential to conserve important lands and promote recreation.
An example of a multi-State partnership project is the Blackstone
River Valley Greenway. This project, completed in partnership with
Rhode Island and Massachusetts, will create a 50-mile blueway and
greenway trail along the Blackstone River and the historic Blackstone
Canal, connecting Providence, Rhode Island and Worcester,
Massachusetts, and 12 cities and towns in between. Visitors and
residents will experience the history of the American industrial
revolution, enjoy nature and take advantage of numerous outdoor
recreation options, including bicycling, walking, and canoeing. The
project will celebrate and preserve what makes the Blackstone River
Valley National Heritage Corridor a special place to live, work, and
visit.
A key component of nearly all of the 101 projects is to increase
access to the outdoors for the public. In Alaska, the Kachemak Bay
Water Trail is proposed as a 125-mile designated water route, a key
component of which is to maintain access to the bay. For the
communities near Kachemak Bay, the water trail is envisioned as a new
and sustainable economic driver. The trail would provide a logical
route for boaters to explore the bay, promoting outdoor recreation,
connecting people along the Bay, and expanding a culture of marine
stewardship.
The America's Great Outdoors Initiative is being implemented in
partnership with communities and stakeholders across the Country. In
January of this year, I accepted the first donation of land in south-
central Florida to officially establish the Everglades Headwaters
National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area--conserving one of the
last remaining grassland and longleaf pine savannah landscapes in
Eastern North America. The new refuge and conservation area--the 556th
unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System--was established with the
support of local ranchers, farmers, and landowners who are working
cooperatively with Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to
conserve the wildlife values on their lands while retaining their right
to raise livestock or crops, an approach championed by the Obama
administration.
The Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation
Area is one example of the new parks and refuges Interior has recently
established to protect key natural and cultural resources for future
generations. In addition to 650 miles of new national trails,
designation of several national natural and historic landmarks,
Interior welcomes the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington,
DC; the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in New Jersey;
the Fort Monroe National Monument in Virginia; the Dakota Grassland
Conservation Area in North and South Dakota; New Mexico's first urban
national wildlife refuge, the Middle Rio Grande National Wildlife
Refuge in Albuquerque; and a signature America's Great Outdoors project
in the Crown of the Continent Conservation Area in Montana. Interior
launched significant efforts to protect America's enduring icons
including upgrading the Statue of Liberty, initiating repairs to
earthquake damage at the Washington Monument, and withdrawal of more
than 1 million acres in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon from
additional uranium and hardrock mining, to protect and preserve the
natural beauty of the Grand Canyon.
Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget request for appropriations from
the LWCF includes a total of $450 million for Interior and United
States Forest Service (USFS) program. The budget requests $212 million
for Federal land acquisition within national parks, national wildlife
refuges, and BLM public land boundaries, including $83.6 million for a
collaborative program to support landscape-scale conservation projects
developed in a collaborative process conducted by the USFS and Interior
land management bureaus. Investments in ecologically important
landscapes will be coordinated with State and local efforts to maximize
ecosystem benefits, support at-risk species, and create wildlife
corridors. The request includes $128.4 million for acquisition to
facilitate protection of parks, refuges, and BLM designated areas based
on bureau mission-specific priorities.
The 2013 Federal land acquisition budget for BLM includes funding
to will improve access for hunters and anglers to the public lands.
Often these sportsmen and women are frustrated by complicated
``checkerboard'' land ownership and are unable to access BLM lands that
provide recreation opportunities. The budget includes $2.5 million that
will be used to purchase easements to alleviate these challenges and
provide improved access for public recreation.
An additional $120 million is proposed for key grant programs
supported by the LWCF, including $60 million each for the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund program and State LWCF grants.
SPURRING GROWTH AND INNOVATION THROUGH SCIENCE
Investments in research and development promote economic growth and
innovation, ensure American competitiveness in a global market, and are
critical to achieving the mission of the Department of the Interior.
Investments in Interior's research and development will improve
management of U.S. strategic energy and mineral supplies, water use and
availability, and natural hazard preparedness. Sustainable stewardship
of natural resources requires strong investments in research and
development in the natural sciences.
Research and development funding is increased by nearly $60 million
in the fiscal year 2013 budget, with research and development funding
increases among all of the Interior bureaus, and particularly the
United States Geological Survey, FWS, Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), BLM, and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).
With these investments, Interior will support research that addresses
critical challenges in energy production and the management of
ecosystems, invasive species, public lands, and water.
Recent technology and operational improvements have led to
increased use of hydraulic fracturing in developing natural gas
resources. To ensure the prudent and sustainable development of this
important source of domestic energy, economic development, and job
creation, the fiscal year 2013 budget invests in research and
development that proactively addresses concerns about the potential
impacts of hydraulic fracturing on air, water, ecosystems, and
earthquakes. The fiscal year 2013 budget supports a $45 million
interagency research and development initiative by the USGS, the
Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
aimed at understanding and minimizing potential environmental, health,
and safety impacts of shale gas development and production through
hydraulic fracturing.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is working with the
University of Texas and a team of arctic researchers on a 5-year
comprehensive study of the Hanna Shoal ecosystem in the Chukchi Sea off
Alaska's northwest coast. Past studies have identified this area as an
important biological ecosystem, which supports a high concentration of
marine life. Valuable data on physical and biological processes in the
area obtained from this research effort will be combined with the
results of previously conducted studies. The resulting information will
be used by industry, as well as by BOEM in decisions regarding energy
development in this region, and will be included in future National
Environmental Policy Act analyses.
In 2011, USGS used cutting-edge technology to complete the genome
sequencing of the fungus that causes the skin infection that is a
hallmark of the white-nose syndrome, which is decimating bat
populations across the country. This sequencing will support further
research that is necessary to develop management strategies to mitigate
the spread of the syndrome among bats. Recognizing the impact of this
is not limited to wildlife health, USGS and university partners
produced a study which determined that bats contribute $3.7 billion to
the agricultural economy by eating pests that are harmful to
agricultural and forest commodities. The fiscal year 2013 budget
provides $1.8 million for USGS to conduct further research and
development to address this critical issue.
In fiscal year 2013, the budget requests a $2 million increase in
the BLM wild horse and burro program to fund research on contraception/
population control. Research may include topics such as studies on herd
genetics, animal behavior, and overall rangeland use as it relates to
sterilization and other population growth suppression techniques. The
goal of the research will be to develop additional methods to minimize
wild horse population growth and maintain herd health.
DELIVERING SUSTAINABLE GROWTH THROUGH WATER
Although BOR is within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee, it plays a critical role in addressing the
Nation's water challenges which are of interest to the subcommittee.
BOR maintains 476 dams and 348 reservoirs with the capacity to store
245 million acre-feet of water. BOR manages water for agricultural,
municipal and industrial use, and provides flood control and recreation
for millions of people. BOR's activities, including recreation,
generate estimated economic benefits of more than $55 billion and
support nearly 416,000 jobs.
These facilities deliver water to 1 in every 5 western farmers to
irrigate about 10 million acres of land, and provide water to more than
31 million people for municipal and industrial uses and other
nonagricultural uses. The water managed by Interior irrigates an
estimated 60 percent of the Nation's vegetables each year. BOR
facilities also reduce flood damages in communities where they are
located and thereby create an economic benefit by sparing these
communities the cost of rebuilding or replacing property damaged or
destroyed by flood events.
WaterSMART, established in 2010, has assisted communities in
improving conservation, increasing water availability, restoring
watersheds, resolving long-standing water conflicts, addressing the
challenges of climate change, and implementing water rights
settlements. The program has provided more than $85 million in funding
to non-Federal partners, including tribes, water districts, and
universities, including $33 million in 2011 for 82 WaterSMART grant
projects. In December, Interior released a report on the effectiveness
of the WaterSMART program, which demonstrates the importance of this
work to the sustainability of resources in the Colorado River Basin.
Another example of Interior's efforts to stretch water resources is
the Yuma Desalting Plant in Arizona. BOR recently completed a year-long
pilot operation of the plant in collaboration with California, Arizona,
and Nevada water agencies. The pilot demonstrated the capability of the
plant to augment Lower Colorado River supplies and produced sufficient
water for use by about 116,000 people in a year. BOR and the regional
water agencies are reviewing the results of this effort to evaluate the
potential for long-term and sustained operation of the desalting plant.
ENCOURAGING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY AND HONORING TRUST
RESPONSIBILITIES
The Department has a unique responsibility to American Indians and
Alaska Natives, which is upheld by Interior's support for a robust
Government-to-government relationship as demonstrated by a new
comprehensive and transparent consultation policy that ensures there is
a strong, meaningful role for tribal governments. The Department and
the President hosted the third White House Tribal Nations Conference in
December 2011, bringing together tribal leaders from across the United
States and enabling tribal leaders to interact directly with
administration representatives and identify priority actions for
American Indians and Alaska Natives.
In 2011, Interior began planning to implement the landmark $3.4
billion settlement of the Cobell v. Salazar lawsuit, and appointed a
Secretarial Commission on Trust Administration and Reform to oversee
implementation of the settlement agreement. The commission is
undertaking a forward looking, comprehensive evaluation of Interior's
management of nearly $4 billion in American Indian and tribal trust
funds--with the goal of making trust administration more transparent,
responsive, customer focused, and accountable.
The Department held regional consultations across the Country to
set the framework for the Cobell land consolidation program. The
settlement establishes a $1.9 billion fund for the voluntary buy-back
and consolidation of fractionated land interests to provide individual
American Indians with an opportunity to obtain cash payments for
divided land interests and consolidate holdings for economic and other
uses, a significant benefit for tribal communities. Almost 4 million
individually owned interests involving nearly 9 million acres have been
identified as part of this effort.
To further encourage and speed up economic development in Indian
country, the Department took a significant step forward announcing the
sweeping reform of antiquated, ``one-size-fits-all'' Federal leasing
regulations for the 56 million surface acres the Federal Government
holds in trust for tribes and individual Indians. The proposed rule
identifies specific processes--with enforceable timelines--through
which the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) must review leases. The
regulation establishes separate, simplified processes for residential,
business, and renewable energy development, so that, for example, a
lease for a single family home is distinguished from a large solar
energy project. The proposed regulation incorporates many changes
requested by tribal leaders during extensive consultations this past
year to better meet the goals of facilitating and expediting the
leasing process for trust lands. During the initial consultation period
more than 2,300 comments were received from more than 70 tribes as well
as several Federal agencies, including the Departments of Housing and
Urban Development, and Agriculture, and the Internal Revenue Service.
The BIA regulatory drafting workgroup is expected to review the
comments and publish the final rule in 2012.
The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 settled the Cobell lawsuit and
four settlements that will provide permanent water supplies and
economic security for the five New Mexico Pueblos of Taos, the Crow
Tribe of Montana, and the White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona. The
agreements will enable construction and improvement of reservation
water systems, irrigation projects, a regional multi-pueblo water
system, and codify water-sharing arrangements between Indian and
neighboring communities. The primary responsibility for constructing
water systems associated with the settlements was given to the BOR and
BIA is responsible for the majority of the trust funds.
BOR is requesting $21.5 million in fiscal year 2013 for the
continued implementation of these four settlements and $25 million for
the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project. In total, the BIA budget
includes $36.3 million for ongoing Indian land and water settlements,
which includes $9.5 million for the seventh and final payment for the
Nez Perce/Snake River Water Rights Settlement.
A key responsibility for BIA is ensuring and improving the safety
of Indian communities. Some Indian reservations experience violent
crime rates that are twice the national average. The high crime rates
are a key issue for tribal leaders as they degrade the quality of life
for residents, attract organized crime, and are a real disincentive for
businesses to consider these communities for economic development.
Fiscal year 2011 was the second year of a 2-year pilot at four
reservations to conduct expanded community policing, equip and train
the law enforcement cadre, partner with the communities to organize
youth groups and after school programs, and closely monitor results.
The results exceeded expectations with a 35-percent overall decrease in
violent crime in the four communities. Information about the four
reservations is being analyzed and the program will be expanded in 2013
to an additional two communities. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes
$353.9 million for public safety and justice programs, a program
increase of $8.5 million to support this expansion and other public
safety activities.
INTERIOR'S BUDGET IN CONTEXT
President Obama has challenged agencies to encourage American
innovation, employ and educate young people, rebuild America, and
promote economic development. Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget
invests in areas that are responsive to these challenges and more. This
budget continues funding for important programs that will protect the
Nation's significant natural resources and cultural heritage, makes
strategic investments in energy development, advances partnerships to
leverage resources, and seeks improved outcomes for Indian communities.
At the same time, this budget recognizes the need for fiscal
responsibility. The priority programs that are level funded with fiscal
year 2012 and limited strategic investments proposed in fiscal year
2013 are balanced by reductions in lower-priority programs, deferrals,
and planning efficiencies.
Taking Fiscal Responsibility.--Interior made its fiscal year 2013
budget decisions in the context of the challenging fiscal environment.
The fiscal year 2013 budget of $11.5 billion, including BOR, eliminates
and reduces lower-priority programs, defers project start-ups, reduces
duplication, streamlines operations, and captures savings. The fiscal
year 2013 request is $97.9 million, essentially level with fiscal year
2012 enacted and $280.4 million less than 2011.
The fiscal year 2013 budget contains $516.8 million in program
terminations, reductions, and savings from administrative efficiencies.
Staffing reductions of 591 full-time equivalents (FTEs) are planned for
fiscal year 2013, a reduction of 741 FTEs from fiscal year 2011 levels.
These personnel reductions are focused on areas where there are funding
reductions. Staffing reductions will be achieved through attrition and
buy-outs in order to minimize the need to conduct reductions in force
to the greatest extent possible.
This budget is responsible, with strategic investments in a few,
targeted areas, and maintains the core functions that are vital to
uphold stewardship responsibilities and sustain key initiatives. The
budget also continues efforts to shift program costs to industry where
appropriate. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of
existing legislation without further action by the Congress results in
an additional $6 billion, for $17.5 billion in total budget authority
for Interior in fiscal year 2013.
Administrative Savings.--As part of the administration's Campaign
to Cut Waste, the Department will achieve additional administrative
efficiencies that result in cumulative savings of $207 million from
fiscal year 2010 to 2013. These reductions are being implemented
throughout Interior and result from changes in how the Department
manages travel, employee relocation, acquisition of supplies and
printing services, and the use of advisory services. The proposed
savings in administrative functions will not have an impact on
programmatic performance, and to the greatest extent possible savings
will be redirected into priority programmatic areas.
The Department's 2013 budget reflects a freeze on Federal salaries
for fiscal year 2012 and a 0.5 percent pay increase in 2013. The budget
fully funds fixed costs for the civilian pay increase, anticipated
changes in the Federal contributions to health benefits, rent
increases, changes in workers and unemployment compensation costs,
programs financed through the Working Capital Fund, and specific
contract requirements for Public Law 93-638 agreements with tribes.
Cost Recovery.--Significant portions of Interior's budget are
funded by cost recovery, offsetting collections, and discrete fees
linked to uses of lands and resources. The budget proposes to increase
cost recovery to offset the cost of some resource development
activities that provide clear benefits to customers. The proposed fees
on oil and gas inspections are consistent with the recommendations of
the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling. The Commission's report stated the oil and gas
industry should be ``required to pay for its regulators'' so that the
costs of regulation ``would no longer be funded by taxpayers but
instead by the industry that is permitted to have access to a publicly
owned resource.''
The budget includes $48 million from new inspection fees to be paid
by onshore oil and gas producers. Instituting these fees will allow for
a $10 million program increase to be used to strengthen the BLM
inspection program, along with a $38 million decrease in current
appropriations for BLM as a whole. Similar fees were proposed in fiscal
year 2012, but not adopted due to concerns about impacts on the
producers. The fees would be on average, 0.2 percent of the annual
income collected by the producers. In addition to the proposed onshore
inspection fees, estimated fee collections from the offshore oil and
gas inspections instituted in fiscal year 2012 are slightly increased
in fiscal year 2013 to $65 million. This fee-based funding is critical
to maintaining the administration's aggressive implementation of a
robust offshore safety program.
The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a new grazing administrative
fee of $1 per animal unit month (AUM) on a 3-year pilot basis. The fee
is estimated to generate $6.5 million in 2013 and will be used to
assist BLM in processing grazing permits. During the period of the
pilot, BLM would work through the process of promulgating regulations
for the continuation of the grazing fee as a cost-recovery fee after
the pilot expires.
The fiscal year 2013 budget continues an offsetting collection
initiated in 2012, allowing the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) to
retain coal mine permit application and renewal fees for the work
performed as a service to the coal industry. An estimated $3.4 million
will be collected in 2013.
MAJOR CHANGES IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 REQUEST
The Department's fiscal year 2013 budget request totals $11.5
billion in current authority including $10.5 billion for programs
funded by the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012. This is $140.3 million, or 1.4
percent more than the fiscal year 2012 level. The fiscal year 2013
request for BOR including the Central Utah Project Completion Act,
funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2012, is
$1 billion in current appropriations, $42.4 million or 3.9 percent less
than the fiscal year 2012 level.
Interior continues to generate more revenue for the U.S. Treasury
than its annual appropriation. In fiscal year 2013, Interior will
generate receipts of approximately $13.9 billion and propose mandatory
legislation with a total net savings of roughly $2.5 billion over 10
years.
Bureau of Land Management.--The fiscal year 2013 request is $1.1
billion, essentially level with the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget.
This includes a decrease of $8.2 million for BLM's two operating
accounts, an increase of $11.2 million for land acquisition, and a
reduction of $3.6 million that eliminates the construction account.
To advance the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, the request
includes $6.3 million in programmatic increases for recreation,
cultural resources, and the National Landscape Conservation System for
BLM to expand and improve opportunities for recreation, education, and
scientific activities while enhancing the conservation and protection
of BLM-managed lands and resources.
BLM will continue to promote and facilitate the development of
renewable energy on public lands, as part of the New Energy Frontier
Initiative. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes a program increase of
$7 million for renewable energy to support wind, solar, and geothermal
energy. An additional $13 million in program increases are requested to
maintain and strengthen management of the oil and gas program, along
with a requested $10 million increase in mandatory funding specifically
focused on strengthening BLM's oil and gas inspection program. These
increases would be more than offset by $48 million in proposed
inspection fees to shift the cost of the oil and gas inspection and
enforcement activity from taxpayers to the oil and gas industry.
The other major program increase is $15 million to implement sage
grouse conservation and restoration measures to help prevent the future
listing of the species for protection under the Endangered Species Act.
BLM will use $10 million of the requested increase to incorporate the
necessary protections into BLM's land use plans to address conservation
of the sage grouse. These plans will guide energy development,
transportation, and other uses and ensure conservation of sage grouse
habitat. The remaining $5 million funds on-the-ground projects to
restore and improve sage grouse habitat and additional inventory,
monitoring, and mapping efforts to delineate areas of highest-priority
habitat in the range of the sage grouse. Other program increases in the
BLM budget include $1.5 million for the Secretary's Western Oregon
Strategy, $2 million for research and development on population control
in the Wild Horse and Burro Management program, and $4.4 million in the
Resource Management Planning program to support high-priority planning
efforts.
A $15.8 million program decrease is proposed in the Rangeland
Management program, however, the impact of this funding decrease will
be mitigated by a new grazing administrative processing fee of $1 per
AUM that BLM proposes to implement on a pilot basis through
appropriations language, estimated to raise $6.5 million in 2013. The
fiscal year 2013 budget reduces programmatic funding for the Alaska
Conveyance program by $12.4 million from the fiscal year 2012 level.
Interior will explore opportunities to further streamline the program.
A $3.5 million program reduction is proposed in the Public Domain
Forest Management program.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.--The fiscal year 2013 operating
request is $164.1 million, including $62.7 million in current
appropriations and $101.4 million in offsetting collections. This is an
increase of $3.3 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes program increases of $2
million from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level for activities to
promote offshore conventional and renewable energy development that is
safe and environmentally responsible. Increased funding will be used to
develop baseline characterization and monitoring capabilities in the
Gulf of Mexico that are required as a result of the Deepwater Horizon
incident, as well as to support renewable energy lease auctions.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.--The fiscal year
2013 operating request is $222.2 million, including $96.3 million in
current appropriations and $125.9 million in offsetting collections.
This is an increase of $24.8 million more than the fiscal year 2012
enacted level. The $4.8 million increase for offsetting collections
includes an estimated $3 million increase in inspection fee
collections.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes funds to increase operational
safety capabilities, develop the National Offshore Training and
Learning Center for inspectors, and conduct research and development
activities on critical safety systems associated with offshore oil and
gas development.
Office of Surface Mining.--The fiscal year 2013 budget request is
$140.7 million, a decrease of $9.5 million from the fiscal year 2012
enacted level. The reduction reflects decreases in grants to States and
tribes to encourage regulatory programs to recover costs from fees
charged to the coal industry and finalize the transition of abandoned
mine land reclamation from discretionary to mandatory funding.
I signed a Secretarial Order on October 26, 2011, to review certain
functions of OSM and BLM for potential consolidation. As part of this
effort, I asked the Directors of OSM and BLM and other Interior
officials to report by February 15, 2012 , on the results of
discussions with the BLM's employees, congressional committees, and
interested parties, such as tribes, State regulatory officials,
industry representatives, and representatives of communities affected
by coal mining. Our efforts in consolidation will respect existing law
and identify actions that will strengthen these two bureaus.
United States Geological Survey.--The USGS budget request is $1.1
billion, $34.5 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
The President's budget supports science, monitoring, and assessment
activities that are critical to understanding and managing the
ecological, mineral, and energy resources that underlie the prosperity
and well-being of the Nation. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes a
program increase of $51 million to fund research and development
priorities in disaster response, hydraulic fracturing, coastal and
ocean stewardship, and ecosystem restoration. The budget also supports
the Secretary's initiatives in responsible energy development and
further resolution of water challenges with funding more than the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
The USGS budget also includes investments in important science
programs to help meet societal needs. A program increase of $13 million
more than fiscal year 2012 for the WaterSMART Program will be used to
conduct research on predictive models on regional water availability,
explore methods of integrating and disseminating data through science
platforms, and establish a National Groundwater Monitoring Network.
A program increase of $8.6 million is requested to improve rapid
disaster response to natural disasters. Funding will be used to improve
capacity to provide timely and effective science and information
products to decisionmakers, in order to minimize the risks hazards pose
to human and natural systems. Funding will be invested in capability
improvements to the USGS monitoring networks for rapid response to
earthquakes, volcanoes, volcanic ash, debris flow, tsunamis, floods,
hurricanes, and other potential threats to populations and
infrastructure.
The budget includes a program increase of $13 million to support
the hydraulic fracturing research and development effort with the
Department of Energy and EPA to understand and minimize potential
adverse environmental, health, and safety impacts of shale gas
development through hydraulic fracturing. New work will build on
existing efforts and address issues such as water quality and quantity,
ecosystem impacts, and induced seismicity.
With a program increase of $16.2 million, USGS will conduct science
in support of ecosystem management for priority ecosystems such as the
Chesapeake Bay, California Bay-Delta, Columbia River, Everglades, Puget
Sound, Great Lakes, Upper Mississippi River, and the Klamath Basin.
With an increase of $2 million, the USGS will address overarching
ecosystem issues related to the invasive brown tree snake, white-nose
syndrome in bats, and coral reef health. These increases will provide
information management and synthesis and land change science support
for these ecosystem activities. Included in the total above is $500,000
identified for research efforts through the Department of the Interior
Climate Science Centers to enhance work with tribes to understand the
impacts of climate change on tribal lands. Funding increases will also
support priorities in sustaining our national environmental capital,
including development of the first coordinated multi-departmental
effort of its kind to develop a standardized ecosystem services
framework.
The fiscal year 2013 budget also provides a program increase of
$6.8 million to sustain and enhance existing activities and for a new
initiative on Science for Coastal and Ocean Stewardship that supports
priority objectives of the National Ocean Policy in the areas of marine
and coastal science, resource and vulnerability assessments, ecosystem-
based management, and providing science based tools to inform policy
and management. The USGS will work with partners to provide access to
comprehensive maps and assessments of seabed and coastal conditions and
vulnerability. The increase will improve the integrated science needed
to inform development of resources while conserving the Nation's
coastal and marine ecosystems.
Fish and Wildlife Service.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes
$1.5 billion, an increase of $72 million more than the fiscal year 2012
enacted level. In addition, the budget includes a $200 million
cancellation of prior year unobligated balances in the Coastal Impact
Assistance program. The budget includes America's Great Outdoors
Initiative increases of $20.9 million in the Resource Management
account and $52.3 million for land acquisition. There is a $3.9 million
increase in the North American Wetlands grants program, a component of
the America's Great Outdoors Initiative. State and Tribal Grants are
funded at $61.3 million, level with fiscal year 2012. Funding for the
construction account is reduced by $3.9 million.
The budget proposes a program increase of $4 million for activities
associated with energy development. This enables FWS to participate
fully in priority landscape level planning and assist industry and
State fish and wildlife agencies as they plan for renewable energy
projects and transmission corridor infrastructure. The fiscal year 2013
budget continues the commitment to ecosystem restoration by including
$13.5 million for the Everglades, an increase of $3 million; $4.9
million for California's Bay-Delta, level with fiscal year 2012; $10.2
million for the gulf coast, level with fiscal year 2012; $10.3 million
for the Chesapeake Bay, a program increase of $145,000; and $47.8
million for the Great Lakes, a program increase of $2.9 million.
Funding for the Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science
activity is $33.1 million, an increase of $856,000. This funding
supports the operation of 14 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.
The budget includes $994.7 million available under permanent
appropriations, most of which will be provided in grants to States for
fish and wildlife restoration and conservation.
The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a reduction of $14 million to
eliminate the discretionary contribution to the National Wildlife
Refuge Fund payments to counties to offset local tax loss due to
Federal land ownership. An estimated $8 million in mandatory receipts
collected and allocated under the program would remain. Payments
collected by counties can be used for nonconservation purposes and as
such, this Fund does not provide the high-priority conservation
benefits delivered by other FWS programs. The budget also proposes the
cancellation of $200 million in prior year balances within the Coastal
Impact Assistance Program.
National Park Service.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $2.6
billion, $1 million less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
Within the total available for National Park Service in 2013, $2.4
billion is for programs that support the goals of the America's Great
Outdoors Initiative. The budget proposes strategic increases to advance
the goals of the initiative, including increases of $13.5 million for
park operations and $17.5 million for land acquisition and State
assistance. The budget proposes reductions of $7.8 million in the
national recreation and preservation account from the National Heritage
Areas program, and $24.2 million from construction. The request for the
Historic Preservation Fund is level with fiscal year 2012--grants to
States and tribes are continued at the fiscal year 2012 level of $55.9
million.
Select programmatic increases in the park operations account
include $5 million for Climate Change Adaptive Management tools, $2
million for U.S. Park Police operations including $1.4 million in
support of the Presidential Inauguration, $1.2 million for National
Capital Area parks in support of the Presidential Inauguration, and
$610,000 for the Challenge Cost Share program. These increases are
offset with strategic reductions of $24.8 million to park operations
and service-wide programs.
Funding for land acquisition and State assistance totals $119.4
million and includes a programmatic increase of $2.5 million for
Federal land acquisition. The land acquisition proposal includes $9
million for matching grants to States and local entities to preserve
and protect Civil War battlefield sites outside the National Park
System. The budget also requests a programmatic increase of $15.1
million for the State Assistance Grant program. The $60 million request
for State Grants includes $20 million for competitive grants that
support urban parks and green spaces, blueways, and landscape-level
conservation projects in communities that need them the most.
Funding for construction includes a programmatic reduction of $25.3
million for line-item construction projects, however, the budget
proposes funding for the most critical health and safety projects in
the National Park System. It also includes programmatic reductions of
$1.5 million from construction program management and planning,
$760,000 from the housing improvement program, $443,000 from
construction planning, $450,000 from management planning, and $228,000
from equipment replacement.
Bureau of Indian Affairs.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes
$2.5 billion for BIA programs, a decrease of $4.6 million from the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level. This includes an increase of $11.7
million for Operation of Indian Programs and a decrease of $17.7
million in the construction account. The budget includes an increase of
$3.5 million in Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements and a decrease
of $2.1 million in the Indian Guaranteed Loan program.
In fiscal year 2013, the largest increase, $8.8 million, is in
Contract Support Costs and the Indian Self-Determination Fund, both
high priorities for tribes. Public safety and justice activities
receive a program increase of $8.5 million to support additional police
officers and detention corrections staff.
The budget proposes program increases of $7.8 million for the Trust
Natural Resources programs and $7 million for Trust Real Estate
Services programs. Funding increases for Trust Land Management programs
are proposed to assist tribes in the management, development, and
protection of Indian trust land and natural resources. The budget
proposes a $2.5 million program increase to support increasing
enrollment at tribal colleges.
The fiscal year 2013 request reflects a reduction of $19.7 million
as the Bureau will undergo a consolidation in 2013 to streamline and
improve oversight operations. The BIA will engage in extensive
consultation with tribes to identify strategies that will ensure tribal
needs and priorities are addressed. Following consultation, BIA will
construct an implementation plan for a streamlined, cost-effective
organization. The budget also includes $13.9 million in administrative
savings from reductions to fleet, travel, contractors, and awards.
Departmental Offices and Departmentwide Programs.--The fiscal year
2013 request for the Office of the Secretary is $261.6 million, a
reduction of $266,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Of this,
$119.6 million is for Office of Natural Resources Revenue including a
program increase of $1.2 million to complete termination of the
Royalty-in-Kind program and a program decrease of $2.3 million for
completed information management system upgrades. The budget for the
Office of the Secretary includes a program increase of $1.6 million for
minerals receipts modeling development to improve revenue estimation
and reporting capabilities and a program increase of $2 million for
facilities rent necessitated by the delay in the Main Interior Building
modernization project. Other changes include a general program
reduction of $3.7 million and the transfer of the Indian Arts and
Crafts Board from the Office of the Secretary to BIA resulting in a
reduction of $1.3 million.
The Department's fiscal year 2013 request for the Working Capital
Fund appropriation is $70.6 million, an increase of $8.7 million from
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Within this request is $62.1
million to continue deployment of the Financial and Business Management
System including implementation of the acquisition and financial
assistance functionality as recommended by an independent assessment of
the program. The budget proposes an increase of $3.5 million to improve
Interior's stewardship of its cultural and scientific collections and
an increase of $2.5 million to expand collaboration similar to the
Service First to improve delivery and operating costs. Proposed
reductions include $5 million to reflect the shift of the Department's
Information Technology Transformation initiative from appropriated
funds to the Departmental Working Capital fund and $2.5 million for
completion of the Department's Acquisition Improvement Initiative.
Major changes in other Departmental programs include an increase of
$243 million in the Wildland Fire Management program. The net increase
is comprised of a program increase of $195.8 million that fully funds
the 10-year suppression average and a program reduction of $39 million
in the Hazardous Fuels Reduction program reflecting a refocusing of the
program toward treatments in the wildland-urban interface.
The budget request for the Office of Insular Affairs is $88
million, a decrease of $16.4 million from the fiscal year 2012 enacted
level. The budget includes $5 million to mitigate the impacts and costs
of Compact migration and $3 million to implement energy projects
identified by the territories' sustainable energy strategies. Funding
of $13.1 million for the Palau Compact is not requested for 2013 as it
is expected the Compact will be authorized in 2012.
The Office of the Special Trustee request is $146 million, $6.1
million less than the 2012 enacted level. The fiscal year 2013 request
includes a program increase of $3 million for the Office of Trust
Review and Audit to conduct compliance audit reviews for Interior
bureaus. The budget includes program decreases of $9.9 million for
streamlining, administrative savings, and the completion of certain
trust reform activities.
MANDATORY PROPOSALS
In fiscal year 2013, Interior will collect $13.9 billion in
receipts and distribute $6 billion in permanent funding without further
appropriation for a variety of purposes, under current law. The budget
includes 13 legislative proposals that will be submitted to the
Congress to collect a fair return to the American taxpayer for the sale
of Federal resources, to reduce unnecessary spending, and to extend
beneficial authorities of law. Together these proposals will save a net
total of approximately $2.5 billion over the next decade.
Reform Coal Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation.--The administration
proposes to reform the coal Abandoned Mine Lands program to reduce
unnecessary spending and ensure the Nation's highest-priority sites are
reclaimed. First, the budget proposes to terminate the unrestricted
payments to States and tribes that have been certified for completing
their coal reclamation work because these payments do not contribute to
abandoned coal mine lands reclamation. Second, the budget proposes to
reform the distribution process for the remaining funding to
competitively allocate available resources to the highest-priority coal
abandoned mine lands sites. Through a competitive grant program, a new
Abandoned Mine Lands Advisory Council will review and rank the
abandoned coal mine lands sites, so OSM can distribute grants to
reclaim the highest-priority coal sites each year. These reforms will
focus available coal fees to better address the Nation's most dangerous
abandoned coal mines while saving taxpayers $1.1 billion over the next
10 years.
Create a Hardrock Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.--To address the
legacy of abandoned hardrock mines across the United States, the
administration will propose legislation to create a parallel Abandoned
Mine Lands program for abandoned hardrock sites. Hardrock reclamation
would be financed by a new abandoned mine lands fee on the production
of hardrock minerals on both public and private lands. BLM would
distribute the funds through a competitive grant program to reclaim the
highest-priority hardrock abandoned sites on Federal, State, tribal,
and private lands. This proposal will hold hardrock mining companies
accountable for cleaning up the hazards left by their predecessors
while generating $500 million in savings over 10 years.
Reform Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands.--The administration will
submit a legislative proposal to provide a fair return to the taxpayer
from hardrock production on Federal lands. The legislative proposal
would institute a leasing program under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
for certain hardrock minerals including gold, silver, lead, zinc,
copper, uranium, and molybdenum, currently covered by the General
Mining Law of 1872. After enactment, mining for these metals on Federal
lands would be governed by the new leasing process and subject to
annual rental payments and a royalty of not less than 5 percent of
gross proceeds. One-half of the receipts would be distributed to the
States in which the leases are located and the remaining half would be
deposited in the Treasury. Existing mining claims would be exempt from
the change to a leasing system but would be subject to increases in the
annual maintenance fees under the General Mining Law of 1872. Holders
of existing mining claims for these minerals could, however,
voluntarily convert claims to leases. ONRR will collect, account for,
and disburse the hardrock royalty receipts. The proposal is projected
to generate revenues to the U.S. Treasury of $80 million over 10 years.
Fee on Nonproducing Oil and Gas Leases.--The administration will
submit a legislative proposal to encourage energy production on lands
and waters leased for development. A $4 per-acre fee on nonproducing
Federal leases on lands and waters would provide a financial incentive
for oil and gas companies to either get their leases into production or
relinquish them so the tracts can be leased to and developed by new
parties. The proposed $4 per-acre fee would apply to all new leases and
would be indexed annually. In October 2008, the Government
Accountability Office issued a report critical of past efforts by
Interior to ensure companies diligently develop their Federal leases.
Although the report focused on administrative actions the Department
could undertake, this proposal requires legislative action. This
proposal is similar to other nonproducing fee proposals considered by
the Congress in the last several years. The fee is projected to
generate revenues to the U.S. Treasury of $13 million in fiscal year
2013 and $783 million over 10 years.
Net Receipts Sharing for Energy Minerals.--The administration
proposes to make permanent the current arrangement for sharing the cost
to administer energy and minerals receipts, beginning in 2014. Under
current law, States receiving significant payments from mineral revenue
development on Federal lands also share in the costs of administering
the Federal mineral leases from which the revenue is generated. In
fiscal year 2013, this net receipts sharing deduction from mineral
revenue payments to States would be implemented as an offset to the
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2012, consistent with identical provisions included
in the act since 2008. Permanent implementation of net receipts sharing
is expected to result in savings of $44 million in 2014 and $449
million over 10 years.
Repeal Oil and Gas Fee Prohibition and Mandatory Permit Funds.--The
administration proposes to repeal portions of section 365 of the Energy
Policy Act, beginning in 2014. Section 365 diverted mineral leasing
receipts from the U.S. Treasury to a BLM Permit Processing Improvement
Fund and also prohibited BLM from establishing cost recovery fees for
processing applications for oil and gas permits to drill. The Congress
has implemented permit fees through appropriations language for the
last several years and the fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to continue
this practice. Upon elimination of the fee prohibition, BLM will
promulgate regulations to establish fees for applications for permits
to drill administratively, with fees starting in 2014. In combination
with normal discretionary appropriations, these cost recovery fees will
then replace the applications for permits to drill fees currently set
annually through appropriations language and the mandatory permit fund,
which would also be repealed starting in 2014. Savings from terminating
this mandatory funding are estimated at $18 million in 2014 and $36
million over 2 years.
Geothermal Energy Receipts.--The administration proposes to repeal
section 224(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Prior to passage of
this legislation, geothermal revenues were split between the Federal
Government and States with 50 percent directed to States, and 50
percent to the Treasury. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 changed this
distribution beginning in 2006 to direct 50 percent to States, 25
percent to counties, and for a period of 5 years, 25 percent to a new
BLM Geothermal Steam Act Implementation Fund. The allocations to the
new BLM geothermal fund were discontinued a year early through a
provision in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010. The repeal of section 224(b) will permanently
discontinue payments to counties and restore the disposition of Federal
geothermal leasing revenues to the historical formula of 50 percent to
the States and 50 percent to the Treasury. This results in savings of
$4 million in 2013 and $50 million over 10 years.
Deep Gas and Deepwater Incentives.--The administration proposes to
repeal section 344 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Section 344
mandated royalty incentives for certain ``deep gas'' production on the
OCS. This change will help ensure Americans receive fair value for
federally owned mineral resources. Based on current oil and gas price
projections, the budget does not assume savings from this change;
however, the proposal could generate savings to the Treasury if future
natural gas prices drop below current projections.
Repeal of Authorities To Accept Royalty Payments in Kind.--The
administration proposes to solidify a recent Departmental reform
terminating the Royalty-in-Kind program by repealing all Interior
authorities to accept future royalties through this program. This
change will help increase confidence that royalty payments will be
properly accounted for in the future. The budget does not assume
savings from this change because the administration does not anticipate
restarting the program; however, if enacted, this proposal would
provide additional certainty that a new Royalty-in-Kind program could
not be initiated at some point in the future.
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.--The administration
proposes to reauthorize this act that expired July 25, 2011, and allow
lands identified as suitable for disposal in recent land use plans to
be sold using the act's authority. The sales revenues would continue to
be used to fund the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and
to cover the administrative costs associated with conducting sales.
Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps.--Federal
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps, commonly known as Duck
Stamps, were originally created in 1934 as the annual Federal license
required for hunting migratory waterfowl. Today, 98 percent of the
receipts generated from the sale of these $15 stamps are used to
acquire important migratory bird areas for migration, breeding, and
wintering. The price of the Duck Stamp has not increased since 1991,
while the cost of land and water has increased significantly. The
administration proposes to increase these fees to $25 per stamp per
year, beginning in 2013. Increasing the cost of Duck Stamps will bring
the estimate for the migratory bird conservation account to
approximately $58 million. With these increased receipts, the
Department anticipates additional acquisition of approximately 7,000
acres in fee and approximately 10,000 acres in conservation easement in
2013. Total acres acquired for 2013 would then be approximately 28,000
acres in fee title and 47,000 acres in perpetual conservation
easements.
Compact of Free Association.--On September 3, 2010, the United
States and the Republic of Palau successfully concluded the review of
the Compact of Free Association and signed a 15-year agreement that
includes a package of assistance through 2024. Under the agreement,
Palau committed to undertake economic, legislative, financial, and
management reforms. The conclusion of the agreement reaffirms the close
partnership between the United States and the Republic of Palau.
Permanent and indefinite funding for the Compact expired at the end of
2009. The fiscal year 2013 budget seeks to authorize permanent funding
for the Compact as it strengthens the foundations for economic
development by developing public infrastructure and improving
healthcare and education. Compact funding will also support one or more
infrastructure projects designed to support Palau's economic
development efforts. The Republic of Palau has a strong track record of
supporting the United States and its location is strategically linked
to Guam and United States operations in Kwajalein Atoll. The cost for
this proposal for 2013-2022 is $184 million.
Extension of Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--Payments in Lieu of Taxes
(PILT) payments are currently authorized only through fiscal year 2012.
The budget proposes a 1-year extension of mandatory PILT payments at
the current authorization levels in fiscal year 2013. These payments
support local government services in counties that have significant
Federal lands within their boundaries. The administration looks forward
to working with the Congress to develop a longer-term strategy for
providing sustainable levels of funding for PILT payments, in light of
overall constrained budgets and the need for appropriate offsets for
new mandatory spending. This extension utilizes the current PILT
payment formula that is prescribed by law and based on population,
certain receipt sharing payments, and the amount of Federal land within
an affected county. The cost for this proposal in fiscal year 2013 is
estimated at $398 million.
OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS AND FEES
The budget includes several proposals to increase cost recovery
fees, so that industries share some of the cost of regulation.
Fee Increase for Offshore Oil and Gas Inspections.--Through
appropriations language, the administration proposes to continue the
current offshore inspection fee levels authorized by the Congress in
fiscal year 2012. These fees are estimated to generate $65 million in
fiscal year 2013, up from $62 million in fiscal year 2012, from
operators with offshore oil and gas drilling facilities that are
subject to inspection by BSEE. The increased fees will fund an expanded
inspection program, and as enacted for fiscal year 2012, operators will
now be charged for the inspection of drilling rigs in addition to
production platforms. These inspections are intended to increase
production accountability, human safety, and environmental protection.
New Fee for Onshore Oil and Gas Inspections.--Through
appropriations language, the administration proposes to implement an
inspection fee in fiscal year 2013 for onshore oil and gas drilling
activities that are subject to inspection by BLM. The proposed
inspection fee is expected to generate an estimated $48 million in
fiscal year 2013, $10 million more than the corresponding $38 million
reduction in requested BLM appropriations, thereby expanding the
capacity of BLM's oil and gas inspection program. The fee would support
Federal efforts to increase production accountability, human safety,
and environmental protection.
Onshore Oil and Gas Drilling Permit Fee.--The fiscal year 2013
budget proposes to continue a fee for processing drilling permits
through appropriations language, an approach taken by the Congress in
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts. A
fee of $6,500 per drilling permit was authorized in fiscal year 2010,
and if continued, would generate an estimated $32.5 million in
offsetting collections in fiscal year 2013.
Grazing Administrative Fee.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes a
new grazing administrative fee of $1 per AUM. BLM proposes to implement
the fee through appropriations language on a 3-year pilot basis. The
budget estimates the fee will generate $6.5 million in funds that will
assist the BLM in processing grazing permits. During the period of the
pilot, BLM would work through the process of promulgating regulations
for the continuation of the grazing fee as a cost-recovery fee after
the pilot expires.
Surface Mining and Reclamation Permit Fee.--The fiscal year 2013
budget continues an offsetting collection initiated in fiscal year
2012, allowing OSM to retain coal mine permit application and renewal
fees for the work performed as a service to the coal industry. The fee
will help ensure the efficient processing, review, and enforcement of
the permits issued, while recovering some of the regulatory operations
costs from the industry that benefits from this service. The fee,
authorized by section 507 of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act, would apply to mining permits on lands where regulatory
jurisdiction has not been delegated to the States. The permit fee will
generate an estimated $3.4 million in offsetting collections in fiscal
year 2013.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal
year 2013 budget request for the Department of the Interior. We have a
tremendous opportunity to invest in America's energy independence and
economic growth. This budget balances forward looking investments with
fiscal restraint. For America to be at its best, we need lands that are
healthy, waters that are clean, and an expanded range of energy options
to power our economy. I thank you again for your continued support of
the Department's mission. I look forward to working with you to
implement this budget. This concludes my written statement. I am happy
to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
We will take 6-minute rounds, and I fully anticipate at
least two rounds. But I am prepared to stay as long as my
colleagues are here asking questions.
OFFSHORE WIND
Let me begin with a topic that both Senator Collins and I
touched upon. That is development of offshore wind power. Mr.
Secretary, you started with your Smart from the Start
Initiative, a very aggressive approach to thoughtfully and
carefully beginning the process of leasing these sites so that
we can develop power offshore and create jobs onshore.
My concern is that in Rhode Island we are really falling
behind in the timing of the environmental assessment while the
Mid-Atlantic region seems to be going forward rapidly. And that
is troubling to me in one particular aspect. It seems as if we
have done so much preliminary work over the last 5-7 years in
terms of the ocean SAMP, where we have, I believe, a much
better scientific basis with respect to tidal conditions,
fishing practices, and the whole geographic and geological
areas, we seem to be not at the front of the line. We seem to
be in the back of the line.
So I would ask you, could you commit to help us expedite
this timeframe, get the environmental assessment done in the
same sort of period that Mid-Atlantic States are, and then move
forward to leasing? Can you help us with that?
Secretary Salazar. Absolutely, Senator Reed. Because I know
many of you, you and Senator Collins in particular, are very
interested in Atlantic wind, if I may take just a few minutes
to speak about the effort in general?
Senator Reed. Of course.
Secretary Salazar. I have, from day one as Secretary of the
Interior, thought that Atlantic wind was one of the most
promising renewable energy programs for the United States of
America for the ease of transmission because of the high
quality of the wind, because of the topography off the
Atlantic.
Our Smart from the Start Initiative is intended to stand up
offshore wind in the Atlantic. The President has been very
supportive and has been leading the effort in making sure we do
everything we can. We have set up task forces in each of the
States, and they are moving with us to make sure we are
deconflicting the uses of the ocean that we can stand up
offshore wind in a real way.
With respect to Rhode Island, just last week I think the
Deputy Secretary and BOEM's Director and others announced what
we have done in terms of marking those areas, more than 200,000
acres, which are ready offshore to be developed. We are moving
forward with the environmental assessment, and we hope to be
able to publish that this summer in the State of Rhode Island,
and we will do everything we can to get it done.
The State of Maine, the disappointing news from Statoil was
that they were perhaps planning on not moving forward with
their deepwater application. I have asked my staff to have a
meeting with me and Statoil to see whether we can keep up their
interest in the deepwater because I think what Maine has done
at its center with Senator Collins's leadership has been
extraordinary, and I think the future for that project is very
bright. I would be delighted to work with Senator Collins on
that effort.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
An ancillary question. As you know, we have two major
projects, one in Federal waters and one in State waters off of
Block Island. The Department of the Interior and COE and others
have to give us approval for a transmission line from the State
project, Block Island essentially to the mainland. Would you
also commit to helping us expedite from Interior and BOEM's
position those approvals?
Secretary Salazar. The answer is absolutely yes. I would
like David Hayes to speak a little bit to the Rhode Island
issue because he has been working very closely with BOEM to
make sure we are moving as fast as we can and we are cutting
down the permitting time on what we are doing, both in Rhode
Island as well as in other States.
Senator Reed. Thank you. And I want to thank Deputy
Secretary Hayes for his great work in this effort. Thank you.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Senator.
I think the Secretary really said it all. We are very eager
to move forward with Rhode Island and also with the deepwater
work in Maine. With regard to Rhode Island, I will just comment
that the SAMP work the State has done and you have encouraged,
will absolutely pay dividends in terms of the schedule for
getting steel in the water off Rhode Island.
We expect the environmental assessment process to move
forward much more quickly because of the groundwork that has
been done, the good science done by the State. Certainly, once
we get an application in, every applicant is going to be able
to do an environmental impact statement more quickly and more
solidly because of that terrific work the State has done with
your leadership and support.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY
Very quickly, Mr. Secretary, turning to the Blackstone
Valley Park, as you know, last year the National Park System
put out a tentative approval, and we are waiting for the final
version. And can we get some indication of when the final study
from NPS will be released? Because without that, it is
difficult for us to seek the kind of authorization that is
necessary.
Secretary Salazar. Senator Reed, I will do everything to
get the study sprung. It is essentially completed, and there is
a process underway. There is no doubt the center that founded
the Industrial Revolution of America and all the history you
have in the Blackstone area, the support of your Governor, both
Senators, the support of Massachusetts as well, all that is in
our calculus. I think it would be a great addition to our
National Park System.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS
Mr. Secretary, I mentioned in my comments my appreciation
for the funding in the budget for contract support costs within
BIA's budget. You are--it is estimated at full funding to cover
the costs, and again, I thank you for that.
But the same account for IHS, which provides for the
administrative cost to healthcare, is severely underfunded. So
we are looking at this and saying, okay, we are making good
headway on Department of the Interior's side through BIA, but
through IHS we are not seeing things sync up.
Can you tell me whether or not there is any coordination
between BIA--your Department and on IHS to deal with this as we
seek to conduct the tribal consultation? And if there is not,
if there is some way that we could look at this to see if we
might be able to line some things up better?
Secretary Salazar. We would be happy to do so, and you and
the President have attended some of these conferences. Every
year we brought Nations from the country together. On law
enforcement, Attorney General Eric Holder and I have an ongoing
conversation about what we are doing on law enforcement issues
in Indian country, on health issues as well with Secretary
Kathleen Sebelius.
Now the specifics in terms of our budget on the BIA and
health services at HHS maybe Pam will be able to answer those
questions, or I will get some additional information to you.
But at the end of the day, our approach, Senator Murkowski, has
been to bring the whole of Government to deal with some of the
most significant issues facing Indian country.
Certainly, the healthcare issue that is faced almost in
every Indian reservation is one of the biggest challenges we
face. It is important we have the whole Government behind it.
Senator Murkowski. Well, and as we talk about tribal
consultation, it makes sense to have that consultation with all
of the affected agencies. So if we could just try to better
understand how this coordinates because on paper it doesn't
look like it is working as efficiently as we should.
477 PROGRAM
On another issue as it relates to tribal funding, last year
in the Interior bill, we had placed language that would require
the existing program within the 477 program. You will recall
that this is the program for Indian employment for training and
related services. There was a new requirement for auditing that
really lacked a level of flexibility, lacked any effort with
consultation with the tribes.
So, in last year's appropriations bill, we included
language that stated that consultation with the tribes must
occur before any changes to the 477 program moved forward. Do
you have any updates in terms of how that consultation is
coming along, whether or not we can expect some kind of
agreement with the tribes through this process that will help
with the program accountability?
Secretary Salazar. According to my Budget Director and my
Deputy Secretary, we have workgroups meeting every week on this
issue, and we hope to get to some good resolution.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. So we will await an update from
you or from your staff. I thank you for that.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Let us move over to the energy side here. In the Interior
budget, you are seeking a $13 million increase to USGS to
support hydraulic fracturing research. But in looking through
the rest of the President's budget, we see that within the
Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Fuel, they are also
proposing an increase in that very limited fossil fuel budget
to study hydraulic fracking on the impacts of water quality.
And apparently, also within the EPA budget, there are
additional monies devoted to fracking research.
And I guess the question is, as we are looking to eliminate
redundancies within the budget, can you explain the need for at
least three different agencies now to be devoting extra money
in a very tight budget year to seemingly be doing the same
research?
If it is not the same research, I would be curious to know
where we are going with it. But can you fill me in on that?
Secretary Salazar. We have a very good working relationship
in the cross-cutting budget that OMB approved for DOE, as well
as EPA and Interior, relating to hydraulic fracking. All the
efforts on research from all of the agencies--the USGS, DOE,
and EPA--will be coordinated so we have a comprehensive look at
the issues of hydraulic fracking.
Senator Murkowski, I have often said in places around the
country and in my meetings with the oil and gas industry and
other stakeholders, that the President has been very strong on
supporting the future of natural gas. It is an abundant
domestic resource. We have a 100-year supply.
As you will recall, even in 2009, we were very strong in
supporting the trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline. We are still
working on it, and hopefully, some of that will happen.
But as we look at the bright future of natural gas, it is
my view as Secretary, where through the BLM we oversee about
700 million acres of the mineral estate of the country, that
unless we are able to bring about the confidence of the
American people in hydraulic fracking, it could be the Achilles
heel for the promising energy resource we see. The rules we are
in the process of putting together in their final stages will
require three things.
First, it will require disclosure so everybody knows what
is being injected into the Earth. So we don't have the kind of
reaction that essentially has a potential for stopping natural
gas development as we have seen happening in some of the
States.
Second, well bore integrity. Each member of this
subcommittee I have had conversations with at different times
about the Deepwater Horizon and the Macondo oil spill. Well,
the well integrity issues were part of what was going on there.
We need to ensure well integrity with respect to hydraulic
fracking so we don't have contamination of water supplies. It
seems to me is common sense.
Third, every time you frack a well, you inject the fluids
into the well, and you have flowback water and materials come
back from the well. Our proposed rule will actually address the
monitoring of what happens with flowback water so it is not
contaminating our streams.
When I have spoken to members of the industry, including
the leading oil and gas companies, when I speak to them one-on-
one, they are supportive of those kinds of common sense rules.
If you look at what has happened in the State of Wyoming and in
the State of Colorado now, in the State of Texas, there are
rules on the books in those States that will allow that to move
forward.
So hydraulic fracking I know will be an issue here in this
Senate in the days ahead. Our intention is to move forward with
the kind of a program at the Department of the Interior,
knowing that, at the end of the day, the North Star guiding us
and I know guiding you, Senator Murkowski, is that we need to
make sure we are fully using the great promise we see in
natural gas here in the United States.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I thank you for that, and I would
just, again, urge that we ensure that we don't have duplication
of efforts across the agencies at a time when we have got tough
budgets. I would concur with you. We need to get this right. We
need to make sure that it is right, and your agencies are
charged with that.
But just from a budget perspective, let us look carefully
at whether we have got overlap. But I am sure you are looking
at that.
Thank you.
Secretary Salazar. Absolutely.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to my good friend Secretary Salazar for being
here today. And welcome Deputy Secretary Hayes and Ms. Haze.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Though I have some concerns about parts of the budget
request, I do appreciate the administration's recognition of
the value of conservation, tourism, hunting, and fishing to our
Nation's economy. I especially appreciate the boost in funding
for the LWCF and also note that the LWCF from the Department of
the Interior is responsible for Wind Cave National Park being
able to complete acquisition of the 5,500-acre Casey Ranch that
will provide access to a historic buffalo jump and preserve a
valuable natural resource.
AMERICA'S GREAT OUTDOORS INITIATIVE
I also note that you, Secretary Salazar, have also
identified the Blood Run site in South Dakota and the Dakota
Grasslands Conservation Area as priority projects in the
America's Great Outdoors Initiative.
As you well know, we have been long making the piece for
better investment in infrastructure projects like rural water
systems. While the budget request for rural water is much
better this year than last, we are still losing ground to
inflation in projects like Lewis and Clark.
RURAL WATER
In the 2006 Rural Water Supply Act, the Congress directed
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation to develop a report
assessing the status of authorized rural water supply projects
like Lewis and Clark and the plan for completion. When can we
expect to see this report, and what can you tell us about the
long-term plans to complete these vital projects?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Johnson, first, thank you for
your Herculean efforts on behalf of the people of South Dakota,
and thank you for your support of the LWCF. I think the
projects you speak about are very huge economic generators for
the State of South Dakota from the Wind Caves National Park to
Blood Run to the Dakota Grasslands.
As I travel around the country and I speak to both the
business community and the conservation community, I often use
those projects as great examples of how job creation and
conservation go hand-in-hand. And certainly, the Dakota
Grasslands are the duck factory of the United States of
America. Fifty percent of the migratory birds go through that
area, and it would be, frankly, 50 years from now a major
setback for conservation in our world if we are not able to
join you and your leadership in your efforts in protecting the
Dakota Grasslands.
On rural water, it is a hugely important issue for us. I
wish we could do more on the Lewis and Clark project. We have
put in, I think, $4.5 million, more or less, into next year.
Obviously, we could put a lot more in if we had the money.
But again, Senator Johnson, this is one of those tough choices
and painful budgets, and I believe in the rural water supply
arena alone we could use probably 100 times the amount of money
made available. We are having to make some really, really tough
choices where we put the money.
South Dakota, Lewis and Clark, a multi-State project is a
great example where we should have the money because the
States' local water users have already put up their share of
the money for the project. But we don't have the money on the
Federal side to be able to complete it. We are trying to do as
much as we can to move the project forward.
INDIAN SCHOOL EQUALIZATION PROGRAM
Senator Johnson. I would also like to touch on the Indian
School Equalization Program (ISEP). According to the last
census, Indians younger than the age of 18 had a spike in
population in my home State of South Dakota. How do you explain
that from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013 more than 60
percent of the BIE's schools in South Dakota received a
decrease in their ISEP funds? Does the ISEP formula need
review?
Secretary Salazar. First, let me say the President,
Secretary Duncan--and Keith Moore--the Director of the Bureau
of Indian Education, have been working very hard with the
tribes to make sure we are moving forward with reforms that,
hopefully, will address the very painful and difficult
circumstance we face in Indian schools around the country. We
hope to be able to have some reform efforts that will help us
get there.
In terms of the money itself, my understanding is that the
formula that funds the equalization is driven by enrollment,
and I think in those schools that you mention, there has been a
significant decline in enrollment. But I would be happy to look
into this issue further and to supplement my answer to you and
your staff.
Senator Johnson. Please do.
Senator Johnson. I yield back.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OFFSHORE WIND
First, Mr. Secretary, I know that you were very impressed
when you came to the University of Maine and saw the cutting-
edge lab that has been developed to test composite wind
turbines that can withstand the heavier, more persistent
offshore winds and all the work that is being done with the
consortium that is supported by private companies, the State,
the university system, other States as well, and the Federal
Government.
And I think that is the kind of partnership that we need to
ensure that the United States wins the race to develop offshore
deepwater wind energy. And I would point out that race also
includes thousands of manufacturing jobs to make the new
composite wind turbines that are going to be necessary. So it
is very important not only from an energy perspective, but an
American manufacturing jobs perspective as well.
I look at what other countries are doing to foster the
development of offshore wind, and I can't help but ask whether
we should be doing more. For example, the United Kingdom,
Germany, and Portugal have all established test sites for ocean
energy. They have funded the environmental permitting studies
and provided electrical infrastructure, including underseas
cabling and grid interconnection for these test sites.
Then private industry in those countries, working with the
research institutions, have then access to these sites that are
all ready for them to build and test advanced offshore wind
turbines and other ocean-energy-harvesting devices. And that is
for still further commercial development.
So my question is, what potential role do you see for the
Interior Department to develop plans similar to those that are
being pursued in other countries, in our competitor countries,
to work with States to actually establish the national offshore
wind test sites? Do you, for example, envision a role for the
Department in helping to provide the critical funding necessary
to construct the grid interconnection for these national test
sites?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Collins, we are doing everything
we can on Atlantic offshore wind and are actually now
processing an application on transmission for the Mid-Atlantic
States called the Atlantic Connection. We will do everything we
can because it is highest priority for the President of the
United States and for me to move forward.
We control, obviously, the land base and have a partnership
arrangement, memorandum of understanding, with DOE as well in
terms of some of the research efforts that are going on. If
there is anything we can do that we are not doing within the
resources we currently have, I would be delighted to have those
conversations with you and members of the subcommittee because
we are doing everything we can.
I would note your eloquence in your statement. It seems to
me that if the United Kingdom, Portugal, and Denmark could move
forward with these kinds of efforts, there is no reason why we
in the United States should not. This is part of the race we
cannot cede to the rest of the world.
I think, especially when you look at the Atlantic, when you
look at Maine, and you look at the attributes you have there,
it is an opportunity we ought not to let pass from us.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I couldn't agree with you more.
NORTH WOODS NATIONAL PARK PROPOSAL
I also want to take this opportunity to give you an update
on a very controversial issue in Maine with which you are very
familiar, and that is a proposal to establish a North Woods
National Park.
Since your visit to Maine in August, the proponents have
been trying hard to gain support for the completion of a
feasibility or reconnaissance study. But I will tell you that
the harder they have pushed, the stronger the resistance has
become. Statewide, the Maine legislature passed a joint
resolution opposing the creation of a national park in Maine's
North Woods. Locally, the Millinocket town council approve a
resolution in opposition.
East Millinocket actually had a vote, and the voters
overwhelmingly opposed a feasibility study for this proposed
national park. And the proposal is now opposed by the Maine
Forest Products Council, the Maine Snowmobile Association, the
Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, Great Northern Paper Company,
the United Steelworkers Local 137, and many of the smaller
communities, as well as the two principal, three principal
communities in the area.
So I would also point out that the National Park Regional
Citizen Evaluation Committee, which had supported the park, has
recently become inactive, reflecting the dwindling support for
this plan.
What we have found in Maine works best is working with
private owners to ensure public access, and we have been very
fortunate over the centuries in Maine--Maine is the most
heavily forested State in the Nation--to have that kind of
public-private partnership without having Federal control and
Federal ownership.
So I wanted to give you that update since your visit that
the support that may have existed, which was always a minority
level of support, has declined significantly. And I am hoping
that you will assure me that NPS, which has so many demands on
its funds, will not be looking into funding a reconnaissance
study for this region.
Secretary Salazar. Senator Collins, first, let me say we
have no plans to move forward on a reconnaissance study on the
proposal from Ms. Quimby on the national park. There is no
effort underway to do any of that.
When we look at the two projects that are part of the
America's Great Outdoors Initiative, which I have identified as
2 per State and 1 for the District of Columbia--101 projects--
the 2 in Maine reflect the approach you have been advocating to
me for a number of years, and that is grounds-up.
If you look at the Penobscot River, as you so eloquently
stated, it is one of the most significant river restoration
projects in the world, and we are getting close to getting that
done. You look at the State project which is moving forward in
part through your support and our advocacy on Keeping Maine's
Forests, that is also a grounds-up kind of approach there.
I hope to visit those America's Great Outdoors Initiative
projects with you soon. But on your point with respect to the
Roxanne Quimby proposal, we are not moving forward with a
reconnaissance study of any kind.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Senator Collins, thank you.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I will be as quick as I can getting to it. Welcome,
Secretary Salazar.
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
The funding for the BIE's construction program was at $140
million in fiscal year 2011, down to $71 million in fiscal year
2012, and now $52 million in fiscal year 2013. The schools, at
least in Montana, are in dire need of repair. Dilapidated might
be a word that comes to mind.
I know you have put forth a budget that is--has a lot of
cuts in it, and as you said in your opening remarks, painful
cuts in many, many cases. I want to bring that to your
attention, and I want to get your response very quickly on it
if I could.
Secretary Salazar. I wish we had the money to work on all
these schools. We put significant amount of money from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into the construction
projects. We have made significant progress from where we were
in 2009, and more than 60 percent of the BIE schools are now
rated in good condition. Well, that is not enough because that
means 40 percent are in poor condition.
Senator Tester. That is right. Yes.
Secretary Salazar. It is just a matter, Senator Tester, of,
frankly, not having the money to be able to move forward.
Senator Tester. Okay. We will look for opportunities as it
goes forward together on this.
AUTOMATED STANDARD APPLICATION FOR PAYMENTS PROGRAM
The Automated Standard Application for Payments program,
which I think you are familiar with. I hope I am calling it the
right thing, A-S-A-P. It is an online reimbursement program
designed for Government payments to go to corporations,
nonprofits, universities--a paperless reimbursement.
The program was not designed for private land owners. It is
kind of a one-size-fits-all policy, which treats family farms
and ranches the same as large corporations when it comes to
reimbursement. You, being an agricultural guy yourself,
understand that, well, I mean, in most cases, we do have access
to the Internet. But a lot of times, we are a little bit
suspicious when it comes to transferring money online, and so,
it is a deterrent.
Is there any ability to put some flexibility in that?
Because from my perspective, the land owners' buy-in is the
most important part of this equation.
Secretary Salazar. Senator Tester, I absolutely agree with
you, and I have asked Director Ashe from the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to work with Pam Haze to see whether we can come
up with some kind of a resolution. There are now 29 States with
ranching organizations for conservation, much like you have in
the Crown of the Continent, and I believe we need to do
everything to encourage that kind of ``working lands
conservation'' approach to conservation.
Senator Tester. Okay. Good.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
I want to just touch on the fracking thing just to
reinforce what you already know. And we have got a big play
with the Bakken in eastern Montana. It is creating jobs. It is
creating energy security. It is doing a lot of good things.
But hydraulic fracking is something I hear about when I
come home all the time, and folks want to know if we have
adequate inspectors to determine whether that case, the
cementing that is going on in the casing is actually going to
keep what is going on 2 or 3 miles down out of our groundwater.
Can you say with any kind of certainty that we have
adequate inspections to make sure that that cement is done in a
proper way to assure that we are not going to be polluting our
drinking water?
Secretary Salazar. Our rule will so require, and I am going
to have David, the Deputy Secretary, speak to the inspector
issue.
Mr. Hayes. Senator, certainly on our public lands, we are
prioritizing inspections to deal with potential high-risk
issues, and that includes ensuring well construction is done
with the appropriate integrity. The proposed rule the Secretary
is referring to will require an additional certification by the
operators to ensure they are using the proper cementing and, as
you say, walling off the well from lower aquifers.
Senator Tester. And we have got adequate people on the
ground to make sure that happens, or is it a self-inspection
reporting?
Mr. Hayes. It is both. We are giving a lot of attention to
the inspector issue. We could use more inspectors, but BLM does
do an enormous number of inspections a year. We want to
supplement it with the certification by the operator.
HUNTING AND FISHING ACCESS
Senator Tester. Okay. When I return to Montana, I also hear
from sportsmen and women about access. It is the number-one
issue amongst our sportsmen out there--access to go fishing,
access to go hunting. Because of that input, I adopt--drafted a
bill that sets aside 1.5 percent of land and water conservation
funding to secure access for existing public lands.
Not to put you on the spot, but I will. Would you support
this effort?
Secretary Salazar. We have money. It is $2.5 million with
BLM to try to provide public access. I think the concept makes
tremendous sense and would be happy to work with you on it.
Senator Tester. Okay. I appreciate that very much.
OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT
With that, I would just like to say when I talked to you, I
guess it has been a bit ago, about the offshore spill and what
all transpired on there, I know you were under a lot of
pressure. Probably lost a few follicles of hair that you
couldn't afford to lose.
But the bottom line is, is that as we talk about opening up
offshore production again, which we all want to be energy
independent and we all want to make sure that this--that we
develop the resources appropriately here at home, are you
confident that what happened with the spill in the gulf won't
happen again?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Tester, first, let me say from
those days, I think I did lose follicles of hair for that
reason and probably many other reasons as well. I am proud of
the fact we have weathered that storm. Now, there are 60
permits issued in the Gulf of Mexico just in the last 12
months; the rigs are up and working, and we have led the
greatest overhaul in the Nation's history in terms of offshore
oil and gas production in America's oceans.
We are doing more to make sure prevention is prioritized so
we don't see a Macondo well oil spill again. It means we have
worked with industry and several corporations that have been
set up, the Helix Corporation and Marine Well Containment
Company, to make sure if something like that were to happen,
there would be a quick response. Third, we have overhauled the
efforts in terms of dealing with oil spill response as well.
Now to your question, because I think that is an important
question to all the members of this subcommittee, including
Senator Landrieu, who sees so much of the energy production of
the United States coming from the Gulf of Mexico. Can we be
100-percent safe that something is not going to happen? No.
We can do as much as we can to minimize the risk, and we
certainly have done that, I believe, in the Gulf of Mexico.
It is important, if I may, Senator Reed, and I know I
probably am taking a little more time than I should here. It is
important when you look at the map of the Gulf of Mexico to
also recognize that between the United States and Mexico, we
probably have about 98 percent of the land mass. We can control
what happens in United States waters, but we can't, frankly,
control what happens on the Mexican side of the border.
So, when you think about the huge potential for oil and gas
resources, and Mexico is moving very aggressively into the
deepwater, it is important we have the kind of relationship
with them where they also learn the lessons and have the kind
of system we have here in the United States.
Secretary Clinton and I signed an agreement with our
counterparts in Mexico last Monday that will usher in this era
of cooperation and resolve longstanding issues in the Gulf of
Mexico. We are making significant progress, and I know probably
Senator Murkowski, who is on top of these things in the Arctic,
is also very cautious in terms of how we are moving forward
with the most cautious program that has ever been put together
in terms of any exploration.
Senator Tester. Well, I want to thank you once again, Mr.
Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thanks, Senator Tester.
Senator Alexander, please.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome.
JOINT CURATORIAL COLLECTION FACILITY
I mentioned earlier and we have talked before that these
great national parks, Yellowstone National Park gets $35
million, Yosemite National Park $29 million, the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park $19 million, counting all funding,
including fees. Yet the Great Smoky Mountain National Park has
three times as many visitors. I say that in a way of suggesting
that a point in favor of the joint curatorial collection
facility, which would benefit the Great Smoky Mountain National
Park and four other national parks by holding hundreds of
thousands of artifacts and archival records, that could be a
point in its favor.
I don't expect an answer from you on that right now, but I
simply want to raise the importance of it. I appreciate your
considering, the Department's considering it, and it is a sound
project.
FISH HATCHERIES
I have two areas of question. One has to do with fish
hatcheries. And I mentioned a little earlier that at one point
I noticed that the number of Tennesseans who have hunting and
fishing licenses exceeded the number who voted in the last
election. So this is serious business for us.
The Erwin National Fish Hatchery provides eggs for
hatcheries all over the country, and Dale Hollow produces 60
percent of the trout stocked in Tennessee. In your tight
budget, you are having to cut from $3.2 million from mitigation
hatcheries, which would, if left alone, would close those
hatcheries with very serious consequences for Americans.
My question is, well, we are working with TVA and with COE
to help share in the funding of those hatcheries so that you
will be able to keep them open. So my question is, can you
assure me the hatcheries won't close until we have an
opportunity to try to secure joint funding for them?
Secretary Salazar. Absolutely, Senator Alexander. I look
forward to working with you and TVA and COE to see how we can
keep these hatcheries open. They are, as you say, very
important to the anglers of Tennessee and beyond Tennessee. I
am happy to work with you on that.
JOINT CURATORIAL COLLECTION FACILITY
Just a quick note on the curatorial effort, I have asked
NPS to see what we can do, and I do know, as we have
communicated, the plan is done. I think nearly $1 million of
the $4 million is already in the bank, and we will turn over
every stone to see how we can figure out a way of making the
difference.
Senator Alexander. I thank you for that. And you are
exactly right. The five parks have worked together to try to
squeeze every $1 they can to minimize the money that is
responded, and $2 million is what is left.
ENERGY
Now I would like to ask you a question about equal
treatment for different forms of technology, which the
administration is moving toward. The President is talking about
all of the above, and I think increasingly those of us who deal
with energy and environment are saying we ought to treat all
our different forms of energy as equally as possible.
For example, you propose to raise fees on oil and gas
production in this budget. Do you intend to raise fees on wind
and solar energy production at the same time and by the same
amount?
Or let us take a second area. Let us take birds. In reading
about Teddy Roosevelt, I was reminded that his whole
conservation career began with birds and the protection of
birds. And we have in our law a law that says if you kill
eagles, you can go to jail. And then we have the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, if you kill migratory birds, you can go to jail.
And in 2009, Exxon Mobil killed 85 birds that had come into
contact with crude oil in uncovered tanks or wastewater
facilities, and they paid $600,000 in fines and fees. Well, I
noticed the other day the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
denied plans for a 48-turbine wind farm because of concerns
about birds, bats, and bald eagles. And we all know that these
big wind turbines have become sort of Cuisinarts in the sky for
birds, especially golden eagles in California.
And I understand that that wind farm has even applied to
the Department of the Interior, to the FWS for a ``taking
permit''. So they can take a certain number of birds when the
turbines start to roll.
So am I to understand that if you are going to treat forms
of energy production equally that Exxon Mobil ought to be
applying for taking permits for the next golden eagles it
kills? Or if not, why would you not apply to wind turbines and
other forms of energy the same rules you apply to oil and gas
production?
So my question on this is equal treatment for forms of
energy production. If you are going to raise fees on production
of oil and gas, will you do the same for wind and solar? And
will you apply to wind turbines the same laws that exist for
killing birds that you apply to oil and gas production?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Alexander, first, on the revenue
side for renewable energy projects, we have moved forward with
rules and in our right-of-ways, which is what we grant to
renewable energy projects onshore as well as in the offshore,
to make sure the principle of a fair return to the taxpayers is
adhered to, and that is the same principle we have with respect
to oil and gas production, both onshore as well as offshore.
On your second concern relative to wind energy projects and
birds, we are working on developing a set of guidelines from
FWS to deconflict the wind projects that are being proposed
around the country with the avian issues we care so much about
at the Department of the Interior.
Many of the projects, which were built 20, 30 years ago,
including the one you cite in California, were projects that,
first of all, didn't have the technology we have today. The
technology being used now for wind blades and wind turbines is
much better than the ones in place then. In fact, some of the
projects in California have already turned over into the new
technology because they recognize the issues, the lethality of
their projects on avian populations.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, what we are working
on with FWS is to try to identify those corridors which we know
are of high use for avian populations so, in those areas, we
would not be permitting wind projects. We are in the process of
trying to come up with a plan to deconflict our mandate for
conservation, which is a legal one, as you say, under the law,
and at the same time honoring the priority to develop
alternative sources of energy.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
If I can prove to you we have lots of birds in the Great
Smoky Mountains, will you keep the wind turbines out?
Secretary Salazar. I can guarantee you, Senator Alexander,
that there will never be a wind farm built in the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
I want to recognize Senator Leahy, but I also want to thank
Senator Landrieu. Because of Senator Leahy's schedule, he asked
to be recognized when he arrived.
Senator Leahy, please.
Senator Leahy. I apologize, and I do thank Senator Landrieu
also.
I also want to thank Senator Reed for holding this
important hearing. I should tell you, Mr. Chairman, that
Secretary Salazar is a rock star in Vermont. People still talk
about his visit up there, and I appreciate that.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
But I am hoping that today's hearing doesn't simply focus
on energy issues related to drilling and permits, and Senator
Alexander has obviously related one. I would like to see us
refocus our attention on LWCF, the bipartisan promise we made
to land conservation in 1965 to allow us to invest in our
natural areas in historic preservation.
Some of our country's most treasured places have been
acquired using the LWCF, including the Grand Canyon National
Park, Denali National Park, many historic Civil and
Revolutionary War battlefields, the Appalachia National Scenic
Trail, which runs through Vermont as well as States of three
other subcommittee members--from Georgia, through Tennessee and
Maryland, Vermont, ending in Maine. In fact, our four States
make up 35 percent of it.
SILVIO O. CONTE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LAND ACQUISITION
I worry that if we don't use it right, we could lose
natural resources forever, and I was concerned in hearing about
the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge that they
have a number of resources that are ready to be acquired with
the $6.5 million that was in the President's fiscal year 2012
request and the $1.5 million in fiscal year 2013.
Now I know you don't want to draw out too long some of
these acquisitions. But I challenge the claims that have been
made the Conte refuge is not able to spend the entire request
that was made by the President last year.
They span four States. They encompass the entire 7.2
million acre Connecticut River watershed. Conservation in this
area is essential. A Vermont Fish and Wildlife survey yesterday
detected four or five Canadian lynx in the Nulhegan Basin of
the Conte refuge. Now this is an endangered species and almost
never seen, and they are coming back.
So, Mr. Secretary, can you explain the difference between
what I am hearing on the ground in Vermont and throughout the
Conte refuge regarding the number and cost of tracks of land
available for acquisition with the $6.5 million in your fiscal
year 2012 request and what I am seeing in your reprogramming
request?
I mention that because it is a critical part of the
America's Great Outdoors Initiative. It crosses four States. It
is an area under enormous pressure from developers. Is it a
case where we have the money, and now the money is being taken
away?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Leahy, first, let me thank you
and Marcelle for the wonderful welcome that you always give me,
including into the great State of Vermont just last summer. I
hope to be up there again. Vermont is one of the great States
in terms of hunting and fishing and environmental education.
Two, I support your efforts and applaud your leadership as
well on the LWCF. The true needs of it, even though there will
be debate, I am sure, in this subcommittee, are probably more
in the neighborhood of $5 billion a year. So, when we look even
at our request at $450 million in the fiscal year 2013 budget,
it is not meeting the needs that are out there for conservation
programs. And every one of our areas around the country from
the Grand Tetons National Park to Yellowstone National Park to
Silvio O. Conte National Park have needs.
What we have done with the Silvio O. Conte National Park
area, and it is such a great wildlife refuge, and in the
connectors that we are working on through the America's Great
Outdoors Initiative, there are $4 million in acquisitions ready
to go. We will make those acquisitions in the fiscal year 2012
budget.
Now the delta between the $4 million and the $6.5 million
and our reprogramming request before this subcommittee comes as
a result of the fact there were significant cuts that were made
to LWCF in the fiscal year 2012 budget. The budget we had put
forward had a request of $900 million, which was full funding
for the LWCF.
When it came out of the fiscal year 2012 process, it was
down to approximately $300 million, and we have had to make
some realignments. But recognizing the importance of Silvio O.
Conte National Park, Senator Leahy, what we have done is we are
ready to go for the $4.5 million, and we have the other $1.5
million requested in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
Senator Leahy. We may have to have further discussions on
it. I fought like mad to get that money in the budget, and I
would hate to have it go right back out. So we will have some
more discussions, I will with the chair, on questions of
reprogramming.
STREAMGAGES
And I will put for the record, and I really want answers on
this, to give--our floods we had in Vermont, and we had an
important Interior Department tool that both we and New York
used. Those were the gages the USGS had, the river and lake
gages.
I think we would have lost a lot more property, a lot more
lives if we had not had those. So I will have questions. I will
have questions on that, and I will thank you again on putting
in money for white-nose syndrome among bats.
When I first started raising this question, people thought
I was referring to a movie character that I have some
familiarity with. But this is decimating, the loss of these
bats are hurting agriculture throughout many, many, many
States. And so, it is important that we keep working on this,
and I applaud you for that.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
I am going to recognize Senator Cochran--we are going back
and forth--and then Senator Landrieu. Excuse me again, Senator
Landrieu.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. It is good to see you and to be
here to congratulate you on your fine job as Secretary of the
Interior. We have enjoyed having the opportunity to work with
you on a number of programs for wildlife habitat protection,
NPS, LWCF programs, all very important in our State.
COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
One in particular, though, has come in for substantial
reduction or deletion of funds that we had seen recommended for
this agency is in the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP).
This is particularly important in the Gulf of Mexico. We have
been through a lot of challenges in that area, as everybody
knows. And it just seems to me to assume a savings of $200
million by rescinding unspent balances in the CIAP gave me
pause when I saw that as kind of the lead description of this
request.
Is there any way to reconsider that? How locked in are you
to reducing the funding for that program at this critical point
in the gulf's history?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Cochran, let me say that I
appreciate your leadership on conservation and your work on the
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission and our meetings every
couple of months in that effort.
On CIAP, you may recall I was one of those supporters for
CIAP when I was a U.S. Senator working with all of you. It is a
very important program. It was not functioning well under the
former Minerals Management Service. I moved it over to the FWS,
and we are getting the money out in very significant amounts.
The monies are going to the States.
In terms of the budget itself, it will take congressional
action to adopt the proposal in the budget. It is one of those
times where the whole budget is being combed for places where
we can find some money to be able to balance the budgets. As I
said in my opening remarks, Senator Cochran, it is painful to
think we are having to do some of these things.
Senator Cochran. Well, you wouldn't urge the President to
veto the bill if we added some of that money back in the
budget, would you?
Secretary Salazar. I think it is a long way from today
until we get to the point where we have a budget, an
appropriations bill presented to the President. The Gulf of
Mexico and coastal impacts and the restoration of the Gulf of
Mexico, Senator Cochran, are an area where I would say it is
probably the single most important conservation initiative on
where I spend my time, at least in the last 3 years.
Senator Cochran. Well, we appreciate your service, and you
have been very generous in allocating some of your travel time
to come to our State and to reassure us of the attention that
the national leadership of the Department is giving to
challenges that we face in the Deep South.
And I want to thank you for mentioning the wildlife
programs where you and I both have served as Members of
Congress. It has been a great pleasure working with you over
the years, and we look forward to a continuation of that good
relationship.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Senator Landrieu, and again, thank you for your patience.
Secretary Salazar. If I may, Senator Reed, Mr. Chairman
Reed, just one comment to Senator Cochran?
Senator Reed. Yes.
Secretary Salazar. One, I very much appreciate your help
and leadership on the fiscal year 2012 budget, as well as
members of this subcommittee, because we did make a huge
difference on that. And number two, Sam Hamilton was a Hercules
of wildlife and conservation and a great advocate for hunting
and fishing. We appreciate your leadership in having a national
wildlife refuge named in his honor, a bill which the President
has now signed.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much for that mention, and
particularly remembering Sam Hamilton. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OIL AND GAS REVENUES
I wanted to ask, Mr. Secretary, the total amount of your
budget before us today is about $11 billion. Is that correct?
Secretary Salazar. That is, approximately.
Senator Landrieu. What was the amount of money collected
from oil and gas severances, both onshore and offshore, last
year? Do you have those numbers, Ms. Haze?
Secretary Salazar. I think I may. Off the top of my head,
they were in the $9 billion range.
Senator Landrieu. So it is fair to say that the production
of oil and gas in this country and the severances that are
collected, the severance taxes--not the corporate income tax
that is paid, not the payroll tax that is paid, not the
indirect sales tax that is paid--literally funds the entire
Interior Department of the United States? Is that roughly
correct?
Secretary Salazar. It is roughly correct.
Senator Landrieu. Do you know where 80 percent of the
offshore funding comes from, off the shores of what three
States would those be?
Secretary Salazar. Most of our offshore energy production,
as you well know, Senator Landrieu, is in the Gulf of Mexico.
Senator Landrieu. And what States exactly are those
offshore?
Secretary Salazar. Well, the five States of the gulf--
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Texas.
Senator Landrieu. Well, it is not off of Florida, and it is
Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi. Very little off the
Alabama coast and none off the Florida coast because it is off
limits except for the section 181 that we had to struggle to
open.
My point being that a large chunk, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Murkowski, of the money that goes to fund this entire
budget comes from Senator Cochran's shore and my shore. So you
can imagine my horror when I pick up the budget and just read
through the pages, starting here, page F1, this is the LWCF,
land acquisition. These are all the States that I see--Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah.
Let us flip the page. Wildlife and fisheries--California,
Florida, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, Washington, Dakota, Upper
Mississippi River. Not a penny for the lower Mississippi River.
Let us go to land acquisition. Arizona, California,
Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. I don't know how long this
subcommittee expects me to be a cooperative member. I really
don't know how long this administration expects me to continue
to try to be supportive. I cannot express anymore that we have
had enough.
The second point I want to make is that when you said you
did the greatest overhaul of oil and gas drilling in this
country, you most certainly did. I guess the incident required
it. But there was a tremendous amount of pain from Senator
Cochran's State and my State that was contributed to that
overhaul. For the record, I want to read it in. A study was
just released.
This is not Exxon. This is not Mobil. This is not BP. These
are the 2,000 independent oil and gas producers in my State
alone. I am sorry I don't have the numbers for Mississippi,
Secretary Salazar. And I want to tell you what they reported to
an independent administration.
Forty-one percent of these businesses are no longer making
a profit. Seventy-six percent have lost their cash reserves.
Forty-six percent have moved away from the gulf coast, and 82
percent of these business owners have lost personal savings
trying to live through the overhaul of this Interior
Department.
So, on two points--and you are my friend, and I respect you
personally--I strongly disagree with the policies of this
administration. One, for underchanging the region of the
country that contributes most to your entire budget. Where is
Mississippi listed in this budget? Where is Louisiana listed in
this budget?
And following up on what Senator Cochran said, the place we
are listed, you are taking $200 million away from us. That is
not going to happen. The CIAP money, which you know because you
voted for it, was my bill. I fought like a tiger to get the
money, and we got it.
The first, the first money that the gulf coast has ever
gotten to do restoration, and we shared it with Alaska. We
shared it with California. And we shared it with Florida, even
though they don't produce one barrel of oil. Mr. Chairman, that
money cannot leave the gulf coast.
And I want to say just one more thing. In 1965, the LWCF
was created using the severance taxes that come out of oil and
gas drilling offshore, not onshore. The bill was passed by
Senators Mark and Tom Udall's family that served here.
They said let us take the oil and gas resources, put them
together, and create great conservation land for the country.
We support that. What we cannot support is taking that money
off the shores of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, saving
everyone else while we are literally drowning.
Do you all remember the water, how high it was for Katrina?
Do I have to explain to anyone on this subcommittee that south
Louisiana is going underwater? Can I find one dime in this
budget?
I have had it. I don't know what I am going to do, but I am
going to use all the power that I can to stop any funding for
any programs as long as the money is coming off the coast of
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. You all can go find the
money elsewhere.
Go get it from Wyoming. Go get it from the interior States.
Wyoming yesterday--I want to correct this, and I am going to
finish. Wyoming, they have plenty money. They have 500,000
people. I have 4.5 million, 1 million of them lost their homes
and went underwater. I don't remember anyone losing their home
in Wyoming.
Mr. Chairman, last year they kept from their revenue
sharing $971 million Wyoming put in their general fund. There
are no restrictions as to how that money is spent. They can do
anything with it. The law does not allow them--gives them all
freedom.
They can spend it on education. They can reduce taxes. I
can't get one penny of the $6 billion that we send off the
coast of Louisiana to fund this entire budget. And when I ask
for it, it is given reluctantly. It is given with all kinds of
``Oh, my gosh, we can't keep giving those people down there
money.''
My city has gone underwater. My State is underwater. We
have lost more land than any State in this country, and it has
got to stop.
So go get your money, Mr. Secretary, from the West. They
have plenty of it, and just let us use our money to save
ourselves.
Thank you.
Secretary Salazar. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Salazar. May I respond? First, let me say there
is no doubt everyone here in this subcommittee and everyone in
the administration recognizes the passion that my good friend
Senator Mary L. Landrieu has for Louisiana and for the Gulf
States.
GULF STATES FUNDING
And I can tell you that with respect to the gulf States
that include all the five States of the gulf, we have put
significant resources into both our national parks and our
wildlife refuges. There are more than 40 of them in that part
of the country. They have some of the most incredible extensive
wildlife habitat, as Senator Cochran knows from his service on
the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. And we will
continue to make sure those investments, which create jobs in
New Orleans and other places, are investments we continue to
make.
Specific to Louisiana, one of the projects which Senator
Landrieu has long championed is Lake Pontchartrain and the
restoration efforts there. We are working very hard to make
that project a reality. We have prioritized an urban water
initiative in New Orleans that will connect up the downtown. We
are working very hard to try to make sure we are taking care of
the Gulf States.
OIL AND GAS
The other point I would make is I disagree very much with
my friend Senator Landrieu in terms of the overhaul on the oil
and gas industry in America's oceans. Without the overhaul that
we have undertaken, we wouldn't be able to say there are 60
permits that have been granted just in the last year in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Senator Landrieu lived through the horror of the Macondo
spill. I was with her and Senator Murkowski and Senator
Bingaman and others as we flew over on C-130s over the Gulf of
Mexico. That was a national crisis, and our oil and gas
industry offshore is doing very well today.
We are producing significant amounts of oil and gas, and it
is less than 2 years from the date when the Macondo well blew
up. We have continued to move forward in a cautious way, as
Senator Murkowski knows, to try to put the resources in place
for two seas in the Arctic, which she has been an advocate of
for a long time.
So I would only say that President Obama and I are very
serious about moving forward with an ``all-of-the-above''
energy strategy, and it does, in fact, include oil and gas, and
it includes oil and gas in America's oceans. Now I will say
this to Senator Landrieu's point that I think is an important
one to note.
When she argued very hard for the Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act legislation which I helped pass in the Senate, she
was making the point about the impacts of oil and gas
production on the Gulf Coast States, and that is a policy
debate which will go on in this chamber and the U.S. Senate. My
hope is when we work our way through the issues in front of us,
including the litigation we now are involved in, in the Gulf of
Mexico against those responsible for the oil spill, we will see
the most significant ecosystem restoration project in the Gulf
of Mexico we have ever seen.
So your part of the country is near and dear to my heart,
even though I know that you are mad.
Senator Reed. Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you again. Welcome.
Secretary Salazar. Governor.
STREAM BUFFER ZONE RULE
Senator Hoeven. I would like to talk to you about the
stream buffer zone rule, which the Department of the Interior
is promulgating and implementing, as I understand it. I believe
that this is a rule that you are developing and implementing as
a result of some conditions in the Appalachian region of the
country. But I am concerned that you are also implementing it
in our part of the world as well, and obviously, the coal
mining is different throughout the country.
And so, I am concerned that the stream buffer zone rule
will require additional monitoring requirements on the part of
our companies, tougher reclamation procedures, and also it
provides a broader definition of streams and damage. So I guess
my first question is how many existing American jobs does the
Department of the Interior expect will be eliminated as a
result of this?
Well, let me step back. First, why are we kind of using
this one-size-fits-all? In other words, if you are trying to
address an issue in one region of the country, in the
Appalachian region, why are you implementing the same approach
in North Dakota, for example, where the coal is different and
the mining procedures are different?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Hoeven, Governor Hoeven, thank
you for your service to the country and to North Dakota.
Let me just say we still do not have a rule. It is still in
the process of being formulated, and the economic analysis will
certainly be a part of that rule. The Deputy Secretary has been
working with Office of Surface Mining (OSM), Joe Pizarchik, the
Director of the OSM, and I would like him to comment on the
substance of the rule and the concerns you raised.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator, I would just like to emphasize we do not have a
proposal on the street. We are hearing your concerns and the
concerns of others, and we are still doing the evaluation, both
economic and environmental. We want to work with you, and
certainly before a rule comes out, we will want to sit down and
talk to you about it.
A new rule is not imminent. A new proposed rule is not
imminent. When the proposal comes out, there will be an active
comment period. This process is extremely important to your
State and to many other States and to the Department. I can
assure you that we will work with you on it.
Senator Hoeven. Where are you in the process?
Mr. Hayes. We are continuing to prepare the environmental
impact statement associated with the proposed rule. That is
ongoing right now. We do not have a proposal over to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review yet. So we are not even
at the stage where we are engaged with OMB, which is, of
course, the office we work through before we can put a proposed
rule on the street.
Senator Hoeven. What is your intent? What do you intend to
do?
Mr. Hayes. We are still internally evaluating the
environmental impact statement and the proposed rule. We have
not made a decision as to when we will go to OMB with a
proposal. If we do go, it typically takes an extended period of
time of discussion back and forth before a proposed rule hits
the street.
Senator Hoeven. Are you willing to have either you, Mr.
Secretary, or your designee come out to my State and actually
take a look on the ground at the situation and talk to some of
our companies before you proceed?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Hoeven, I am happy to do that
and, in fact, I spent a good deal of time with your Governor
just two nights ago, speaking about a number of North Dakota
issues, including the Bakken formation where we have been very
pleased to work with you, when you were Governor, and with the
State in terms of the USGS information that has been provided
on the Bakken.
I also noted to the Governor that it is the only place in
the country where we actually have enhanced oil recovery
through CO2 capture.
Senator Hoeven. Right.
Secretary Salazar. And so, North Dakota is a very important
State. A number of issues there to be addressed. I hope to be
out there, and when I am out there, we can certainly have a
meeting around the coal issues as well.
Senator Hoeven. I do want to say that you have been very
good about coming to our State. Very good both just on these
types of issues, but also when we have had flooding and some
emergencies, and you have been out there a number of times. And
we really appreciate it. So I do want to commend you for that
and thank you for that.
On this rule, I am asking, again, that you or your designee
come out and meet with us and look through this before you
determine how best to proceed. I mean, again, this is
information. This is fact finding, and hopefully, it will be
beneficial both to you and to the companies out in our part of
the country that do mining.
We are number one in the country in land reclamation. We
are number one in terms of how we handle the water. We meet all
ambient air quality requirements. So we believe in producing
energy, but we believe in taking care of the environment, too.
So let us try to work together on this, and this is an
opportunity to do so. And----
Secretary Salazar. That is a fair request, and we will be
happy to do that.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
And then, I am pleased to hear that you were talking with
Governor Dalrymple. Undoubtedly, he brought up the fracking
issue to you. Obviously, it is a hot topic around the country.
It is an important topic.
We want to do it safely and well. We want good
transparency. We want people to understand it and be
comfortable with it. But we are producing an incredible amount
of oil and gas and more energy not just in North Dakota, but
around this country. And we can do so much more with good
environmental stewardship. But we have to understand business
practices and how they work.
So for you to bring forward a rule that says that--excuse
me, Mr. Chairman, I will try to wrap up here. But for you to
bring forward a rule that says, okay, that the exact
specifications in every frack job have to be submitted to you
30 days before that is done, and then they can't make any
changes whatsoever to that frack fluid mix when they undertake
fracking, that is the kind of thing that does not work for
business.
So, again, full transparency. We have no problem requiring
that our companies provide what is in that frack fluid so that
people know and it is fully transparent. You can go on the Web
and find it. That is the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
Commission (OIGCC) model that we developed. But the idea that
they can't change that once they have submitted the exact
specifications to you 30 days after when they are out on a well
site, trying to produce a well, and the conditions change as
they develop that well--I know you understand this--that has to
be taken into account.
So, again, it is about regulation that is understandable,
straightforward, protects the environment, but that empowers
businesses and investors and so forth to do the--undertake the
development, but do it right. And so, this is an example of
where we are going to have to do more work on your frack
regulation.
And again, from the point of understanding, let us make it
workable. Sure, let us know what is going into the ground, but
let us make sure it is a workable regulation.
Secretary Salazar. We very much agree with you, Senator
Hoeven. It has to be a workable regulation. In fact, much of
the time over the last year has been spent on gathering
information, including a meeting I had with oil and gas
industry and other experts at the Department of the Interior
over a year ago, hearings that BLM has had, including the one
in North Dakota, to get input.
When the rule does come out that will address the issue of
transparency to disclosure and the other matters I spoke about
earlier here in this subcommittee, it still will only be a
proposed rule. It needs to work.
I think this is one area where I do hope we can transcend
the hot politics of the time and say we agree that our North
Star here has to be to use the abundant resource of natural
gas, which is an American resource, and that in order to do so,
we need to make sure we are providing confidence to the
American people that we are doing it right.
Most of the companies I deal with, Senator, come and talk
to me about the requirements we are talking about on
disclosure, well integrity, and flowback water, are in
agreement that we are moving in the right direction. But we
will continue to listen to you, as well as to industry, as well
as to other stakeholders before any rule is finalized.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And we can help you with that. Cost-benefit needs to be
part of it. But we can work together on this and I think get it
right. And so, we appreciate your willingness to work with us
on it and look forward to it.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
OFFSHORE INSPECTION FEES
Mr. Secretary, if I may, there has been some discussion of
offshore production of oil and gas. You have taken significant
efforts to reform the inspection process, the leasing process,
et cetera. One of those was the result of last year's budget,
we increased inspection fees $62 million.
Will you realize the full $62 million increase this year?
Is that your expectation?
Secretary Salazar. Yes. And let me say thank you, thank
you, thank you to you and Senator Murkowski and the members of
this subcommittee for making sure we get the additional
resources to be able to do the job right. We are pushing hard
on the hiring of the inspectors and moving forward with the
program that you have enabled us to implement.
Senator Reed. And as you suggest, Mr. Secretary, 50 percent
of these new fees are required to be used to improve permit
reviews and related oversight activity. So there is a direct
correlation between the increased fees and we hope the
effectiveness of the inspections and the oversights, which
after the Macondo spill, clearly, we need a more effective
system. And your goal is to implement this effort?
Secretary Salazar. Yes, Senator.
Senator Reed. And you had indicated also, that your budget
reflects a cut in personnel to the Department of the Interior,
but you are actually hiring more inspectors because of the
increase in fees for the offshore production?
Secretary Salazar. The offshore oil and gas programs will
see increases in the number of FTEs. Just a quick reminder, no
increase from I think 1981, 1982 until what we have done in the
last several years. It is necessary, and it is such an
important part of our economy that we need to keep investing in
that program.
OIL AND GAS REVENUES
Senator Reed. And just a technical point, I believe, that
all of the proceeds from production--from the gulf, from the
Chukchi, from Bering, from Beaufort--all of those go to the
Treasury of the United States. They do not go to the Department
of the Interior?
Secretary Salazar. That is correct.
Senator Reed. And they fund a range of efforts. You do not
have a restricted receipt account where the Department gets all
the proceeds?
Secretary Salazar. I wish we did. It would make it easier.
Senator Reed. It would make it simpler. It would make it
much more simple for this subcommittee. This could be a very
short hearing, Mr. Secretary.
ONSHORE INSPECTION FEES
Turning now from offshore to onshore. One of the proposals
that we discussed quite seriously in the appropriations process
last year, was an onshore inspection fee, that the BLM would be
able to charge, an increase in fees, for that effect. That fee
would be to increase their ability to inspect, to permit, in
fact, to provide the kind of certainty and responsiveness that
the business community really should have.
That was not successful, but I think, in the context
particularly of the emphasis on making sure we get these
fracking regulations done right and not just the regulations
and the reporting, but the inspections, my feeling is that this
fee increase would be appropriate and would be used for the
same purpose. That purpose would be to facilitate both the
exploration and recovery of these resources, while doing it
safely so that we don't have contaminated water and don't have
unexpected consequences. Is that your view also?
Secretary Salazar. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. And would you be supportive of the proposal
in the budget to increase the fees on land-based as well as
offshore?
Secretary Salazar. Yes.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Let me just turn quickly to the LWCF because it has been
mentioned before. It seems that the increases are focused in
several specific areas--Montana, Wyoming, and in Florida. And
the question really has been raised by a number of my
colleagues, that this is a national program, and we understand
that certain projects have particular needs and appeal and
urgency. But there has to be, I believe, a much more even-
handed or a comprehensive approach to try to fund projects
across the country.
I could pick out urban projects in a number of places in
the country. I could pick out projects that are east coast,
south coast, et cetera. How can we help you provide a more
comprehensive approach, based on merit, of course, than what
seems to be appearing in the first cut of this budget?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Reed, Chairman Reed, let me say
the way in which we could move forward with the true
conservation agenda that fulfills the dreams of many in the
conservation world would be to have enough money to be able to
do many more of these landscapes. At the end of the day, this
is about landscape-level planning.
When we look at the Crown of the Continent, from
Yellowstone National Park up to Glacier and all of the work
going on at three now national conservation areas there, we
believe that with a collaborative effort, as opposed to
operating in the silos of the agencies--the United States
Forest Service, FWS, the BLM, and NPS--we can actually get that
done.
The same thing is true with the longleaf pine in Georgia
and Florida. And the same thing, frankly, would be true in a
number of other landscapes that we would like to do the same
thing with.
When I make the pitch, and it is not so in Senator
Murkowski's case in Alaska, because Alaska is a world unto
itself, very different situation than when you look at the
lower 48. But there are landscapes, including many of those in
the Northeast, which could benefit from this kind of investment
and this kind of collaborative planning.
Criticism from some about investments in the LWCF, I will
just say he is not on this subcommittee, but Senator Barrasso
and Senator Enzi from Wyoming are great beneficiaries of the
LWCF because the Grand Teton National Park alone would swallow
up several hundred millions of dollars just to be able to buy
out the in-holdings within Grand Teton National Park.
The need is tremendous, and the big problem we struggle
with is how can we be most effective in implementing a
conservation agenda that protects these landscapes of America
and do it in a way that is going to be done in a timely manner?
So the Dakota Grasslands, the Flint Hills of Kansas, the
Silvio O. Conte Connecticut River areas, all those are
tremendous areas where there is just a huge need. I would hope,
with the leadership of this subcommittee, that we can see some
august, robust support for the LWCF.
GRAZING ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
Senator Reed. Just a final question. The budget includes a
proposed increase in grazing fees on BLM lands of $1 from $1.35
per horse to $2.35--or per animal, I should say to be accurate,
per animal to $2.35. Even with such an increase, my presumption
from what I have seen, would only cover a fraction of the BLM's
cost to maintain this facility. I would also assume that
comparative or relative to leasing private grazing property,
even with this increase, there would be a very, very small
charge. Is that a fair estimate, based on your analysis?
Secretary Salazar. That is very accurate, Chairman Reed.
The fact of the matter is, and I know ranchers, including in my
family, who rent lands for probably $10, $11 an Animal Unit
Month (AUM), $12 in the State of Colorado. So when you think
about the public lands being leased out at $1.35 an AUM, adding
the $1 administrative fee at $2.35 still gives a tremendous
benefit and advantage to part of the heritage of this country,
which is the ranching heritage of America.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OFFSHORE INSPECTION FEES
I just have a small handful of questions remaining here.
But I want to follow on the chairman's questions about the
increased fees that were placed in last year's appropriations
bill, 50 percent of which to fund the personnel and the
mission-related costs. You have indicated that you are pushing
to get additional personnel brought on. We greatly appreciate
that.
With that, are you seeing that the amount of time that it
takes to approve the plans, the approvals, are they moving
forward as you are able to add more on? Are we seeing any
noticeable gains yet in that?
Secretary Salazar. If you look back just at the last year
from today to February this day a year ago, we have seen a
number of exploration plans approved. We have seen permits
issued, including I think more than 130 in the shallow water in
the gulf and 60 in the deepwater. We are moving forward with
that effort.
On the hiring part, we are putting a lot of emphasis on it.
In fact, we were having a conversation this morning about how
Admiral Watson and Tommy P. Boudreau will make sure we are
expediting the hiring of these people, and the flexibility you
gave us in the budget to be able to pay 25 percent more for
petroleum geologists and others who have the expertise will
help us get the job done.
Senator Murkowski. So you are still working to get there,
is what you are saying?
Secretary Salazar. We are on the case, but it is not
stopping us from moving forward.
Senator Murkowski. All right. Thank you.
ONSHORE ROYALTY RATE
Yesterday, in the Energy Committee, I asked a couple
questions about the onshore leases and the increase in the
royalties, and the chairman has alluded to that in his
question, et al. You mentioned that yesterday you were looking
at several studies and mentioned the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) study, I guess it was. But you said you were going
to be taking that all into account.
And I left the hearing thinking, well, wait a minute. If
you are going to be taking into account these various studies
that are out there, but yet the budget makes very clear that
you are going to be raising the rates 50 percent for all
onshore oil and gas production, it seems like you have already
made up your mind on doing this.
So I guess I have a question in terms of why are you going
back and doing the studies now if you have already made the
decision that you are going to move forward, or is that still
in flux, the decision as to whether or not you bump up the fees
an additional 50 percent?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Murkowski, it is still in flux
in the sense there is additional information and study to be
done. As you know, when you put a budget together, you are
forecasting what may be happening, and that is what OMB did in
this particular case.
At the end of the day, North Dakota just increased its
royalty rates on State lands I think more than 18 percent. We
know the numbers out of Texas and Wyoming, and I think the GAO
was correct in making its finding at the 12.5-percent royalty
rate, which has been in place since 1920, that the American
taxpayer was not getting a fair return.
I believe we need to make sure we honor that principle of
getting a fair return.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we all want a fair return. But I
would again urge you to make sure that we are taking into
account what we are paid for those initial leases, to make sure
that is factored in because that, clearly, is a return that
comes to the taxpayers. And again, to ensure that where we are
not going to be in a situation where we are not competitive.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FUND
I wanted to ask you about the National Wildlife Refuge
Fund. I mentioned it in my opening statement. Apparently, the
mandatory portion of this fund is going to continue to go to
the local counties, but you are proposing to eliminate the
discretionary portion of the program.
And again, I will take you back to my rhetorical question,
I guess, in my opening, which was what do you do for States
like Alaska where we really are very limited in terms of our
options? You have got the PILT payments coming. You are
suggesting that it is going to be a 1-year continuation.
Offsets haven't been identified. How do we deal with this, and
can you tell me why you have chosen to eliminate the
discretionary side from the National Wildlife Refuge Fund?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Murkowski, we still will have I
think it is $8 million set aside for the payments to the
counties, which are a form of PILT, as you mentioned.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Secretary Salazar. In terms of the other $14 million cut
for the refuge fund that is in the budget, I will only say
that, again, as one of those cuts which is a painful cut to
take, I wish we didn't have to do it. At the end of the day,
the concerns some of you have with the cuts proposed in this
budget, they will all sort out relative to how the United
States, the Congress, the President move forward with respect
to dealing with some of the debt, deficit, and revenue issues
needed to fund the Government.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we will continue to talk about
that one. We have got to figure out a good path forward. I
appreciate the budget constraints that you are dealing with.
I have got a couple questions about wood bison in Alaska
and Unimak Island that relates to the caribou, but I will give
you those in written format.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEYING OF AFGHANISTAN
Senator Murkowski. But I do have one. I think this is
really quite interesting. Apparently, in September of last
year, USGS issued a press release that described the process
that had been made in the geological surveying of Afghanistan,
and they used some hyperspectral imaging and indicated in the
release that more than 96 percent of Afghanistan is now mapped
using this advanced technology.
And I mean, that is all good, and clearly, the work is
important. But we also have great opportunities with our own
resources here in this country, certainly in Alaska. And of
course, we all have to figure out, well, how do you pay for
this type of mapping?
In comparison to the 96 percent of Afghanistan that
according to USGS has been geologically surveyed using these
technologies, we are told that only 5 percent of the United
States has been mapped using the same technologies. I don't
know if this is true. I don't know if you can give me this
answer today.
But if it true, if you really do have this very stark
difference between what we know about mineral-related
investments that this administration is making in Afghanistan
versus Alaska, do we know whether in this budget we have
sufficient funding to start focusing on the United States
mapping? I don't know if it is in there.
But this is, again, one of those interesting data points
that you say, well, gosh, if we can afford to be mapping
Afghanistan, we would assume that this country is mapped, and I
know for a fact that it is not. So can you help me out with
that one?
Secretary Salazar. On Afghanistan, obviously, because there
has been huge investment both by the Bush administration and by
President Obama's administration in Afghanistan, those were all
reimbursable costs, as I understand, to the USGS.
I will note, Senator Murkowski, the USGS just developed a
study that looked at shale gas in Alaska, including the
important areas of the North Slope, which you care so much
about. I take your comment seriously, and one of the things I
will do is I will talk to Dr. McNutt and to Bob Abbey to see
whether there are some ways in which the technology that has
been developed with efforts here in the United States, we have
a good foundation from which to start.
But maybe even taking the lessons from Afghanistan to be
able to deal with some of the other mapping and surveying
issues which you have talked about. Let me take that under
consideration, see whether there is something we might be able
to do.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. I would recommend you start
alphabetically with the States.
GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION
Senator Murkowski. We got a lot that we can cover up North.
And then, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, what do you think
about the proposal to move the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) from the Department of Commerce to the
Department of the Interior?
Secretary Salazar. Well, Senator Murkowski, first, the
President was very clear in asking for the authority to be able
to reorganize the Government. That is first and foremost
because with that authority, there are probably other areas in
Government that do need to be consolidated. We still have much
of our Government which was created 100 years ago and really
hasn't caught up to the 21st century.
President Ronald Reagan had the authority to do
reorganizations and consolidations. I think it is a simple
request from the President.
On the question of NOAA and the Department of the Interior,
there are synergies that could be developed if there was such a
consolidation. But we are not at this point looking at it until
we get the authority from the Congress to move forward.
Senator Murkowski. So you really haven't invested any time
or effort to see how those synergies might come together?
Secretary Salazar. I have seen studies from outside groups
that indicate it would be a good idea, but any reorganization
undertaken is always a difficult one and takes time to do it
right. I tried to do a little consolidation with OSM and BLM,
and we know what happened with that.
Secretary Salazar. A reorganization of the kind that would
bring NOAA and the Interior together, it would be an effort
that would take a significant amount of time to do it right.
Where the President is on this issue and where I am and my
colleague Secretary Bryson are is we are supportive of giving
the President the authority.
It doesn't make sense for us to engage in any kind of study
on any of these reorganizations until we have that authority.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I just might point out that if fisheries were
under the Secretary's jurisdiction here, we could probably
ensure better salmon dinners, and we will work with you on
that.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Mr. Secretary, thank you very much, and your colleagues,
for your testimony today.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
We will leave the record open until next Wednesday if there
are additional statements or questions by any of my colleagues,
and would ask you, Mr. Secretary, you and your staff to respond
as quickly as possible.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
OFFSHORE WIND
Question. Rhode Island has been helping lead the way on offshore
wind in developing its ``pilot-scale'' offshore wind project in the
State waters off Block Island, which will provide important engineering
and environmental expertise for these new technologies in the water.
How will the Department of the Interior (DOI) partner with Rhode Island
on these efforts?
Answer. Rhode Island continues to be a valuable partner at the
forefront of offshore renewable energy development with DOI. Rhode
Island's work in developing its Special Area Management Plan provided
essential information to support DOI's decisions. The Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management (BOEM) Rhode Island OCS Renewable Energy Taskforce
continues to be an effective means of expanding this partnership at the
Federal, State, local, and tribal levels. Through its Environmental
Studies Program, BOEM is addressing issues and concerns identified by
Rhode Island. For example, BOEM is partnering with the University of
Rhode Island to develop protocols and modeling tools to support
offshore wind development. Ongoing and future studies funded by BOEM
through the Environmental Studies Program will investigate changes to
recreation and tourism activities that may result from offshore wind
energy development. BOEM is also conducting a study of best management
practices to foster compatible development of offshore energy with
fishing activities. BOEM also engages routinely with the Rhode Island
Fishery Advisory Board and Habitat Advisory Board. Finally, to ensure
an efficient and responsible environmental review, BOEM is combining
its review of the transmission cable system with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer's (COE) review of the pilot project under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and required consultations under
Federal law.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that the commitment you made
in the hearing to expedite BOEM's efforts to process right-of-way
applications for the transmission line between Block Island and the
Rhode Island mainland. Would you also make a similar commitment to
expedite the consultation of any agency within DOI, such as the
National Park Service (NPS), with other Federal agencies including COE
that would have a role in the siting and approval of the State water
project?
Answer. Yes. The President has directed that all Federal agencies,
including NPS and COE, do everything that can be done to expedite
consultation and to be supportive in siting and approving projects in
State waters. In these times of fiscal restraint, partnering between
Federal agencies ensures that resources are spent more efficiently and
are directed to those areas of greatest concern. Partnering also
ensures the maximum use of collaboration between all stakeholders at
the Federal, State, and local levels. In keeping with our ``Smart from
the Start'' Initiative, I am committed to accelerating the leasing
process changes in order to build a robust and environmentally
responsible offshore renewable energy program that also creates jobs
here at home.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
CADIZ
Question. Last November the Interior Department's Solicitors office
issued a memorandum known as the ``M Opinion'' which stated that
railroad companies lack authority to permit activities along their
right-of-way unless the projects directly benefit railroad operations.
The proposed Cadiz water project in the Mojave Desert has proposed
using the Arizona & California Railroad's Right of Way to construct a
43-mile long pipeline connecting their project site with the Colorado
River Aqueduct. The project's Draft Environmental IR suggests that the
water pipeline would benefit the railroad because it would allow them
to place fire hydrants along the route for fire suppression. Can you
tell me are fire hydrants typically placed along the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) granted-railroad right-of-ways?
Answer. We are not aware of any hydrants placed on BLM-granted
railroad rights-of-way. We would need to review each authorization to
determine if hydrants are present.
Question. Do they exist along any railroad right-of-way in the
desert southwest?
Answer. We can only speak to those railroad right-of-way grants
that we approved. We do not know if other railroad grants involve
hydrants. The Federal Railroad Administration or Surface Transportation
Board may be able to clarify this.
Question. What steps has the Department of the Interior to taken to
assess Cadiz' proposed use of the right-of-way as it relates to the ``M
Opinion'' or assert its jurisdiction to regulate the use of the Right
of Way for nonrailroad purposes?
Answer. BLM is currently in the process of assessing Cadiz'
proposed use of the right-of-way as it relates to the ``M Opinion.'' As
part of that assessment, the BLM California State Office has taken the
following steps:
On January 10, 2012, the BLM California State Office sent a letter
to all railroad companies with rights-of-way authorized under the
authority of the 1875 Railroad Act in California, including the Arizona
& California Railroad, which has entered into a lease for a pipeline
for the Cadiz project. The letter requested the companies to disclose
agreements for third-party easements within 30 days. The Arizona &
California Railroad (ARZC) responded to this request on February 15,
2012, requesting additional information about specific ROWs and the
areas for which BLM is interested.
On February 13, 2012, BLM's California State Director sent a letter
commenting on the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by the
Santa Margarita Water District and Cadiz, to comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act. The comment letter requested copies of the
plan related to water conveyance along the railroad, the Longitudinal
Lease Agreement between Cadiz and ARZC and all other supporting
documentation. BLM received a response letter from the Santa Margarita
Water District which included copies of the Longitudinal Lease
Agreement, an amendment to this agreement and correspondence between
the Railroad and Cadiz.
On May 4, 2012, BLM sent a letter to ARZC, along with a copy of the
Longitudinal Lease Agreement between ARZC and Cadiz requesting the
company provide more information on how the proposed pipeline described
in the Agreement furthers railroad purposes, and whether these design
features are consistent with standard railroad industry practices.
On May 22, 2012, ARZC provided a response letter to BLM's May 4th
request describing the ``proposed water pipeline as a unique
opportunity to bring fire suppression resources to ARZC's critical rail
improvements in an efficient and cost-effective manner, as well as
providing collateral rail operating benefits.'' It also asserts that
``with respect to hydrants, fire suppression capability is a chronic
and historical challenge in the rail industry, most particularly on
rural lines with trestles and bridges.'' BLM is currently coordinating
with FRA to understand the feasibility of these water features, and
whether they meet the objective of furthering railroad purposes.
PRIVATE LANDS PERMITTING
Question. Secretary Salazar, I am concerned that the permitting of
renewable energy projects on disturbed private lands remains more
difficult than the process for permitting a similar project on pristine
public land. The Conference Report accompanying the Department of the
Interior's fiscal year 2012 appropriations legislation asked you to
address this, stating:
``In order to facilitate better species protection and stewardship
of public resources, the conferees expect that (the new Renewable
Energy Permitting Office in the Fish and Wildlife Service) will develop
permitting policies that make it less difficult and time-consuming to
permit projects on disturbed private lands than on pristine public
lands . . . . The conferees . . . support efforts by the Service to
establish a pilot fee program using the Service's existing
authorities.''
Please describe how the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has
implemented this congressional directive to date, and please describe
the Interior Department's strategy to address this matter during fiscal
year 2013.
Answer. FWS has met this congressional directive by realigning
support for renewable energy work in the Carlsbad, Ventura, and Nevada
Fish and Wildlife Offices (FWOs). FWS opened an office in Palm Springs
in August 2011, which is closer to where many renewable energy projects
are located. The office covers southwestern San Bernardino County, and
all of Riverside and Imperial counties. The Palm Springs FWO works on
renewable energy projects in the desert area, including the Desert
Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP). FWS has two offices working
on renewable energy permitting in Nevada, one in Reno and one in Las
Vegas. The Secretary of the Interior recently signed an agreement to
finish the DRECP by 2013. FWS is developing the DRECP to address
private lands impacts and to serve as the programmatic permitting
mechanism for renewable energy projects in the desert in California
while sustaining the conservation of listed species.
To help us be more responsive to renewable energy projects on
private lands, the Service recently finalized a package of template
documents and instructions that can be used by local FWS offices to
establish reimbursable agreements with non-Federal entities that would
provide additional funding. The additional funding can then be used to
hire additional staff so that the Service can provide more timely
environmental reviews of the projects.
GAMING
Question. Mr. Secretary, I am deeply disappointed that the
Department was delinquent in responding to this subcommittee about the
two controversial casinos that were approved in California last
September. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 provided a 60-day
window to respond; this deadline was missed by more than 2 weeks.
The Committee report language gave your Department an opportunity
to verify the claim of strong local support for these projects, despite
the fact that only 3 of 33 elected officials or public entities
expressed support for the casinos. I find it hard to believe that three
support letters constitute ``strong local support'' as your document
claims, particularly when Yuba County voters expressed opposition to
one of the casinos in an advisory measure.
Since Californians continue to be puzzled by the claim of ``strong
local support'' for these casinos, I would like to follow up on the
Committee Report.
Of the 33 elected officials and bodies that you are required to
consult with, how many have expressed support, in writing, for the
casino projects?
Answer. The Department received six express declarations of support
from local units of government, with respect to the Enterprise
Rancheria's application for a Secretarial Determination under the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. These statements of support were
discussed in the Department's September 1, 2011, decision at page 25.
It is important to note that these supportive comments were submitted
by the City of Marysville and Yuba County, in which the Enterprise
Rancheria's proposed gaming facility would be located. These local
units of government would experience the most significant impact of the
tribe's proposed gaming facility. The Department previously provided
the subcommittee with a copy of the September 1, 2011, Secretarial
Determination for the Enterprise Rancheria on March 8, 2012, as an
appendix to our response to House Conference Report No. 112-331
Directive.
The Department received seven express declarations of support from
local units of government, with respect to the North Fork Rancheria's
application for a Secretarial Determination under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act. These statements of support were discussed in the
Department's September 1, 2011, decision at pages 43-45. It is
important to note that these supportive comments were submitted by the
City of Madera and Madera County, in which the North Fork Rancheria's
proposed gaming facility would be located. These local units of
government would experience the most significant impact of the tribe's
proposed gaming facility. The Department provided the subcommittee with
a copy of the September 1, 2011, Secretarial Determination for the
North Fork Rancheria on March 8, 2012, as an appendix to our response
to House Conference Report No. 112-331 Directive.
Question. How many have expressed opposition?
Answer. The Department received three express declarations of
opposition from local units of government, with respect to the
Enterprise Rancheria's application. These statements of opposition were
discussed in the September 1, 2011, Secretarial Determination at pages
26-27.
The Department received two express declarations of opposition from
local units of government, with respect to the North Fork Rancheria's
application. These statements of opposition were discussed in the
September 1, 2011, Secretarial Determination at page 44.
It is important to note that the Department provided a meaningful
opportunity for local units of government to comment on the tribes'
applications, pursuant to our regulations at 25 CFR part 292. A
majority of those local units of government declined to submit comments
to the Department on the tribes' applications.
Question. How much weight was given to Yuba County Measure G, the
advisory vote rejecting the proposed casino in Yuba County?
Answer. The Secretarial Determination issued on September 1, 2011
for the Enterprise Rancheria contains a discussion of how the
Department considered Measure G in reviewing the tribe's application at
page 25.
Question. What needs to be done to ensure that county voters and
residents can have their voices heard in this process?
Answer. On June 13, 2011, the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs
issued a memorandum explaining how the Department would consider tribal
applications for Secretarial Determinations under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act. In that memorandum, the Assistant Secretary noted ``In
my view, IGRA and the Department's regulations, at 25 C.F.R. Parts 151
and 292, adequately account for the legal requirements and policy
considerations that must be addressed prior to approving fee-to-trust
applications, including those made pursuant to the ``off-reservation''
exception. Specifically, the recently enacted part 292 regulations
require exacting review of requests for off-reservation gaming.''
Part 292 regulations were promulgated pursuant to IGRA and other
statutory authorities. Under the IGRA's ``off-reservation'' exception,
a tribe may conduct gaming on lands acquired after October 17, 1988
only if:
``The Secretary, after consultation with the [applicant] Tribe and
appropriate State and local officials, including officials of other
nearby Indian Tribes, determines that a gaming establishment on newly
acquired land would be in the best interest of the Indian Tribe and its
members, and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community.''
The Department continues to believe that existing law and
regulations ensure a careful review of tribal applications for
Secretarial Determinations under IGRA, which will allow for a
meaningful opportunity for local communities to participate. It is
important to note that Secretarial Determinations issued pursuant to
IGRA are subject to the concurrence of the Governor of the State in
which tribal gaming activities would occur.
Question. Some of the most vocal opposition to these casinos has
been from tribes, especially those who believe that new casinos should
be built on the tribe's aboriginal lands--not in the most profitable
location. This is consistent with the position of the National Indian
Gaming Association. To what extent did you engage in consultation with
these tribes and how did you respond to their concerns?
Answer. The Assistant Secretary's June 13, 2011 Memorandum on
processing tribal applications under IGRA's Secretarial Determination
Exception was issued after thorough consultation with tribal leaders
throughout the United States over a period of 3 months. Similarly, the
Department's regulations at 25 CFR part 292 were promulgated in 2008
after years of tribal consultation, as well as after a period of public
notice and comment.
With respect to the applications of the Enterprise Rancheria and
the North Fork Rancheria, the Department adhered to the requirements
set forth in governing regulations. In an effort to be transparent and
inclusive, the Department even considered comments submitted by tribes
outside the scope of what is required by our regulations. The September
1, 2011, Secretarial Determination for the Enterprise Rancheria
contains a discussion of comments submitted by other tribes at page 27.
The September 1, 2011, Secretarial Determination for the North Fork
Rancheria contains a discussion of comments submitted by other tribes
at page 45.
Question. Are the proposed casino sites on land that is within the
undisputed aboriginal territory of the appropriate tribe?
Answer. Neither IGRA nor the Department's regulations, at 25 CFR
part 292, require a tribe's proposed gaming facility be located within
its ``aboriginal territory.'' Nevertheless, the Department's
regulations require us to evaluate the existence and extent of a
tribe's ``significant historical connection'' to a proposed gaming site
when making a Secretarial Determination under IGRA. The September 1,
2011, Secretarial Determinations for both the Enterprise Rancheria and
the North Fork Rancheria concluded that both tribes established a
``significant historical connection'' to their respective proposed
gaming sites.
The September 1, 2011, Secretarial Determination for the Enterprise
Rancheria contains a discussion of the tribe's significant historical
connection to the proposed gaming site at pages 13-14. The September 1,
2011, Secretarial Determination for the North Fork Rancheria contains a
discussion of the tribe's significant historical connection to the
proposed gaming site at pages 11-17.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SOLAR SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Question. Last October, BLM issued its Draft Supplemental Solar
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), which includes
large amounts of ``variance'' lands outside the solar zones. It is my
understanding that while applicants are strongly encouraged to pursue
projects within the identified solar zones, BLM will also consider
permitting development in these ``variance'' areas. While some
flexibility to consider lands beyond the zones may be necessary, I find
it highly problematic that an estimated 50,000 acres of land that were
donated or purchased with Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars have
been included in the variance lands. Given that these lands were
intended to be preserved in perpetuity, I do not believe they should be
open for development. Can you tell me what is the process by which the
BLM will consider and grant permission for solar projects to be
constructed on ``variance'' lands?
Answer. The process for considering solar projects on ``variance''
lands has been delineated in the Supplemental Draft Solar PEIS in
detail. However, no final decision has been made. In addition, there
might be market, technological, or site-specific factors that make a
project appropriate in a non-solar energy zone area. BLM will consider
variance applications on a case-by-case basis based on environmental
considerations; consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies, and tribes; and public outreach. All variance applications
that the BLM determines to be appropriate for continued processing will
subsequently be required to comply with National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and all other applicable laws, regulations, and policies at
the applicant`s expense. Applicants applying for a variance must assume
all risk associated with their application and understand that their
financial commitments in connection with their applications will not be
a determinative factor in BLM's evaluation process.
Question. Why have donated and LWCF-acquired lands been included
among the ``variance'' lands and what steps are being taken to avoid
their development?
Answer. Comments received on the Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS
have requested that donated and LWCF-acquired lands be identified as
exclusion areas for utility-scale solar energy development. BLM is
currently considering this request, but no decision has been made yet.
We would be available to brief your office directly in more detail at
your request.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
Question. Last week the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) released its
initial water allocations for Central Valley Project (CVP) water users.
Given the low precipitation and Sierra snowpack we have experienced in
California, the 30-percent water allocation for agricultural service
contractors is disconcerting, but not altogether surprising.
Significant carry-over storage appears to have helped boost reservoir
supplies, but it is unclear whether those supplies are sufficient to
provide all the water necessary to meet the needs of farms and
communities for the remainder of the year. Can you tell me:
If there is not significant additional precipitation in the
remaining weeks of the wet season, how will this affect future water
allocations for the remainder of the water year?
Answer. The initial 30-percent allocation to agricultural water
service contractors in February 2012, was due to very dry hydrologic
conditions. December, typically one of the wettest months in
California, ended up being one of the driest on record. The dry pattern
continued through mid-March. Since mid-March, improved precipitation in
the Sacramento Valley and improved snowpack in the Northern Sierra
resulted in increases to the allocation for CVP San Joaquin Exchange
and Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, wildlife refuges,
agricultural, and municipal and industrial water service contractors in
April. As of May, the allocation for north of delta agricultural water
service contracts was 100 percent, but the allocation south of delta
agricultural water service contractors remained lower at 40 percent.
The lower allocation south of the delta is a reflection of constraints
on exports from the Delta and the loss of pumping windows during the
winter when conditions were much drier. In the San Joaquin Valley,
precipitation did not improve as significantly as it did in the
Sacramento Valley. The initial allocation to Friant Class I contractors
was 35 percent which increased to 55 percent as of May 24. The Friant
Class II allocation remains zero.
Question. What administrative actions can BOR take to help ensure
adequate water supplies to San Joaquin and Sacramento farmers this
year?
Answer. BOR developed a series of actions in the CVP Water Plan
2012 to help support water management efforts this year. The plan,
available at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/pa/water, identifies actions
related to Joint Point of Diversion, Exchange Contractors' transfers,
and California Aqueduct/Delta-Mendota Canal Intertie operations. BOR
also worked with the water community to identify opportunities for
transfers and administrative actions to better manage available
supplies.
YUROK FUNDING
Question. Secretary Salazar, Yurok Chairman O'Rourke recently wrote
to your Department seeking assistance with the historic and continued
under-funding for Yurok tribal government, law enforcement and
transportation needs. I share his concerns and hope that your staff
will give his request for additional funding all due consideration.
To help clarify some outstanding questions raised by Chairman
O'Rourke, I hope that you can provide me with answers to the following
questions.
Has your Department reviewed and analyzed the Yurok Tribe
Justification and Request for Increased Base Funding, which was
provided to the Regional Office and conveyed to the Assistant Secretary
earlier this month?
Answer. The Department received and reviewed the ``Yurok Tribe
Justification and Request for Increased Base Funding.'' The Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) has examined the request, and we hope that our
explanation of the issues raised by the tribe are addressed in the
explanation of Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) which are below.
Question. Do you agree with the conclusions reached in this
document, particularly that the tribe is disproportionately
underfunded?
Answer. In general, the distribution of TPA funds is sound. Tribes
with historically larger populations and/or larger reservations receive
proportionately larger shares of TPA funds. Adjustments reflecting
treaties, court decisions, executive policy decisions, and
congressional acts are also factored into the distributions.
The allocation of resources among the regions and tribes is based
on a complex set of historical, geographical, demographic, political
and programmatic factors. Today, ``base funding'' identifies the basic
contract amount of services on which a tribe can rely from 1 year to
the next--the base amount from which budget increases or decreases are
calculated. The base funding amount is the result of years of
legislation, appropriations, and BIA administrative polices.
At various times, especially in the past several decades, the
Federal Government has emphasized the development of certain natural
resources and provided additional funding for those programs.
Additional funds were provided only to tribes owning such resources,
and those funds were made part of the tribe's recurring TPA base
funding. On the other hand, several programs were removed from tribal
recurring bases, as well. These programs included the Housing
Improvement Program and Road Maintenance program; many tribes had
ranked these programs as top priorities and had allocated a substantial
amount of their funding for them. When these funds were reduced or
eliminated from the TPA base, tribes that had these programs listed as
top priorities lost significant portions of their base funding.
At various times, the BIA has emphasized certain programs, such as
Human Services. At those times, the BIA has requested additional
funding for those programs. Tribes with higher populations received a
high proportion of these funds, which were then made part of their
recurring TPA base to meet ongoing needs. However, increased tribal
enrollment, whether through changes in membership criteria, or natural
population growth, has not been considered a factor in distributing
additional funds for TPA programs. Migration to and from reservations,
particularly as economic opportunities change, has not been accounted
for in any calculations of TPA funding.
As a result of treaties, court decisions, executive policy
decisions, and congressional acts, the legal obligations and funding
for particular tribes have resulted in unique recurring funding levels
for those tribes. Additionally, these funds were incorporated into
various tribes' bases to address the prospect of litigation from these
tribes against the Federal Government for failure to support certain
activities required by treaty, statute, or the Government's trust
responsibility.
Question. What is the minimum per-capita funding that a rural,
nongaming tribe should receive?
Answer. The BIA does not establish a minimum per-capita funding
level for any tribe, regardless of locality or gaming status. However,
the Small Tribes Initiative was established to address a funding
allocation process that consistently failed to take into consideration
the basic funding needs of small tribes. These tribes have small
memberships and most have little or no land or natural resources. The
initiative attempts to ensure that all tribes, regardless of population
size, land base, or natural resources, will receive a recurring base of
$160,000 for tribes in the continental United States. The base funding
amount is considered sufficient to enable small tribes to put in place
and maintain the management systems necessary to account for funds and
ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The funding
also permits tribes to establish and maintain administrative mechanisms
sufficient to establish viable tribal office operations and service
delivery systems.
Question. If a per-capita formula is inappropriate, please explain
what formula your Department does use any why it is the more
appropriate funding mechanism.
Answer. A per capita formula is inappropriate to use. At one time,
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) developed an analysis of the
TPA base funding per tribe. Their analysis showed that there is
considerable variation in per capita funding between regions and
tribes. For example, in the comparison between regions, GAO found the
average TPA funding per capita Nationwide was $601; however, in Eastern
Oklahoma TPA per capita was $121 and in Northwest TPA per capita was
$1,020. This level of analysis, though, ignores that the Eastern
Oklahoma Tribes tend to have small land bases while the Northwest
Region Tribes have both reservations and significant natural resources
held in trust.
The only funding formula that the Department uses for the
distribution of base funding is the TPA process. Many difficulties
arise in any effort to develop an allocation system that takes into
account the relative means of the tribes. Determining the type, extent,
and magnitude of tribal revenues is the first difficulty. In an era
when the BIA had a continuous presence on the reservation and managed
an Indian Tribe's affairs, BIA personnel knew about all tribal business
activities. In the current era of Self-Determination and Self-
Governance, the BIA often does not know the extent of tribal
businesses. There is no assurance that the financial statements and
reports even exist for all tribal business. Even if they exist, there
is no assurance the format and content of the statements and reports
may be readily compared or that the tribes would give BIA the
information.
The current TPA process is the most appropriate due to the efforts
of the BIA in consulting with tribes and tribal leaders in the early
development stages of the TPA process.
Question. As a small and needy tribe, what supplemental funding can
be identified to address this shortfall?
Answer. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance is a valuable
resource because it identifies programs which identify tribal
governments as eligible applicants. These programs are available and
the BIA has seen increased outreach efforts by a number of Federal
agencies, which is an indicator that tribal participation in these
other programs may show steady increases and a bridged gap in
shortfalls.
SAN LUIS REY WATER SETTLEMENT
Question. In 1988, the Congress passed the San Luis Rey Indian
Water Rights Settlement Act which provided a framework for resolving
the decades old water dispute in Northern San Diego County. Within the
last 2 years the five Indian Bands and the cities of Escondido and
Vista have reached an agreement on how to proceed, however the
Department of the Interior--as the bands' trustee--has yet to approve
the deal.
What are the primary unresolved issues which prohibit you from
approving this settlement?
Answer. The Department of the Interior believes that the proposed
settlement agreement drafted by the Bands and the local entities is
inconsistent with the 1988 San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement
Act (``Settlement Act'') and contemplates obligations for the United
States which exceed the authority and intent of the Act. The
Department's position on the core issue in dispute, discussed below,
was conveyed to the Bands as early as 2004, and has been reiterated
multiple times across at least two administrations.
The central point of contention concerns the scope and effect of
the Settlement Act. The Department believes that the Settlement Act
fully and finally quantified and resolved all of the Bands' Federal
reserved water rights. The Department believes this position is fully
supported by both the plain language of the Settlement Act and the
congressional record behind the enacted legislation. In full settlement
of the Bands' reserved water rights claims and to satisfy the
obligations of the United States to the Bands as trustee, the
Settlement Act established a $30 million trust fund and also required
the Secretary to acquire and deliver 16,000 acre-feet per year of
imported water to the Bands. The Bands and local entities disagree with
this interpretation and rely on language from, and the legislative
history behind, prior unenacted bills to assert that, in addition to
the 16,000 acre-feet per year of imported water identified in the
Settlement Act, the Bands retain claims to reserved water rights in
waters originating within the San Luis Rey River basin.
Question. What is the timeline for you to resolve these issues?
Answer. The Department is committed to the expeditious development
of a settlement agreement consistent with the Settlement Act, should
the parties wish to pursue such an agreement. The Department has
engaged in dozens of settlement discussions with the parties over the
last several years and has offered multiple approaches to fashioning an
agreement which would make the benefits of the Settlement Act available
to the Bands. The Department views the quantity of water together with
the specific exchange authority provided by the Settlement Act as an
exceptional asset that holds the potential to provide the Bands with a
permanent and reliable water supply unobtainable through any other
means. If the parties are willing to pursue an agreement based upon the
benefits explicitly set forth in the Settlement Act, the Department is
hopeful that a final agreement could be developed this year.
Question. Does the 16,000 acre/feet of water provided by the
Settlement have federally reserved status?
Answer. The Congress directed the United States, through the
Secretary of the Interior, to acquire and deliver 16,000 acre-feet of
water to the Bands in settlement of the Bands' reserved water rights
claims. This water cannot be forfeited or abandoned and is federally
protected water that, in the Department's view, constitutes a trust
asset.
Question. Under your interpretation of the Settlement Act, does it
preclude tribes from using existing ground and surface water on their
reservations?
Answer. No. All five Bands have historically used either local
surface water, ground water through domestic or community wells, or
some combination of both. These uses have never been challenged. There
is no reason that these uses could not continue following
implementation of the Settlement Act.
Question. Does this water have federally reserved status?
Answer. The purpose of the Settlement Act is ``to provide for the
settlement of the reserved water rights claims of the la Jolla, Rincon,
San Pasqual, Pauma and Pala Bands of Mission Indians'' by providing the
Bands with 16,000 acre-feet per year of supplemental water and a $30
million trust fund. Against the backdrop of this congressional intent,
the United States would not assert Federal reserved water rights on
behalf of the Bands to local water sources.
Question. The Settlement Act provides the authority to exchange
settlement water for water from other sources. Once this exchange
occurs, is the federally reserved status of the water maintained?
Answer. The Settlement Act resolved the Federal reserved water
rights claims of the five Bands by directing the Secretary to acquire
and deliver 16,000 acre-feet of water imported annually to supplement
the waters under dispute in the basin. The Department takes the
position that this water is a trust asset to which the obligations of
the United States attach. The Congress further authorized specific and
limited authority for exchanges of the imported water for water from
other sources for use on the Bands' reservations. If the water provided
by the United States is exchanged consistent with the authority of the
statute for water from another source, the Department believes that the
trust asset character of the water can follow the exchange and be
applied to this new source and that the Bands' use of water from this
source could be protected as such.
FEE TO TRUST PROCESS AND APPLICATIONS
Question. One of the most common concerns I hear expressed by
tribes in California is the length of time it takes the Department to
make decisions on fee to trust applications.
In some cases I believe the Department acts responsibly in
conducting a deliberative process, especially when gaming is involved.
But in other cases, I believe the Department could and should move more
quickly. This will require a more open, transparent process, and better
communication with local interests.
How many trust applications are pending in California? How many are
for gaming?
Answer. California has 134 applications pending, of which 13 are
for gaming.
Question. What has been the average length of time it takes to
process a trust application for a California tribe in the last 10
years?
Answer. The time it takes complete an application varies depending
upon a number of factors, including the stated purpose of the
acquisition, comments from interested parties, environmental concerns,
and concerns stemming from the Supreme Court's decision in Carcieri v.
Salazar. Some applications can be completed in less than 2 years, while
others have taken up to 5 years.
Question. On average, how long does it take the Department to
notify the local interests of a new trust application in their area?
What steps are you taking to improve notifications?
Answer. On average, it takes the Department 6 months to notify the
local interests. Actions that have been taken to improve the
notification process include the development of a national policy
identifying timeframes associated with the process, revising the Fee-
to-Trust Handbook, implementing guidance to process mandatory
acquisitions, replacing the Fee-to-Trust tracking system with an
improved collaborative system, and developing performance measures for
senior executives to process applications.
Question. To what extent do gaming acquisitions slow the process of
trust land approvals in general?
Answer. Gaming applications require more work/information/approval
levels and require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
rather than an Environmental Assessment. The tribe must coordinate
processing with the State and local governments and applications
generally receive more scrutiny for compliance with NEPA, IGRA, and
applicable gaming and land acquisition regulations.
Question. Do the same staff analyze both gaming and nongaming
applications? Does this create a situation where nongaming trust
applications receive less staff time because of the more intensive
process required for gaming acquisitions?
Answer. Yes, staff does perform work on both gaming and nongaming
applications. The nongaming applications do compete for staff time as
the gaming acquisitions are labor intensive.
Question. Is it possible for a parcel taken into trust using the
nongaming procedure to ever be used for gaming activities?
Answer. Yes, in some circumstances. Section 20 of IGRA provides
that for lands that are within reservation boundaries or contiguous
thereto, BIA has the authority to take land into trust that can
subsequently be used by a tribe for gaming purposes. Requests for
gaming must still be approved using section 20 of IGRA, whether the
land is being taken into trust for that purpose or it is in existing
trust status.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. Secretary Salazar, an important Interior Department tool
that Vermont and many other States, including New York, used during the
floods caused by Hurricane Irene were the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
river and lake gauges. These gauges helped our first responders save
lives and property by providing real-time information as the waters
rose. In addition, the gauges also provide a long-term value by helping
track changes in our rivers and lakes for ongoing water quality control
monitoring and improvements. Nonetheless the USGS has flagged 18 river
and lake gauges in the Champlain watershed of Vermont and New York to
be discontinued for lack of funding.
Do you agree with the assessment that the USGS river and lake
gauging network in the United States represents one of the greatest
return-on-investments of any dollar spent by your Department? Can you
tell me what is needed to avoid any further damage to this critical
network in Vermont and nationwide?
Answer. Yes, the USGS streamgaging network provides a great return
on the American taxpayer's dollar. Information on the flow of water in
America's rivers and streams is fundamental to national and local
economic well-being, the protection of life and property, and the
efficient and effective management of the Nation's water resources.
According to the National Research Council (2004), ``streamflow
information has many of the properties of a public good, because
everyone benefits whether they pay or not, and benefits to additional
users come at no additional cost.'' There are many uses of streamflow
information including:
--water resource appraisal and allocations;
--managing interstate agreements and court decrees;
--engineering design of bridges, culverts, and treatment facilities;
--the operation of reservoirs, powerplants, and locks and dams;
--evaluating changes in streamflow due to climate and land-use
change;
--flood forecasting (warning) and flood plain mapping (planning);
--support of water quality evaluations; and
--assessing in-stream conditions for habitat assessments and
recreational safety and enjoyment.
For many of the uses of streamflow information, it is difficult or
impossible to assign an economic benefit to the information, though in
many cases the benefits are evident. The National Weather Service (NWS)
is one agency that reports an economic benefit on the use of streamflow
data. NWS reports that over the last 30 years, there has been, on
average, 94 deaths and $7.8 billion in damages in personal and public
property per year due to flooding on the Nation's rivers. Without
streamflow information to calibrate and verify NWS forecast models, NWS
would be ``flying blind'' in making flood forecasts, implying that the
number of deaths and magnitude of loses to property would be much
higher.
Question. The National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP), as
authorized in the SECURE Water Act of 2009, was designed to provide
stability to the national streamgage network by providing a federally
funded ``backbone'' network of streamgages to meet Federal needs for
streamflow information. This backbone is supplemented with streamgages
that are funded through partnerships to more fully meet State, tribal,
and local needs for streamflow information. The enacted funding level
for fiscal year 2012 for the NSIP is $29.4 million and the proposed
funding level for fiscal year 2013 is $32.5 million. This increase
during a time of fiscal constraints represents a commitment to
increasing funding for the Nation's streamgages and greater
implementation of the NSIP as described in the SECURE Water Act.
Has the Department's Climate Change Response Council, which you
chair, analyzed the impact of these gauge closures in the face of
potential climate change impacts which are likely to bring about new
and greater flood risks?
Answer. Yes, the Department takes the issue of climate change very
seriously with respect to water and other natural resources and
hazards.
The effects of climate change in any given area are often widely
debated. It is likely that certain areas of our Nation will be at
greater risk of floods, while other areas are at greater risk of
droughts, and some may see no change at all. Some of the first
scientific work demonstrating the occurrence and consequences of
climate change was produced through analysis of long-term streamflow
information. For example, it was demonstrated that in the Northeast,
river flows were getting higher earlier in the year as a consequence of
snow pack melting sooner, and late summer flows were getting lower,
while there was no discernible change in the average or peak flows. In
other areas, such as the Southwest, it appears that stream flows are
decreasing. Without an adequate number of streamgages located in
optimal locations and providing comparable high-quality data, it will
be increasingly difficult to detect and predict the consequences of
climate change on water supply and hydrologic extreme hazards.
Question. With regard to white nose syndrome (WNS), which is still
spreading across the country at a fast rate and has the potential to
cost our Nation's farmers and consumers billions of dollars, can you
tell me how the Department's request to reduce the Endangered Species
Recovery account by more than $1 million will impact the work being
done on white nose syndrome and other important endangered species
recovery work?
Answer. While our fiscal year 2013 budget request seeks a net
overall reduction of $1.59 million, the decreases are specifically
targeted at discontinuing the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Program
and reducing funding for the State of the Birds activities in fiscal
year 2013 in order to fund higher-priority conservation activities
elsewhere in the budget request, such as the Cooperative Recovery
Initiative. Through the Cooperative Recovery Initiative, the Service is
requesting $5.35 million to support a cross-programmatic partnership
approach to complete planning, restoration, and management actions
addressing current threats to endangered species on and around National
Wildlife Refuges. In addition, the Service is continuing to place a
high priority on addressing white nose syndrome (WNS) and bat
conservation. In fiscal year 2012, the Service will allocate $995,000
in State and Tribal Wildlife Grants for WNS research and monitoring by
the States. In addition, $485,000 in Refuge Inventory and Monitoring is
estimated to be spent on work related to WNS monitoring and control on
Refuges. The total amount being spent by the Service in fiscal year
2012 for WNS research and response activities will be at least
$4,855,000. Additional funding may also come from Cooperative
Endangered Species Section 6 Grants or Adaptive Science competitive
grants, if projects addressing WNS are chosen to be funded.
Question. In August, you announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) would take full responsibility for sea lamprey control on
Lake Champlain. In this context, can you explain when we will see the
funding required to implement the program become a part of the
President's budget request so that your Department's commitment can be
entirely fulfilled?
Answer. FWS funds a wide array of aquatic invasive species control,
management, and prevention responsibilities across the country.
Protecting the health and vitality of Lake Champlain and the
significant fisheries resources, economic benefits, and jobs it
provides is a high priority for FWS. The fiscal year 2013 President's
budget includes $380,000 in base funding for Sea Lamprey in Region 5
which supports 3.5 FWS base-funded full-time equivalents (FTEs) and
four temporary/term FTEs based in the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife
Resources Office in Essex Junction, Vermont. Through a reimbursable
agreement, FWS currently works with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission,
which receives funding from the State Department, to administer the Sea
Lamprey control program.
Question. The White River National Fish Hatchery remains the best
cold water National Fish Hatchery in New England and the Northeast.
White River is the lynch-pin to Federal fishery restoration work from
Lake Ontario all the way to Maine, but it is currently out of
commission and requires approximately $5 million in repairs as a result
of damage caused by Hurricane Irene.
Can you confirm that repairs to the White River Hatchery will be a
priority? Are sufficient funds requested in your budget proposal, and
programmed, as needed, for the repairs to this hatchery to proceed
without delay?
Answer. The White River National Fish Hatchery sustained
approximately $5.2 million in damages resulting from Hurricane Irene.
Repairing the White River National Fish Hatchery will be among the
highest priorities for the Fisheries Program. Emergency clean-up
operations have already been completed. Additionally, the Northeast
Region immediately redirected approximately $620,000 in fiscal year
2011 deferred maintenance funding to initiate emergency mission-
critical repairs. The President's fiscal year 2013 proposed budget
includes $1.9 million to reconstruct the water infiltration gallery and
to demolish and reconstruct the fish-tagging building. Upon completion
of the aforementioned projects, 100 percent of fish-rearing capacity
and operational capacity will be restored. An additional $2.6 million
in damages to critical support infrastructure (e.g. roads, septic
systems, etc.) will remain, which will need to be addressed through the
application of annual deferred maintenance funds.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
Question. As you know, both the EROS Data Center, located in my
home State, and the Landsat series of satellites are very important
resources, not only for South Dakota, but for our entire Nation and the
international community. Lead time is required for developing these
satellites, and it's important that we look now at how to proceed
beyond Landsat 8, which is scheduled for launch next year. The budget
request excludes funding for Landsat 9 mission development, which is
very concerning to me. How does the United States Geographical Survey
(USGS) envision the program to function beyond Landsat 8, and what
coordination activities are currently underway with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other agencies in
examining how to continue the Landsat missions program and ensure
mission continuity?
Answer. USGS received $2 million in the 2012 omnibus appropriations
bill to support program development activities for Landsat satellites 9
and 10. In fiscal year 2012, these funds are being used to consider
options to obtain, characterize, manage, maintain, and prioritize land
remote sensing data and to support the evaluation of alternatives for a
Landsat 9 mission and other means for acquiring data. The fiscal year
2013 budget request includes $250,000 to continue these efforts.
USGS is working closely with the Landsat user community, the
Department of the Interior, the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy, and NASA to identify and consider all available
options for maintaining the continuity of moderate-resolution land
observation data for the Nation. USGS recently posted a Request for
Information to solicit information and options for providing a
dependable, long-term source for Landsat-like data to follow Landsat 8.
Mission concepts may include revolutionary ``clean-slate'' technical
approaches, as well as evolutionary upgrade approaches. Approaches may
involve single- or multiple-satellite acquisitions, commercial data buy
arrangements, public/private partnerships, hosted payloads,
international collaboration, small satellites, or architectures
utilizing combinations of space-based sensors. USGS is also supporting
a National Research Council study on programmatic and operational
alternatives for establishing a long-term source of Landsat-like data
for the Nation. These efforts include a ``Meeting of Experts'' to
examine the feasibility of new and emerging technology that might be
applicable for sustaining global land observations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson
Question. Secretary Salazar, could you provide an update on the
Platte River Recovery Program?
As you know, Platte River Recovery Implementation is a basin-wide
effort undertaken by the Department of the Interior (DOI) in
partnership with the States of Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming to
provide benefits for endangered and threatened species.
I know you've included $8 million for implementation in your
request which I appreciate.
I was serving as Governor in 1997 when Nebraska entered into the
Cooperative Agreement for Platte River Recovery Implementation. A
little more than a decade later we were able to successfully authorize
implementation as part of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act signed
into law in 2008.
I believe the first increment of the program is to last a bit over
a decade--wrapping up in 2019. What's the Department's assessment so
far? What progress are we making and are we on the right track?
Answer. The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (Program)
continues to be a highly successful collaborative process, and also
continues to receive broad support from water users, environmental and
conservation entities, the States of Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming,
as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR).
The Program has made significant and steady progress during the
first 6 years of the 13-year First Increment. The most recent Program
success has been the completion of the Pathfinder Modification Project,
which was declared substantially complete on January 11, 2012. The
Pathfinder Modification Project raised the spillway at Pathfinder Dam
(a BOR facility) by approximately 2.4 feet in order to recover storage
space in Pathfinder Reservoir which had been lost to sedimentation. The
Pathfinder Modification Project is a contribution to the Program by the
State of Wyoming, and no Federal appropriations were required to modify
the spillway at Pathfinder Dam. The Pathfinder Modification Project's
Environmental Account in Pathfinder Reservoir will provide up to
approximately 34,000 acre-feet (AF) of water for the benefit of the
Program's target species.
The Program will implement the Land Plan in order to protect, and
where appropriate, restore 10,000 acres of habitat by no later than the
end of the First Increment. To date, the Program has acquired an
interest in approximately 9,150 acres of land for habitat purposes,
leaving approximately 850 acres left to acquire by the end of the First
Increment.
The Program will implement water projects under the Water Action
Plan capable of providing at least an average of 50,000 AF per year of
shortage reduction to target flows, or for other Program purposes, by
no later than the end of the First Increment. The Program, through an
agreement with the State of Wyoming, has acquired 4,800 AF of water per
year from the Wyoming Account in Pathfinder Reservoir through the
remainder of the First Increment; however, the Program and the State
are still in the process of determining the final yield of the 4,800 AF
for the benefit of the target species at the associated habitat. The
Program is also currently negotiating a water service agreement with
the State of Nebraska (Nebraska) and the Central Nebraska Public Power
& Irrigation District (CNPPID) to acquire water from the proposed J-2
Project. The J-2 Project, if constructed, could have the ability to
retime approximately 40,000 AF of excess flows for the benefit of the
target species. Under the proposed agreement, the 40,000 AF would be
shared 25 percent (approximately 10,000 AF) for Nebraska and 75 percent
(approximately 30,000 AF) for the Program. This agreement is a vital
aspect of achieving the Program's Milestone of providing at least an
average of 50,000 AF per year of shortage reduction to target flows.
The Program continues to be successful, and many of the Program's
Milestones have been achieved. The implementation of the Program and
the achievement of the Milestones provides measures to help recover the
four target species, which in turn provides critical Endangered Species
Act (ESA) compliance for the continued operation of existing water
projects in the Platte River Basin. The Program also provides ESA
compliance for the development of certain new water projects within the
Platte River Basin.
Due to the amount of land that the Program has acquired an interest
in, it is very likely that the Program will achieve the Land Milestone
of 10,000 acres by the end of the First Increment. The one remaining
major Program Milestone to be achieved by the end of the First
Increment is developing water projects capable of providing at least an
average of 50,000 AF per year of annual shortage reduction to target
flows. Significant funding from DOI will need to be contributed to the
Program over the remaining years of the First Increment for the
development of these water projects, including the aforementioned water
service agreement with Nebraska and CNPPID. Adequate funding in the
future for this project and other water projects will be critical in
order to achieve the Program's Water Milestone by the end of the First
Increment.
Question. I am regularly reminded by Nebraska constituents that
additional wind power development will require new investments in the
transmission system along with more efficient and flexible operation of
the grid. I would appreciate your thoughts on ways the Federal
Government may assist in expanding and improving the transmission
system.
Answer. Transmission remains one of the largest barriers to the
development of renewable energy potential in this country. This
administration is taking steps to improve coordination and streamline
processing of Federal permits through interagency agreements to
expedite and simplify permitting on Federal lands. In addition, in
2009, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the United States Forest
Service (USFS), the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy
issued a final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that
evaluated issues associated with the designation of energy corridors on
Federal lands in 11 Western States. Using this information, the BLM
designated transmission corridors on BLM lands by amending 92 land-use
plans in the Western States. Designation of corridors provides
preferred locations for developers to site major linear facilities
(such as transmission lines) and specifically identifies lands that are
available for that purpose.
BLM will continue to actively coordinate with the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council to ensure their transmission planning
and grid reliability initiatives are in harmony with BLM initiatives
related to land-use planning, designation of utility corridors, policy
development, and timely review and permitting of high-voltage
transmission lines.
BLM's 2009 transmission corridor designations were limited to BLM-
managed lands. BLM manages only 6,354 acres in Nebraska so it was not
practical to designate any corridors in that State.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. I see that inspection fees for offshore oil and gas
facilities are being increased from $62 to $65 million. Will this money
be used to provide more personnel for inspections, in order to relieve
delays? If it is not being used to alleviate delays, what will this
increased fee be directed toward?
Answer. The amount of individual inspection fees has not changed.
The $3 million increase in inspection fee collections is the result of
differences in assumptions about the timing of fee collections, not an
increase in the fees themselves. In fiscal year 2012, inspection fees
were assessed for the inspection of drilling rigs for the first time.
The revenue from monthly drilling rig inspections that occur in the
last quarter of the fiscal year may not be received until the following
fiscal year. In fiscal year 2013, actual receipts will include fees
from inspections in the final quarter of fiscal year 2012 and the
Bureau will therefore receive a full year of inspection fee revenue. It
is also important to remember that these are estimates and that actual
fee collections will vary depending on changes in the number of
applicable Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) operations in a given year.
All fee revenue will be used to address important mission-related
priorities. As required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012,
not less than 50 percent of the inspection fees collected by the bureau
will be used to fund personnel and mission-related costs to expand
capacity and expedite the orderly development, subject to environmental
safeguards, of the OCS pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act, including the review of applications for permits to drill.
Question. With industry still struggling with slow permitting and
delays in the permit submission process, and in light of the
President's stated desire to increase domestic production, what efforts
are you making to fix the problems with the permit process?
Answer. Respectfully, the Department does not agree that the
industry is struggling with slow permitting and delays in the permit
submission process. As of May 4, 2012, the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) approved 128 new shallow water
permits, 412 deepwater permits requiring subsea containment, and 66
deepwater permits not requiring subsea containment.
BSEE has worked very hard to help industry better understand the
permitting requirements and improve the efficiency of the application
process. Among the steps taken to improve the process, BSEE has:
--Held permit processing workshops for industry, including one in
April 2012, which has improved the quality and thoroughness of
applications;
--Published a permit application completeness checklist to make it
clear to industry what information is required, and to reduce
the frequency with which operators submit incomplete
applications;
--Established priorities for reviewing permit applications--assigning
the highest priority to permits for ongoing operations or
emergency operations;
--Begun to balance workloads for its engineers by taking some permit
applications and reassigning them to different districts;
--Allowed authorized users of BSEE's online permit application system
to track the status of their applications, which provides
operators with greater transparency in the permitting process.
As a result of these steps and the industry's increasing
familiarity with the process, permit review times have decreased
significantly in the past year.
Question. In light of the fact that production on public lands and
waters have decreased and with Federal OCS production dropping 441
million barrels in 2011, down from 588 million in 2010. What is being
done to increase the speed at which permits are reviewed and approved?
Would it be wiser to direct more of the money allocated to Bureau of
Energy Management (BOEM) and BSEE to hire more staff to review permit
applications?
Answer. With respect to production from the Federal OCS, the data
you reference is incomplete. Production data is not required to be
submitted by operators until 45 days after the end of the month of
production, so the spreadsheet on BSEE's Web site presenting production
figures as of January 25, 2012, is missing nearly all the production
from December 2011. Furthermore, production is not included in that
spreadsheet until after the reported production volumes are verified,
which can take several months. The final production numbers for 2011
will be substantially higher than the values you reference.
BSEE intends to hire significantly more personnel with the funding
provided by the Congress in fiscal year 2012, including a significant
number dedicated to reviewing permits. The hiring and training process
takes time, and it will be several years before engineers hired this
year are fully trained to evaluate the breadth of issues required as
part of the full permitting process. However, BSEE is committed to
continuously monitoring and improving its permitting process, while
conducting thorough reviews to ensure that all safety requirements are
met. In the meantime, as indicated by the permit information available
on BSEE's Web site, the Bureau is successfully reviewing permit
applications and doing so in a timely fashion.
Question. I see that a fee of $4 per acre is being proposed on
nonproducing, but leased, Federal lands. I am curious why this fee is
being proposed, when it would appear that the greatest impediment to
production on these lands is the slow pace of permitting. What was the
rationale behind this fee?
Answer. The administration believes this legislative proposal will
encourage energy production on lands and waters leased for development.
A $4 per-acre fee on nonproducing Federal leases would provide a
financial incentive for oil and gas companies to either get their
leases into production or relinquish them so that the tracts can be
leased to and developed by new parties. The proposed $4 per-acre fee
would apply to all new leases and would be adjusted for inflation
annually. In October 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
issued a report critical of past efforts by the Department of the
Interior to ensure that companies diligently develop their Federal
leases. This proposal is similar to other nonproducing fee proposals
considered by the Congress in the last several years and this fee is
projected to generate revenues to the U.S. Treasury of $13 million in
2013 and $783 million over 10 years.
WILD HORSES
Question. Mr. Secretary, since passage of the Wild Free- Roaming
Horse and Burro Act of 1971, more than 20 million acres of wild horse
habitat has been removed from Herd Management Areas. At least 5 million
of those acres could be suitable for reintroduction of wild horses.
When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is spending more than $40
million per year on wild horse and burro holding costs and continues to
remove almost twice as many animals as it can reasonably adopt each
year, why hasn't the BLM re-evaluated those 20 million acres and
seriously considered reintroducing horses and burros to those areas?
Answer. No specific amount of acreage was set aside for the
exclusive use of wild horses and burros under the 1971 Wild Free-
Roaming Horses and Burros Act. The Act directed the BLM to determine
the areas where horses and burros were found roaming, and then to
consider managing the animals within the boundaries of those areas. Of
the 22.2 million acres no longer managed for wild horse and burro use,
6.7 million acres were never under BLM management. There are a number
of reasons why the BLM has not considered reintroducing wild horses and
burros to the remaining acres. These reasons include:
--48.6 percent (7,522,100 acres) are intermingled (``checkerboard'')
land ownerships or areas where water was not owned or
controlled by the BLM, which made management of wild horses
infeasible;
--13.5 percent (2,091,709 acres) are lands transferred out of the
BLM's ownership to other agencies, both Federal and State,
through legislation or exchange;
--10.6 percent (1,645,758 acres) are lands where there were
substantial conflicts with other resource values;
--9.7 percent (1,512,179 acres) are lands removed from wild horse and
burro use through court decisions, urban expansion, highway
fencing (causing habitat fragmentation), and land withdrawals;
--9.6 percent (1,485,068 acres) are lands where no BLM animals were
present at the time of the passage of the 1971 Act or places
where all animals were claimed as private property. (These
lands should not have been designated as lands where herds were
found roaming and will be removed from the totals in future
land use plans.); and
--8 percent (1,240,894 acres) are lands where a critical habitat
component (such as winter range) was missing, making the land
unsuitable for wild horse and burro use, or areas that had too
few animals to allow for effective management.
Question. Equine geneticists have concluded that a minimum wild
horse herd size to sustain genetic viability is 150-200 adult animals.
Most wild horse herds are less than this minimum level. The BLM budget
request includes an additional $2 million with your stated goal of
maintaining herd health. Can you provide more information about how BLM
intends to address herd health and viability considering herd
populations are lower than recommended by experts?
Answer. The proposed number of animals (150-200) in a genetically
viable wild horse herd is a size that is estimated by some to minimize
genetic loss. Genetic diversity is lost through time in any isolated
population of animals, but is slower in larger populations.
Although some of the herds on BLM lands are smaller than this
recommended size, there are other factors that make these herds
genetically viable. Herds that are associated with or border other
herds experience the exchange of genetic material. Many BLM herds fall
into this category. A small amount of exchange (through a few
individuals) can have a large impact on overall genetic diversity. The
exchange of individuals through management intervention is also
possible should the need arise.
During gather operations, the BLM frequently collects hair samples
from individuals in a herd for genetic testing. The geneticist who does
the testing provides BLM with a report evaluating the level of genetic
diversity and recommending actions that BLM should take, if any,
including when additional genetic monitoring should be conducted. For
instance, should a herd genetics report indicate low genetic diversity,
the BLM can adjust the herd composition by removing and relocating some
of the brothers and/or sisters (genetic redundancy likely to cause
genetic malformities) to keep them from breeding. Depending on herd
population size relevant to appropriate management level within the
herd management area, the BLM may also bring in horses with other
genetics from similar herds.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE--BACKGROUND
Question. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission recently denied
plans for a 48 turbine wind farm because of concerns about the impact
on birds, bats, and bald eagles. According to the American Bird
Conservancy, this project was the first ever wind farm project to apply
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for a ``taking'' permit for
bald eagles. Thankfully, there is growing awareness that wind turbines
kill not just migratory birds and bats, but also bald eagles.
If the Department moves forward with plans to allow construction of
wind farms on public land, how do you plan to address this problem?
Answer. FWS has promulgated a regulation at 50 CFR 22.26 (the Eagle
Take Regulation) under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act that
authorizes issuance of programmatic eagle take permits to
unintentionally take golden eagles, bald eagles, or both, at sites such
as wind facilities. However, the permits will be issued only if FWS
determines that any take is compatible with the preservation standard
for eagles set in the Act by Congress.
FWS established an approach to ensure that permitted take meets the
preservation standard in our National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
analysis for the Eagle Take Rule. Further, FWS has developed Eagle
Conservation Plan Guidance that provides recommendations for wind
developers on how to reduce impacts to eagles by using robust survey
techniques to select project sites, establishing appropriate monitoring
of eagle use areas, employing adaptive management measures, and if
necessary, offsetting impacts to eagles through compensatory
mitigation. FWS believes that using the Guidance and working with the
Service will reduce likely eagle take by wind energy projects to levels
compatible with the preservation standard for eagles set in the Act by
Congress.
Additionally, FWS is developing training on how to evaluate wind
projects in light of FWS guidance and regulations. The training will
initially be targeted at Service staff, but the FWS plans to expand the
training and make it available to industry in the near future. The
draft training outline was provided to private stakeholders for comment
in an effort to ensure it will meet industry's needs.
Question. Will wind farm projects be expected to apply for a permit
to kill bald eagles?
Answer. Take of a bald eagle or a golden eagle without a permit is
a violation of the Act. FWS's Guidance relative to Eagle Take Permits
applies to both species. The Guidance encourages a wind project
developer at a site at which take of bald eagles is predicted to seek
an Eagle Take Permit.
Question. Will wind farm projects be required to submit mitigation
plans to make up for the killing of bald eagles?
Answer. Any wind energy facility that receives a permit from FWS
will be required to work through the mitigation hierarchy as defined
under the FWS's Mitigation Policy. Avoidance and minimization are the
essential components of the Mitigation Policy, while compensatory
mitigation may be appropriate if avoidance and minimization cannot
reduce take to acceptable levels. In order to qualify for a permit, the
new regulations require applicants to demonstrate that they have
avoided and minimized take of eagles to the maximum degree achievable.
In many areas of the country, FWS has determined that some take of bald
eagles can be authorized without risk of violating the preservation
standard set by the Congress. In these locations, additional
compensatory mitigation for take is not mandatory, but in other
locations compensatory mitigation may be required to qualify for an
eagle take permit.
Question. What about other species that might be endangered or
threatened?
Answer. Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act prohibits the take
(which includes killing) of endangered wildlife and that prohibition is
generally extended by regulation to threatened wildlife. Wind farm
projects that are expected to take listed wildlife species would
therefore need to receive an authorization to take listed species.
Information regarding these procedures may be found in Appendix 5
``Procedures for Endangered Species Evaluations and Consultations'' in
the 2003 ``Service Interim Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife
Impacts from Wind Turbines.''
Additional information regarding Consultations and Habitat
Conservation Plans may be accessed at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
what-we-do/consultations-overview.html and http://www.fws.gov/
endangered/what-we-do/hcp-overview.html respectively.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE--BACKGROUND
Question. Tennessee is home to two very important mitigation fish
hatcheries, the Erwin National Fish Hatchery in Erwin, Tennessee and
the Dale Hollow National Fish Hatchery in Celina, Tennessee. The Erwin
hatchery provides eggs for hatcheries all across the country, and the
Dale Hollow hatchery produces 60 percent of all the trout stocked in
Tennessee.
The Department's fiscal year 2013 budget request proposes to cut
$3.2 million from the mitigation hatcheries, and Ed Carter, director of
the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, has said that if these
hatcheries close the impact on Tennessee will be devastating.
Will the Department work with the Corps of Engineers (COE) and
other Federal agencies to continue to fund mitigation hatcheries and
ensure that these critical hatcheries will not be closed until a
funding solution is in place?
Has the Department considered the economic benefits of maintaining
the fish hatcheries?
Answer. FWS's mission-driven priority is to protect and restore
native fish species and habitat. At a time when budgets are tight and
available resources limited, we need to focus our resources on these
high-priority outcomes. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget
proposal would move nonreimbursed mitigation activities toward a user-
pay system, similar to the President's fiscal year 2012 budget
proposal. This approach puts all of the mitigation hatcheries on the
same footing, and represents a more efficient use of Federal funds.
Federal water development agencies are the appropriate entities for
mitigating the adverse effects of the projects they operate and the
impact of those projects on recreational fisheries. The Department is
aware of the significant economic benefits of fish hatcheries and will
continue to work with COE, the Tennessee Valley Authority and other
Federal agencies to receive full reimbursement for mitigation
activities. We understand that the fish supplied by these hatcheries
provide important economic opportunities to States and recreational
community, and we support the continuation of mitigation work. Our goal
is to keep our mitigation fish hatcheries open, and to continue to
provide fish as we have in the past in the most efficient and effective
way possible. However, the Service's policy is to move toward a user-
pay system.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY--DISASTER PREPAREDNESS--BACKGROUND
Question. Tennessee experienced record flooding in Nashville and
middle Tennessee in May 2010 and in Memphis and west Tennessee in 2011.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) played a critical role in these
flooding events, and it is welcome news that the Department is
requesting increased funding for USGS to prepare for future disasters.
USGS has doubled the number of monitoring stations in the Nashville
area, and is working closely with local government and other Federal
agencies to ensure the right information gets to emergency managers as
quickly as possible. Other communities in Tennessee, including
Chattanooga and Memphis, hope to work with USGS to improve their flood
management as well.
Question. Could you tell us how the Department plans to use the
additional funds?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 proposed budget for the National
Streamflow Information Program (NSIP) provides funds to be invested in
activities that will help protect life and property from hydrologic
hazards, including flooding. These activities include developing and
producing streamgages that can be rapidly, but temporarily, deployed to
locations that are currently or forecast to be in flood or drought
conditions to provide streamflow information over a broader area. This
information would be used by forecasters, flood-management agencies,
and first responders, who must make decisions regarding flood-fighting
and evacuation, and would provide a better understanding of hydrologic
extremes. The fiscal year 2013 proposed budget also provides for
activities related to producing flood inundation maps. These maps show
the extent and depth of flood waters for streams at USGS streamgages
that serve as National Weather Service flood-forecast locations. The
maps will assist home owners, business owners, and first responders to
anticipate and respond to flooding. Since the recent flooding in the
Nashville area, the USGS has been involved in a cooperatively funded
pilot project that developed more than 1,000 flood inundation maps for
that community.
Question. Will funds be available for additional monitoring
stations?
Answer. The proposed NSIP budget for 2013 provides funds for
ecosystem restoration activities in the upper Mississippi and Columbia
River basins that likely will include providing streamflow information
for use in the design and implementation of techniques and processes to
restore ecosystems to more natural conditions.
In addition to these activities the 2013 request includes funding
for the operation and maintenance of about 100 streamgages, which are
part of the Federal backbone needed for flood forecasting. Many
streamgages are currently funded through the Cooperative Water Program
(CWP). Reductions in the budget of the CWP could lead to a net loss of
270 to 300 streamgages nationwide. Proposed funding increases in the
budget for NSIP will help to bring more stable funding to those 100
streamgages.
Question. What steps will the Department be taking to address
earthquake hazards along the New Madrid fault, which impacts Memphis
and west Tennessee?
Answer. USGS supports a seismographic network in the New Madrid
seismic zone in cooperation with the University of Memphis and Saint
Louis University. The location, depth, time, and felt area of all
earthquakes in the region above approximately magnitude 1.7 are
automatically posted to a public USGS Web site in near real time. The
USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps depict the regional elevated hazard
in the region. More detailed earthquake hazard maps are currently
available for the urban areas of Memphis, Tennessee, and Evansville,
Indiana and a map of the St. Louis metropolitan area is nearing
completion. These maps show the amplification of seismic shaking caused
by local geologic deposits. Data from a network of geodetic stations
supported by the USGS shows that there is small but significant slow
ground deformation in the region capable of producing damaging
earthquakes.
OIL AND GAS LEASE REVENUES--BACKGROUND
Question. In 2011, the Department generated $11.3 billion from
energy production on Federal lands--a $2 billion increase more than
2010. Since 2008 oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf has
increased by 30 percent. Despite this progress, gas prices are on the
rise and domestic production is not keeping up.
What steps are being taken to expand oil and gas leases on public
land?
What impact will the Department's proposal to impose new inspection
fees and raise other collection fees have on oil and gas production?
Answer. Facilitating the efficient, responsible development of
domestic oil and gas resources is part of the administration's broad
energy strategy that will protect consumers and help reduce our
dependence on foreign oil. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is
working on a variety of fronts to ensure that development is done
efficiently and responsibly including implementing leasing reforms;
increasing leasing opportunities in the National Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska (NPR-A); adopting new processes to process drilling permits more
quickly; and improving inspection, enforcement, and production
accountability. BLM can only speculate as to why the operators have not
produced more on Federal Lands. Oil and gas drilling and development
are market-driven activities, and the demand for leases is a function
of market conditions. Market drivers include prevailing and anticipated
oil and gas prices, bidder assessments of the quality of the resource
base in a given area, the availability/proximity of necessary
infrastructure, and the proximity of the lease to local, regional, and
national markets and export hubs. The shale formations that currently
have high industry interest for development, such as North Dakota's
Bakken shale, Texas's Eagle Ford shale, and the Marcellus and Utica
shales of the Eastern United States, are primarily in areas with a high
proportion of non-Federal land. These areas have seen increased
development recently due to a favorable mix of the factors noted above.
As drilling priorities shift due to changes in technology or markets,
an operator may choose different areas for development. Further, BLM
lands are primarily gas-prone. Recent national rig counts (by Baker
Hughes) indicate that rigs drilling for gas are at an ``all-time low''
(by percentage) and the gas is selling at ``a record discount to
crude.'' (Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2012).
Approximately 38 million acres of Federal land are leased for oil
and gas development. Not all leases have equal production potential,
and not all leases have optimal transmission capacity where the oil or
gas is being extracted. Approximately 12 million acres are producing
oil and gas, and active exploration is occurring on an additional 4
million acres. We are encouraged by increasing production on Federal
leases. BLM, specifically, has approved approximately 7,000
applications for permit to drill that are not being used by industry.
The proposed new inspection and enforcement fee is consistent with
the principle that users of the public lands should pay for the cost of
both authorizing and oversight activities. These fees are similar to
fees now charged for offshore inspections, and to numerous cost-
recovery fees charged for other uses of Federal lands and resources.
WHITE NOSE SYNDROME--BACKGROUND
Question. In May 2011, FWS unveiled a national plan to address the
growing threat posed by white-nose syndrome (WNS), which has killed
more than 5 million bats since it was discovered in 2006. Since then,
the fungus has spread throughout the bat population and is now reported
in 18 States and Canada, including Tennessee. In 2010, Austin Peay
State University's Center of Excellence for Field Biology was tasked by
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to monitor WNS at Land Between the
Lakes, and the Center is currently engaged in a number of research
efforts to combat this disease.
The Department has invested millions to support monitoring,
research, and the development of protocols to reduce transmission.
However, most of this funding has been targeted for northeastern States
where the WNS was first discovered, but funding is not making it to the
States and universities in the South, where WNS is rapidly expanding.
Question. What is the Department doing to help wildlife researchers
in States like Tennessee to reduce the spread of WNS?
Answer. WNS is a disease associated with massive bat mortality in
the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic United States. Affected hibernating
bats often have white fungal growth on their muzzles, ears, and/or wing
membranes as the result of infection by a newly described species of
fungus (Geomyces destructans), which causes skin erosions and ulcers
and can invade underlying connective tissue. There is no clear
indication of any natural resistance to WNS in the affected bat
populations.
Since first observed at four bat hibernacula (hibernation areas) in
New York in winter 2006-2007, WNS has been detected in 16 States and
four Canadian Provinces. The most recent surveys of hibernacula near
the epicenter of the outbreak show that since 2007, mortality is
approaching 100 percent at some sites. Six cave-hibernating bat
species, including four federally listed species, are directly affected
or at risk from WNS. The fungus causing WNS is responsible for the
death of more than 6 million bats.
During the winter of 2011-2012, USGS conducted video-monitoring of
bats in caves and mines in New York and Tennessee to test whether
fungal skin infection triggers unsustainable energy-consuming behaviors
during hibernation. USGS is working with USFS to conduct detailed
characterizations of fungi associated with bat hibernation sites to
better understand the microbial ecology of WNS.
For fiscal year 2012, USGS has allocated $692,882 for WNS research
studies. Modeling software is being developed by USGS that will help
forecast the consequences of alternative actions for the persistence
and recovery of bats. The USGS fiscal year 2013 budget includes a $1
million increase that would be used to enhance surveillance and
diagnostic capability to detect the continued spread of WNS; bolster
research on environmental factors controlling persistence of the fungus
in the environment; develop management tools, particularly the
development of a vaccine; and conduct research on mechanisms by which
WNS causes mortality in bats, focused on immunology and pathogenesis.
In fiscal year 2012, the Congress directed FWS to spend $4 million
from endangered species recovery funding to combat WNS. FWS has
proposed to reprogram $625,000 of this funding to other critical
endangered species recovery actions, and to utilize funding from the
State and Tribal Wildlife grant program and from the National Wildlife
Refuge program for WNS. Under this proposal FWS will dedicate a minimum
of $4,855,000 for WNS efforts in 2012. The fiscal year 2013 FWS budget
includes $1.9 million (not including any competitive grants that may be
awarded) for work on WNS, including $995,470 to continue funding WNS
coordinator positions, and $901,530 to fund critical WNS research.
WNS continues to spread and is projected to appear in the highly
dense and diverse bat populations in additional Southern and Midwestern
States in the very near future. Predictions for spread to western
States and the affect of WNS on bats there is less certain.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE--MAINTENANCE BACKLOG--BACKGROUND
Question. The National Park Service (NPS) budget request for fiscal
year 2013 is $2.6 billion, $1 million less than the fiscal year 2012
enacted level. Within this amount, the Department seeks to increase
park operations funding by $13.5 million, but proposes to reduce line
item construction funding by $25.3 million and funding for National
Heritage Areas program by $7.8 million.
Question. National parks are already underfunded by $600 million
each year. What progress is being made to address this issue?
Answer. NPS does not quantify shortfalls in park operations.
Funding for the main operating account of the NPS has stayed fairly
level in nominal dollars since 2010, but there have been unavoidable
cost increases in recent years due to inflation, rise in nonpersonnel
fixed costs, and the added responsibility for five new parks. NPS is
focusing funding on programs that are most central to the NPS mission,
implementing management efficiencies, and undertaking administrative
cost savings to optimize the use of appropriated dollars.
Question. What is being done to address the deferred maintenance
backlog and how long can we continue to ignore the problems facing our
national parks?
Answer. The current backlog of deferred maintenance (DM) associated
with NPS constructed asset components considered critical to their
function, such as roofs, foundations, road surfaces, etc., is
approximately $4.1 billion. The fiscal year 2013 budget request
maintains funding for operational DM at fiscal year 2012 levels. The
request includes $71 million for the highest-priority DM repair and
rehabilitation projects and $96.4 million to prevent additions to the
DM backlog through cyclic maintenance projects. The line-item
construction proposal funds the highest-priority construction projects
to address critical life safety, resource protection, and emergency
needs and does not add any new assets to the NPS asset portfolio. These
projects address long-standing DM needs.
FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON OUTDOOR RECREATION--BACKGROUND
Question. According to Tennessee's Commissioner of Tourism, Susan
Whitaker, tourism has a $13 billion impact on Tennessee. Tourism
supports a lot of jobs in Tennessee, and since the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park is our Nation's most visited national park, the
new Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation is welcome news.
It is very encouraging to see the Department of the Interior
working with the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture to boost
tourism and outdoor recreation, but one of the biggest challenges our
international visitors face is getting a visa. If it takes months to
get a visa to come to the United States and only 1 week to get a visa
to go somewhere else, people will go somewhere else.
Is the Department working with the State Department to decrease the
amount of time international visitors have to wait before they can come
visit our national parks?
Answer. In the same Executive order that established the Task Force
on Travel and Competitiveness (which is co-chaired by the Secretary of
the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce), the President directed the
Department of State in conjunction with other agencies and White House
offices to take actions to enhance and expedite travel to and arrival
in the United States by foreign nationals, consistent with national
security requirements.
The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) is the flagship of our national
tourism strategy. More than 60 percent of all travelers to the United
States come under the VWP, generating more than $60 billion in annual
tourism revenue and representing about 60 percent of all tourism-
related expenditures in the United States from overseas travelers.
While VWP remains the largest travel facilitation program, the Obama
administration is also committed to easing travel for the approximately
35 percent of international travelers who currently require visas and
border crossing cards to enter the United States. Building on the
progress made over the past several years and in response to the
President's Executive order, the Obama administration is facilitating
legitimate travel to America while maintaining security by:
Tracking the Increasing Arrivals.--The Department of Homeland
Security continues to monitor the number of arriving travelers.
Comparing the first 6 months of fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year
2011, arrivals of travelers using VWP have increased by 8
percent and arrivals of travelers from China and Brazil have
increased by 33 percent and 18 percent, respectively. Total
nonimmigrant admissions, travelers not including U.S. citizens
and returning residents, have increased by 4.5 percent.
Shortening Visa Interview Wait Times.--Around the world, wait
times for visa interviews are generally short, and have dropped
dramatically in some of the busiest travel markets where demand
for visas has increased. Now, travelers wait just 2 days for an
appointment at United States consulates in China, 2 weeks or
less in Brasilia, Recife, and Rio de Janeiro, and 35 days or
less in Sao Paulo. In anticipation of the summer travel season,
the Department of State is adding staff and streamlining its
operations to continue to reduce wait times.
Streamlining the Visa Process.--Tens of thousands of travelers
want to visit the United States, and a new pilot program is now
underway to streamline processing will help facilitate the
demand by freeing up more interview slots for first-time
applicants. Consular officers may waive in-person interviews
for certain low-risk, qualified individuals, such as those
renewing their visas within 48 months of the expiration of
their previous visas. Consular officers may also waive
interviews for Brazilian applicants younger than the age of 16
and age 66 and older, but retain the authority to interview any
applicant in any category if security or other concerns are
present.
Building Capacity in China and Brazil To Meet Demand.--The
Department of State is doubling the number of diplomats
performing consular work in China and Brazil over the next year
and is investing approximately $40 million in 2012 on existing
facilities in Brazil and $18 million in China--adding interview
windows, expanding consular office space, and improving waiting
areas. On April 9, President Obama announced that the United
States will establish consulates in Belo Horizonte and Porto
Alegre, Brazil, while major expansion projects are underway in
China.
Increasing Consular Staffing and Implementing Innovative Hiring
Programs.--To address immediate growth in demand, the
Department of State is sending consular officers from all over
the world to Brazil and China to adjudicate visa applications.
The Department of State is doubling the number of diplomats
performing consular work in China and Brazil over the next
year, to ensure that the United States can continue to offer
timely visa services to qualified applicants. Similarly, the
first group of newly hired consular adjudicators recently
arrived at United States consulates in Brazil and China. These
adjudicators were hired under a landmark program targeting
recruits who already speak Portuguese or Mandarin.
Additionally, Interior agencies have made it easier for more
partners to become third-party vendors of the ``America the Beautiful''
$80 pass which provides visitor access, including international
visitors, to hundreds of public lands destinations nationwide. They are
actively reaching out and encouraging partners to both sell the pass
online, at trade shows, and in other tourism venues as well as to
develop promotions for buying and using the pass. The goal is to
increase sales to both Americans and international visitors, who will
then have an incentive to visit more destinations and lesser known
locations, and to extend their stays.
Question. How has COE worked with the Department to support the
outdoor recreation initiatives promoted by the interagency council?
Answer. Through the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, seven
agencies were identified for inclusion in the Federal Interagency
Council on Outdoor Recreation including:
--COE;
--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Commerce);
--USFS (Agriculture);
--NPS;
--FWS;
--Bureau of Reclamation; and
--BLM (Interior) to coordinate Federal land and water recreation
management efforts.
The Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation (FICOR) has
worked closely with existing Federal Advisory Committee Act bodies that
support recreational activities, including the Wildlife and Hunting
Heritage Conservation Council, the 21st Century Conservation Service
Corps Committee, the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, the
First Lady's Let's Move! Initiative, and the President's Council on
Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition to promote better integration and
coordination among the Federal agencies in support of providing outdoor
recreation opportunities for Americans. FICOR has identified two high-
priority actions, including support for the National Travel and Tourism
Strategy to promote domestic and international tourism on Federal lands
and waters, and enhancements to the Federal Interagency Recreation Web
site--recreation.gov.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. States have complained that the length of the Coastal
Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) grant approval process is too long and
cumbersome. For years I have relayed the frustration Mississippi
coastal communities have experienced with this program. Last year, the
administration transferred management to the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) stating that this would lead to a more efficient process and
expeditious delivery of funds. Can you please provide details on the
progress being made in addressing these concerns?
Answer. To address these concerns, FWS began meeting with all of
the affected States starting in May 2011, to discuss the issues and
develop a transition plan to minimize the impact on States and Coastal
Political Subdivision (CPS) operations. As a result of these
discussions, on October 1, 2011, FWS began to encourage submission of
CIAP applications and the obligation of funds. We centralized the grant
administration into the Washington office and hired and trained a
professional grants management team to review and award grants.
Additionally, we have added a technical guidance function in each of
the States to provide a State liaison to work closely with the
recipients of CIAP funds. Five of the six States presently have a State
liaison, with the sixth in the process of being hired. The State
liaisons in the four gulf States are co-located with State staffs. In
California and Alaska, the liaisons are located in local FWS offices in
Sacramento and Anchorage, respectively, to encourage communication and
expeditious handling of technical questions on planning and proposed
project issues. The Washington office staff is responsible for the
technical review, including programmatic and financial aspects that are
integral to the grant award process. The State liaisons are working
with the recipients in the pre-award phase to guide the planning
process, develop project proposals and to help improve the quality of
initial grant application submissions to alleviate the time consuming
process of supplemental information requests during review.
In addition, we have held a national webinar and two national
teleconferences with CIAP applicants. We have completed a CIAP training
session in Alaska and are in the process of scheduling training
workshops for States and CPSs for better CIAP grants management. We
expect to hold these workshops April through August 2012 in the
eligible States.
Question. It is my understanding that the Department of the
Interior has changed the definition of ``obligated funds'' under CIAP.
Why?
Answer. The Department has not changed the definition of obligated
funds.
Question. The administration has been quick to highlight increased
levels of domestic oil and gas production. How much of this is
attributed to production increases on State and private lands as
opposed to Federal lands?
Answer. The Department of the Interior does not administer oil and
gas from State and private lands. However, as reported by the U.S.
Energy Information Administration in its March 2012 report ``Sales of
Fossil Fuels Produced from Federal and Indian Lands, Fiscal Year 2003
Through Fiscal Year 2011'',production of oil from onshore Federal lands
in fiscal year 2011 was 112 million barrels, an increase more than the
108 million barrels produced in fiscal year 2010. Natural gas
production from Federal lands in fiscal year 2011 was 2,955 billion
cubic feet, nearly level with the 3,068 billion cubic feet produced in
fiscal year 2010. Average oil production from Federal lands from fiscal
year 2005 through fiscal year 2008 was 103 million barrels. Average oil
production increased from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2011 to
108 million barrels. Average gas production from Federal lands from
fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008 was 2,892 billion cubic feet.
Average gas production, too, increased from fiscal year 2009 through
fiscal year 2011 to 3,064 billion cubic feet.
Question. The President has called for an ``all-of-the-above''
approach to addressing our Nation's energy challenges, and while I have
always supported energy diversification, it seems to me that this
budget and the proposed offshore oil and gas leasing plan for 2012 to
2017 does not reflect that. Can you speak to what the Department is
doing to explore and develop new energy resources, in the Gulf of
Mexico specifically, that could lower gas prices and strengthen our
energy security?
Answer. When President Obama took office, the United States
imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. The President has put forward
a plan to cut that by one-third by 2025. The administration is taking a
series of steps to execute the Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, a
broad effort to protect consumers by producing more oil and gas at home
and reducing our dependence on conventional energy resources by using
cleaner, alternative fuels and improving our energy efficiency. The
Blueprint is a plan that calls for an ``all-of-the-above'' approach.
The administration is moving ahead with a comprehensive energy plan for
the country that is enhancing our energy security, creating jobs, and
improving protections for the environment. In 2011, American oil
production reached its highest level since 2003, and total U.S. natural
gas production reached an all-time high.
The Department of the Interior plays an important role in advancing
domestic production. Last November, I announced a proposed Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017 that
would make areas containing more than 75 percent of undiscovered
technically recoverable oil and gas resources estimated in Federal
offshore areas available for exploration and development. The proposed
program focuses on six offshore areas where there are currently active
leases and/or exploration, and where there is known or anticipated
hydrocarbon potential. Three of the six areas are in the Gulf of
Mexico, which is and will remain one of the cornerstones of America's
energy portfolio and is central to our country's energy security. The
gulf, in particular the deepwater areas, already has several world
class producing basins and there have been a number of significant new
discoveries in the last year. We estimate that the Central Gulf of
Mexico holds more than 30 billion barrels of oil and 133.9 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas yet to be discovered. This is nearly double
the estimated technically recoverable resource potential of the Chukchi
Sea. The Western Gulf of Mexico is just behind the Chukchi with more
than 12 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and nearly 70
trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas.
We have been providing incentives to spur efficient oil and gas
development where possible using administrative action. Offshore,
existing authorities make it possible to shorten the base term of
leases, where appropriate, and reward diligent development efforts with
lease extensions, providing industry with an incentive to develop its
existing leases. The proposed 2012-2017 lease sales in the Gulf of
Mexico consider offering all the unleased available acreage, including
the small portion of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area that is
not under congressional moratorium pursuant to the Gulf of Mexico
Energy Security Act of 2006.
Moving ahead with the ``all-of-the-above'' strategy will reduce
dependence on foreign oil, thereby enhancing energy security and
helping us as we transition to a cleaner energy future. However, it
will not have a direct impact on the price of gasoline, which is
overwhelmingly dictated by the global price of crude oil. There are
other actions that the administration has taken that can have longer-
term impacts on the demand for gasoline, which is why the President set
an ambitious goal that by 2015 we would have 1 million electric
vehicles on the road, becoming the world's leader in advance vehicle
technologies. To help reach this goal, the President is proposing bold
steps to improve the efficiency of all modes of transportation and to
develop alternative fuels. The administration continues to push forward
on fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. The President has
proposed to speed the adoption of electric vehicles with new, more
effective tax credits for consumers and support for communities that
create an environment for widespread adoption of these advanced
vehicles in the near term. These actions are already helping to lower
transportation costs by reducing dependence on oil, provide more
transportation choices to the American people, and revitalize the U.S.
manufacturing sector.
Question. I am curious to know if the Historic Preservation Fund
contains any public-private partnership opportunities to fund bricks
and mortar projects, previously carried out by grants from Save
America's Treasures program?
Answer. Development (bricks and mortar) projects are an eligible
activity under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). State and
Tribal Historic Preservation Offices may choose to use their annual
Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) grants to fund development activities
at National Register listed properties. Additionally, the NHPA requires
that States direct 10 percent of their annual HPF allotment to
Certified Local Governments (CLGs). Each State sets the parameters of
the types of projects CLGs can complete with this funding, and may
choose to allow CLGs to fund development projects.
Most States and tribes, however, currently use the majority of
their HPF grant funds to carry out nondiscretionary activities mandated
by the NHPA, including consultation with Federal agencies on the impact
of Federal undertakings (section 106 compliance), survey and inventory
of historic properties, listing properties in the National Register,
and administering CLGs. After this work has been completed, little
funding generally remains to complete development projects. Similarly,
few States currently choose to include development projects as an
eligible project type for CLGs subgrants, because the amount each State
distributes to CLGs is small. The average CLG subgrant in fiscal year
2011 was $2,600. The projects CLGs complete generally include survey of
historic properties, National Register listings, and educational
resources.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Reed. With that, again, thank you, and the hearing
is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., Wednesday, February 29, the
hearing was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Reed, Tester, and Murkowski.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT V. ABBEY, DIRECTOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Let me call the hearing to order. Good
morning. I want to welcome our witnesses to the subcommittee's
oversight hearing on Federal offshore and onshore energy
development programs within the Department of the Interior.
On behalf of the members of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Subcommittee, I'd like to welcome our panel
and thank everyone for joining us here today.
Now, before us, we have the Honorable Robert V. Abbey,
who's the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); the
Honorable Tommy P. Beaudreau, Director of the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management (BOEM); and the Honorable James Watson,
Director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
(BSEE). Gentlemen, thank you.
Director Beaudreau and Director Watson, this is your first
hearing before the subcommittee as heads of these two new
bureaus which were created in October of last year, so we
wanted to offer a special welcome to both of you.
As many of you know, the subcommittee was fortunate to have
the opportunity to discuss many aspects of energy development
when Secretary Salazar appeared before us 2 weeks ago. In
particular, I'm especially grateful that we had the opportunity
to discuss with him the potential for offshore wind development
to create new manufacturing and assembly jobs and to generate
renewable energy in my home State of Rhode Island and in other
States.
However, and I know that many of my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle will agree, there is much more to discuss
about energy policy, which is why we've convened this hearing
today.
Making sure that the right resources and policies are in
place and that safe and responsible energy development on
public lands is a significant part of this subcommittee's
jurisdiction. The three agencies that we have before this
subcommittee today all play a huge role in ensuring the success
of the President's energy strategy by overseeing both
conventional and renewable energy development on Federal lands
and in our Federal waters.
We must ensure that these three agencies have the right
resources with staffing in place to perform their permanent
inspections and enforce their duties. That is why I think it's
important to start with an overview of where these agencies are
in terms of their fiscal year 2013 budget requests.
For the offshore perspective, the budget proposed a large
increase to BSEE for a total of $222.2 million. That's a 13-
percent increase or $24.8 million more than fiscal year 2012
funding levels.
The President's request also continues the inspection fee
program that the Congress established last year and proposes to
collect $65 million in inspection fees from drilling operations
to offset the appropriations request.
The budget request also includes a total program level for
BOEM of $164.1 million. That's a $3 million increase more than
the fiscal year 2012 levels, or approximately 2 percent.
Finally, the budget includes a program level of $173.4
million for BLM energy program. That's a $33 million increase
more than the fiscal year 2012 level or approximately 23
percent.
The budget request also includes a new $48 million
inspection fee program similar to the one we enacted last year
for BSEE that will offset the appropriations request. I'm
anxious to hear from Director Abbey how these fees would be
used to strengthen energy development on BLM lands.
We're also going to take a look this morning at the
progress that's being made to better process offshore and
onshore permits and efforts that these agencies have made to
recruit, hire and train new petroleum engineers and inspection
personnel.
Since the Deepwater Horizon incident less than 2 years ago,
major reforms have been made to the way the Interior Department
oversees the planning, leasing, and permitting processes for
offshore energy development. I understand that concerns are
being raised about whether the administration is acting quickly
enough to exploit our offshore energy reserves.
It is also important to note that lease sales are underway
and permits have in fact been approved since the incident
including a total of 325 deepwater drilling permits and an
additional 116 shallow water drilling permits approved in the
Gulf of Mexico as of Monday, March 12.
As we move ahead, I think the administration must strike
the proper balance between the speed of processing and ensuring
that industry is drilling responsibly and safely especially in
the context of the largest oil spill in our Nation's history
which we saw with the Deepwater Horizon incident.
The same can also be said for making sure that we are
addressing onshore energy development in a thoughtful and
environmentally sensitive manner. I look forward to discussing
efforts to improve the BLM inspection process, particularly
related to the steep rise in the use of hydraulic fracking on
public lands.
Now, before we hear from our panel, I'd like to recognize
Ranking Member, Senator Murkowski, and other colleagues if
they'd like to speak.
Senator Reed. Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
our witnesses. I appreciate all that each of you do. It was
nice to visit with you, Director Beaudreau. It's always nice to
have an Alaskan at the helm. You clearly understand what we're
faced with so on many of these issues. But, again, welcome to
each of you.
As Americans face steeply rising energy costs, it's
important that this subcommittee ensure that the agencies that
sit before us today have the resources that they need and the
right policies are in place to maximize domestic production
from our Federal lands in an environmentally responsible
manner.
Now, a number of new authorities were included in last
year's Interior bill that I hope will give your agencies the
tools necessary to improve the pace of permitting and increase
our domestic production.
For example, new fees on offshore operators were authorized
and 50 percent of these collections must be used to expand
capacity and expedite the development of the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS). Authority was also given to pay higher salaries
for certain critical job positions in order to address the
problems with hiring sufficient numbers of key personnel to
review the exploration plans and the process permits in a
timely fashion, as the chairman has mentioned.
Finally, the responsibility for reviewing air quality
issues in the Arctic OCS was transferred from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to BOEM to deal with egregious
permitting delays, almost 6 years in one case. I'd like to hear
from all of you today about how these new authorities are being
utilized, and whether you believe that you've got the tools
that you need to improve the pace of permitting and increase
production both on and offshore.
Improving the Department's performance is particularly
important to me in light of recent Department of the Interior
reports that indicate that while overall production
domestically is at an all-time high, but it's not necessarily
the case on Federal lands and waters.
ENE News recently reported the production of natural gas
declined by 11 percent in fiscal year 2011 and oil production
declined by 14 percent. A significant portion of this is
clearly the result of the moratorium that was put in place in
the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon.
So I would like to explore with you today what the current
pace of permitting is in the gulf; how many drilling rigs are
operating; whether the improvements have been made to improve
and accelerate the approval of exploration plans and drilling
permits.
I think there is a difference of opinion out there between
the Department and the industry on whether or not things are
improving. So I would like to hear your perspective on that.
The discrepancy between production on State and private
lands versus Federal lands also concerns me as I look at the
new policies that are proposed in the fiscal year 2013 budget
that will make leasing on Federal lands less competitive.
When companies have the option of oil exploration on large
new reserves on State and private lands, whether it's North
Dakota or Texas, or for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale, I
question the wisdom of proposals to increase Federal onshore
royalty rates and put in place new inspection and drilling
fees, and charge a fee on the so-called nonproducing leases.
It seems to me that this is just taking us in a direction
that will make our Federal lands less competitive, and we may
see a continued trend of more investment fleeing to the
stateside into the private lands or possibly even to other
countries.
Again, I thank the witnesses for joining us and for the
work that they do within their respective agencies and look
forward to the questions.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. I just have to
point something out. Mr. Beaudreau is from Alaska, but his
father is from Woonsocket, Rhode Island. So that is either the
shrewdest appointment ever made----
Senator Murkowski. Way to go. Phenomenal.
Senator Reed [continuing]. Or the luckiest appointment ever
made, and only time will tell.
Senator Murkowski. I'm sure he also has ties to Montana.
Senator Reed. If not, he's bought a cabin there. Senator
Tester, do you have any comments?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER
Senator Tester. I would. Thank you, Chairman Reed, and
Ranking Member Murkowski for holding this hearing today, and I
want to welcome Mr. Abbey, Mr. Beaudreau, and Mr. Watson to the
hearing this morning.
I want to say just a few quick words about the fiscal year
2013 Department of the Interior budget. First, there's been a
lot of talk about oil and gas leasing and development in the
United States and the need to expand the developments, reduce
our dependence on foreign oil. And I firmly believe that we do
need to reduce our dependence on imported oil.
We are giving $1 billion a day to countries that don't
necessarily like us much and that hasn't done us much good in
securing and developing our economy or enhancing our national
security.
But I think it's important we don't confuse reducing our
dependence on foreign oil with reducing prices at the pump. We
all know the price of gasoline isn't just about supply and
demand factors and the talking point of ``drill baby drill''
isn't getting us those desired results. So let's be honest
about the facts.
Drilling is up. There are more drilling rigs in the United
States than there are anywhere else in the world. Production is
up. We're producing more than we have in the last 8 years.
Dependence on imported oil is declining. Consumption,
domestically, is down.
But we are facing competition from China for oil, and that
is driving the world price as well as speculators influencing
the market and adding as much as 56 cents a gallon at the pump.
All this is to say that we need to look at an ``all-the-above''
solution. There is no magic bullet.
In Montana, energy production is fueling our economy,
literally, with the Bakken Field, we're producing nearly
500,000 barrels per day. I'm proud Montana is a part of that
expanding energy, domestic energy solution.
But I also want to point out that this hearing isn't just
about extracting traditional fuels from public lands. We also
need to permit renewable energy projects in a timely manner. We
need to put just as much effort into those leasing and
approvals of those projects to secure our energy future.
And I look forward to visiting with each one of you today
and, particularly, you, Bob, about getting more renewable
energy up and running. I look forward to visiting with you
about those throughout this hearing and hearings to come.
Senator Tester. And, once again, I want to thank Chairman
Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski, for holding this hearing.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator. Gentlemen, your
statements are part of the record, so you may be free to
summarize your comments and Mr. Abbey, please begin.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ABBEY
Mr. Abbey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the subcommittee. It's always a pleasure to appear before you
today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2013 energy and
minerals budget request for BLM. In the interests of time, I
will keep my opening remarks quite brief.
BLM, as many of you know already, is responsible for
managing more than 245 million acres of public lands primarily
in the 12 Western States, as well as approximately 700 million
acres of onshore subsurface mineral estate nationwide.
BLM's unique multiple-use management of public lands
includes activities as varied as livestock grazing, outdoor
recreation and conservation of natural, historical, cultural,
and other important resources. America's public lands provide
resources that are critical to the Nation's energy security and
will continue to play an important role in domestic energy
production, in mineral development, for decades to come.
Our management of public land resources and protection of
public land values results in extraordinary economic benefits
to local communities and to this Nation. It is estimated that
in 2011, BLM's management of public lands contributed more than
$120 billion to the national economy and supported more than
550,000 American jobs.
BLM's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal reflects the
administration's efforts to maximize public benefits while
recognizing the reality of the current fiscal situation.
The New Energy Frontier Initiative recognizes the value of
environmentally sound, scientifically grounded development of
both conventional and renewable energy resources on public
lands. Conventional energy resources on these public lands
continue to play a critical role in meeting the Nation's energy
needs, producing 41 percent of the Nation's coal, 13 percent of
natural gas, and 5 percent of the domestically produced oil.
During 2011, BLM held 32 onshore oil and gas lease sales
covering more than 4 million acres. Onshore mineral leasing
revenues are estimated to be $4.4 billion in 2013. The fiscal
year 2013 budget strengthens BLM's oil and gas inspection
capability through a proposed fee on oil and gas producers
similar to the fees now charged for offshore inspections.
Collection of these fees is consistent with the principle
that users of the public lands pay for both the cost of use
authorizations and for providing for oversight activities. This
fee will generate an estimated $48 million to improve safety
and production inspections for oil and gas operations.
President Obama, Secretary Salazar and this Congress have
stressed the critical importance of renewable energy to the
Nation's energy security, job creation, and long-term economic
development. To date, Secretary Salazar has approved 29
commercial-scale, renewable-energy projects on public lands,
and these include 16 solar, 5 wind, and 8 geothermal projects
that represent more than 6,500 megawatts and 12,500 jobs.
BLM's fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a $5 million
increase for these efforts, and we do intend to reach our goal
of almost 11,000 megawatts of renewable energy production in
2013.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Finally, the budget proposes legislative initiatives to
reform hard-rock mining, remediate abandoned mines and
encourage diligent development of nonproducing oil and gas
leases.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, again, thank you
for this time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert V. Abbey
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today to discuss the President's fiscal year
2013 energy and minerals budget request for the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM).
BLM, an agency of the Department of the Interior (DOI), is
responsible for managing our national system of public lands, which are
located primarily in 12 Western States, including Alaska. BLM
administers more than 245 million surface acres, more than any other
Federal agency. BLM also manages approximately 700 million acres of
onshore subsurface mineral estate throughout the Nation. BLM's unique
multiple-use management of public lands includes activities as varied
as energy production, mineral development, livestock grazing, outdoor
recreation, and the conservation of natural, historical, cultural, and
other important resources. BLM is one of a handful of Federal agencies
that generates more revenue than it spends.
blm deg.MEETING OUR NATION'S NEEDS
BLM's management of public land resources and protection of public
land values results in extraordinary economic benefits to local
communities and to the Nation, helping to contribute more than $120
billion annually to the national economy and supporting more than
550,000 American full and part-time jobs according to the Department of
the Interior Economic Contributions report of June 21, 2011. Energy and
mineral resources generate the highest revenue values of any uses of
the public lands from royalties, rents, bonuses, sales, and fees.
These benefits are not only economic, but also contribute
substantially to America's energy security. During calendar year 2011,
BLM held 32 onshore oil and gas lease sales--covering nearly 4.4
million acres--which generated about $256 million in revenue for
American taxpayers. Onshore mineral leasing revenues are estimated to
be $4.4 billion in 2013. The 2011 lease sale revenues are 20-percent
more than those in calendar year 2010. There are currently more than 38
million acres of Federal mineral estate under oil and gas lease, and
since only about 32 percent of that acreage is currently in production,
BLM is working to provide greater incentives for lessees to make
production a priority. In fiscal year 2011, DOI collected royalties on
more than 97 million barrels of oil produced from onshore Federal
minerals. Moreover, the production of nearly 3 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas made it one of the most productive years on record.
Meanwhile, the coal produced from more than 300 Federal coal
leases, on nearly a one-half million acres of Federal mineral estate,
generated more than $780 million in royalties. This coal is used to
generate electricity in at least 40 States, accounting for more than
one-fifth of all electricity generated across the country. BLM held
four coal leases sales in 2011. BLM accepted bonus bids of more than
$700 million for these four lease sales, underscoring the
administration's commitment to the goals of energy security and job
creation.
BLM also is leading the Nation on the new energy frontier, actively
promoting solar, wind, and geothermal energy development. Under
Secretary Salazar, BLM has approved permits for 29 commercial-scale
renewable energy projects on public lands or the transmission
associated with them since 2009. This includes 16 solar, 5 wind, and 8
geothermal projects. Together, these projects represent more than 6,500
megawatts (MW) and 12,500 jobs, and when built will power about 1.3
million homes. In addition, DOI has identified more than 3,000 miles of
transmission lines for expedited review. Enhanced development of wind
power is a key component of our Nation's energy strategy for the
future. There are currently 437 MW of installed wind power capacity on
BLM-managed public lands, but there are 20 million acres of public
lands with wind potential. Additionally, nearly one-half of U.S.
geothermal energy production capacity is from Federal leases. The
fiscal year 2013 budget reflects a goal of permitting a total of 11,000
MW of clean renewable energy by the end of 2013.
blm deg.FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET OVERVIEW
BLM's fiscal year 2013 energy and minerals budget makes significant
investments in America's economy, while making difficult choices to
offset priority funding increases. Investments in this budget will
promote America's energy production at home and grow America's economy.
The proposed budget for BLM makes a strategic investment in support of
the New Energy Frontier, an important Secretarial initiative.
Investment in this program today will reap benefits for years to come.
The total fiscal year 2013 BLM budget request is $1.1 billion in
current authority, which is essentially the same as the fiscal year
2012 enacted level. The budget proposes $952 million for BLM
appropriation and $112 million for the Oregon and California grant
lands appropriation, BLM's two main operating accounts. The budget
makes strategic funding shifts to target high-priority initiatives,
scales back on lower-priority programs, and sustains and expands energy
program activities. The budget also includes several important
legislative proposals linked to the uses of lands and resources,
including proposals to fund the remediation of abandoned hardrock
mines; to provide a fair return to the taxpayer from the production of
several hardrock minerals on Federal lands; to encourage diligent
development of oil and gas leases; to repeal a prohibition on charging
oil and gas permitting fees along with associated mandatory funds; and
to reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act. This
testimony focuses on BLM's energy and mineral resources programs.
blm deg.PROMOTING AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION AT HOME
The fiscal year 2013 budget continues DOI's new energy frontier
initiative to create jobs, reduce the Nation's dependence on fossil
fuels and oil imports, and reduce carbon impacts. The Secretary's new
energy frontier initiative emphasizes the value of scientifically
based, environmentally sound development of both renewable and
conventional energy resources on the Nation's public lands.
Facilitating renewable energy development is a major component of this
strategy along with effective management of conventional energy
programs. BLM's proposed fiscal year 2013 budget advances the goals of
the initiative by including priority funding for both renewable and
conventional energy development on public lands.
Renewable Energy.--President Obama, Secretary Salazar, and the
Congress have stressed the critical importance of renewable energy to
the future of the United States. Success in attaining the Nation's
goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate climate change, and
protect the global environment relies on sustained efforts to develop
renewable energy resources. Renewable energy production is vital to our
Nation's long-term economic development and energy security. The
development of renewable energy creates American jobs and promotes
innovation in the United States while reducing the country's reliance
on fossil fuels.
BLM continues to make significant progress in promoting renewable
energy development on the public lands in 2012, including working to
approve additional large-scale solar energy projects and complete a
draft Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to provide for
landscape-scale siting of solar energy projects on public lands. The
agency is working on wind development mitigation strategies with wind
energy applicants and other Federal agencies, and is currently
reviewing more than 45 wind energy applications. Additionally, the
transmission infrastructure required to deliver renewable energy from
production facilities to major markets relies on corridors across BLM-
managed lands.
The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes a total program
increase of $7 million in the Renewable Energy Management program,
including $5 million in new funding. This will support additional
environmental studies to accelerate the identification of prime areas
for utility-scale renewable energy project development. It will also
enable BLM to continue ongoing program management responsibilities
associated with geothermal energy development by replacing mandatory
funding previously provided by the Geothermal Steam Act Implementation
Fund, for which new deposits have ceased. The remaining $2 million
increase is a transfer of geothermal funds from the oil and gas
management program to BLM's renewable energy program.
Conventional Energy.--While we work to develop renewable energy
sources, domestic oil and gas production remain critical to our
Nation's energy supply and to reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
Secretary Salazar has emphasized that conventional energy resources on
BLM-managed lands continue to play a critical role in meeting the
Nation's energy needs. Conventional energy development from public
lands produces 41 percent of the Nation's coal, 13 percent of the
natural gas, and 5 percent of the domestically produced oil. DOI's
balanced approach to responsible conventional energy development
combines onshore oil and gas policy reforms with effective budgeting to
provide appropriate planning and support for conventional energy
development.
The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes an increase of $2.4 million in
appropriated funding to be utilized for inspection and enforcement of
coal production on Federal and Indian lands. The requested increase
will fund the program at roughly the 2011 enacted level. BLM will
continue efforts to institute cost-recovery fees within this program,
but recognizes these fees may not be in place by the start of 2013.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposes $13 million in oil
and gas program increases to provide industry with timely access to
Federal oil and gas resources, backed by the certainty of defensible
environmental analysis. Of that increase, a $5 million program increase
will restore BLM's leasing and oversight capacity to the 2011 enacted
level. An additional $3 million will be used for large, regional-scale
studies and environmental impact statements for oil and gas leasing and
development issues. Finally, an additional $5 million programmatic
increase will allow BLM to fully implement its leasing reform strategy
without sacrificing other important program goals.
BLM is committed to ensuring oil and gas production is carried out
responsibly. To accomplish this, BLM performs inspections to ensure
that lessees meet environmental, safety, and production reporting
requirements. BLM recently initiated a program using a risk-based
inspection protocol for production inspections, based on production
levels and histories. Success realized in this program will support
expansion of this risk-based strategy to the other types of inspections
the BLM performs. The risk-based strategy will maximize the use of
inspection staff to better meet BLM inspection goals and requirements
in the future.
The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to expand and strengthen BLM's
oil and gas inspection capability through new fee collections from
industry, similar to the fees now charged for offshore inspections.
Collection of these fees is consistent with the principle that users of
the public lands should pay for the costs of use authorizations and the
costs associated with the oversight of authorized activities. The
inspection fee schedule included in the budget is estimated to generate
$48 million in collections, which would offset a proposed reduction of
$38 million in BLM's appropriated funds, while providing for a net
increase of $10 million in funds available for this critical BLM
management responsibility. The increased funding is aimed at correcting
deficiencies identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
in its February 2011 report, which designated Federal management of oil
and gas resources including production and revenue collection as high
risk. The $10 million increase will help BLM achieve the high-priority
goal of increasing the completion of inspections of Federal and Indian
high risk oil and gas cases by 9 percent more than fiscal year 2011
levels. BLM will also complete more environmental inspections to ensure
environmental requirements are being followed in all phases of
development. Fee levels will be based on the number of oil and gas
wells per lease so that costs are shared equitably across the industry.
To encourage diligent development of new oil and gas leases, the
administration is proposing a per-acre fee on each nonproducing lease
issued after enactment of the proposal. The $4-per-acre fee on
nonproducing Federal leases (onshore and offshore) would provide a
financial incentive for oil and gas companies to either put their
leases into production or relinquish them so that tracts can be re-
leased and developed by new parties.
The administration believes that American taxpayers should get a
fair return on the development of energy resources on their public
lands. A 2008 GAO report suggests that taxpayers could be getting a
better return from Federal oil and gas resources in some areas. To this
end, the administration is developing a proposed rule to address
onshore royalty rates.
blm deg.ABANDONED MINE LANDS AND HARDROCK MINING REFORM
PROPOSALS
The budget includes legislative proposals to address AML hazards on
both public and private lands and to provide a fair return to the
taxpayer from hardrock production on Federal lands. The first component
addresses abandoned hardrock mines across the country through a new AML
fee on hardrock production. Just as the coal industry is held
responsible for abandoned coal sites, the administration proposes to
hold the hardrock mining industry responsible for abandoned hardrock
mines. The proposal will levy an AML fee on all uranium and metallic
mines on both public and private lands that will be charged on the
volume of material displaced after January 1, 2013. The receipts will
be distributed by BLM through a competitive grant program to restore
the Nation's most hazardous hardrock AML sites on both public and
private lands using an advisory council comprising of representatives
of Federal agencies, States, tribes, and nongovernment organizations.
The advisory council will recommend objective criteria to rank AML
projects to allocate funds for remediation to the sites with the most
urgent environmental and safety hazards. The proposed hardrock AML fee
and reclamation program would operate in parallel to the coal AML
reclamation program, as two parts of a larger effort to ensure that the
Nation's most dangerous coal and hardrock AML sites are addressed by
the industries that created the problems.
The budget also includes a legislative proposal to institute a
leasing process under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 for certain
minerals (gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper, uranium, and molybdenum)
currently covered by the General Mining Law of 1872. After enactment,
mining for these metals on Federal lands would be governed by a leasing
process and subject to annual rental payments and a royalty of not less
than 5 percent of gross proceeds. One-half of the royalty receipts
would be distributed to the States in which the leases are located and
the remaining half would be deposited in the Treasury. Pre-existing
mining claims would be exempt from the change to a leasing system, but
would be subject to increases in the annual maintenance fees under the
General Mining Law of 1872. However, holders of pre-existing mining
claims for these minerals could voluntarily convert their claims to
leases. The Office of Natural Resources Revenue in DOI will collect,
account for, and disburse the hardrock royalty receipts.
blm deg.REDUCTIONS AND EFFICIENCIES
BLM's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal reflects many difficult
choices in order to support priority initiatives and needs while
supporting the President's commitment to fiscal discipline and spending
restraint. In fiscal year 2013, BLM is requesting a decrease of $2
million for its abandoned mine lands program. BLM will continue to fund
the highest-priority sites, as determined through its ongoing ranking
process. Red Devil Mine reclamation activities remain a high priority.
CONCLUSION
BLM's fiscal year 2013 budget request for energy and minerals
programs provides funding for the agency's highest-priority energy and
minerals initiatives, while making difficult but responsible choices
for reductions to offset some of these funding priorities. Our public
lands and resources play an important role in American lives,
economies, and communities and include some of our Nation's greatest
assets. This budget request reflects the administration's commitment to
encourage responsible energy development on the public lands, as well
as to ensure the American people receive a fair return for the public's
resources. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
BLM energy and mineral budget request for fiscal year 2013. I will be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Director Abbey. Director
Beaudreau.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
STATEMENT OF HON. TOMMY P. BEAUDREAU, DIRECTOR
Senator Reed. Please turn on your microphone.
Mr. Beaudreau. Okay. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Reed, Ranking
Member Murkowski, and Senator Tester.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss
the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for BOEM, and
for the opportunity to provide these brief opening remarks.
As we know, the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico spurred the administration to
undertake the most aggressive and comprehensive reforms to
offshore oil and gas regulation in United States history.
Central to these reforms are the structural changes we have
made to Federal oversight, including the establishment of new,
independent agencies with clearly defined missions to provide
effective management and strong safety oversight of the
development of our shared offshore energy and mineral
resources.
Simply put, BOEM is responsible for overseeing the
environmentally and economically responsible development of our
country's abundant offshore conventional and renewable energy
resources. This includes promoting responsible offshore oil and
gas development as well as renewable energy projects such as
offshore wind.
BOEM's decisionmaking must closely consider the resource
potential of geographic regions on the OCS, the critical role
offshore energy development plays in the mix of resources
necessary to meet the Nation's energy demands, the significance
of offshore oil and gas to the economy and employment, and the
vital need for environmental protection and responsible
stewardship.
These are priorities and values shared by everyone in this
room. This budget request is designed to provide BOEM with the
resources necessary to advance our commitment to a
comprehensive all-of-the-above energy strategy that encourages
safe and responsible domestic oil and gas exploration and
development as well as pushes forward with the development of
offshore wind and other clean, renewable-energy resources.
The resources we have requested will allow BOEM to continue
pursuing our programmatic priorities which include, one,
finalizing and implementing the next 5-year offshore oil and
gas leasing program which as proposed will include 15 potential
lease sales and make available more than 75 percent of the
undiscovered but recoverable oil and gas resources offshore of
the United States.
Two. Conducting the rigorous scientific and environmental
analyses that are necessary at all stages of the offshore
energy development process. Last December, we held the first
lease sale following the spill which was one of the most
successful in the history of the Western Gulf of Mexico.
We will hold a consolidated lease sale for the Central Gulf
of Mexico on June 20. Planning for both of these sales included
rigorous analyses of available information concerning the
environmental effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Three. We continue to conduct efficient and thorough
reviews of offshore exploration and development plans under the
new heightened standards which include site specific
environmental assessments on every deepwater exploration and
development plan.
Four. We've implemented innovative lease terms that ensure
that the American taxpayer receives fair return and that
provides strong incentives for industry to diligently develop
their lease holdings offshore to meet our energy needs.
Finally, we are on the forefront of development of offshore
renewable energy resources. Over the next year and beyond, we
expect to issue a number of commercial leases for offshore wind
development particularly along the Atlantic coast.
PREPARED STATEMENT
BOEM is focused on its mission to help the United States
secure its energy future through responsible development of
conventional and renewable offshore energy. Thank you and thank
this subcommittee for its continuing support of our mission and
our efforts.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tommy P. Beaudreau
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today to discuss the President's fiscal year
2013 budget request for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
within the Department of the Interior (DOI).
This request is designed to provide the resources necessary to
advance BOEM's commitment to effective and efficient management and
oversight of the Nation's offshore resources as part of our
comprehensive energy strategy to encourage safe and responsible
domestic oil and gas exploration and development, as well as to expand
development of clean and abundant renewable energy resources.
With the guidance, support, and oversight of the Congress, the
Obama administration has been implementing the most aggressive and
comprehensive reforms to offshore oil and gas regulation in U.S.
history following the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) was restructured
into three new, independent entities, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM) took on the role of effective and efficient
management and oversight of the Nation's offshore resources as part of
our comprehensive strategy to encourage safe and responsible domestic
oil and gas exploration and development. BOEM is also committed to
expand development of clean and abundant renewable energy resources.
Both activities support job growth and healthy local economies, and
this budget request is designed to provide the resources necessary to
advance this commitment.
In order to ensure an efficient and integrated approach to offshore
energy development, BOEM and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE) work together closely and certain functions remain
linked and require close coordination. As you will hear from my
colleague, Director James Watson, BSEE functions as the offshore safety
authority, charged with enforcement of the strengthened safety and
environmental standards implemented in the aftermath of Deepwater
Horizon. We designed the reorganization to ensure that both agencies
operate efficiently and without unnecessarily redundant bureaucracies.
For example, BOEM and BSEE continue to share administrative
infrastructure and functions that service both bureaus efficiently.
For fiscal year 2013, BOEM is requesting an operating level of
$164.1 million, which includes a base appropriation of $62.7 million
and $101.4 million in offsetting collections ($98.8 million from rental
receipts and $2.6 million from cost-recovery fees). BOEM manages the
Nation's offshore energy and mineral resources in a balanced way that
promotes efficient and environmentally responsible energy development
through oil and gas leasing, renewable energy development, and a
commitment to rigorous, science-based environmental review and study.
BOEM's functions include offshore leasing, resource evaluation, review
and administration of oil and gas exploration and development plans,
renewable energy development, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
analysis, and environmental studies.
BOEM's organizational structure is designed to advance core
elements of its mission including:
--strategic resource development;
--environmental analysis and applied science; and
--renewable energy development.
boem deg.key PRIORITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Since its establishment on October 1, 2011, BOEM has made
substantial progress and achieved a number of important priorities.
These priorities will continue to guide the agency's activities
throughout the remainder of fiscal year 2012, and form the basis of the
budget request moving into fiscal year 2013. These priority areas
include:
Developing and Implementing the Five-Year Outer Continental Shelf
Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2007-2012.--In December 2011,
BOEM held Western Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Lease Sale 218--the last
Western GOM sale scheduled under the current 5-year program and
the first sale conducted after completion of a supplemental
environmental impact statement that considered the effects of
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. BOEM has scheduled
Consolidated Central GOM Sale 216/222, the final sale in the
current program, for June 20, 2012. In addition, BOEM is
developing the next 5-year program. Last November, BOEM issued
the proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing
Program for 2012-2017, which makes more than 75 percent of
undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources
estimated in Federal offshore areas available for exploration
and development. It advances an innovative, regionally tailored
approach to offshore oil and gas leasing designed to take into
account the particular resource potential, environmental and
social concerns, and infrastructure condition of each planning
area. BOEM will finalize the program in fiscal year 2012.
Conducting rigorous scientific and environmental analysis to
support all stages of the OCS Lands Act process--from pre-sale
planning through exploration and development. Rigorous
scientific analysis underlies all of BOEM's decisions. For
example, BOEM held Western Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 218 after
conducting necessary environmental analyses to evaluate
available information concerning the effects of the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill. BOEM recently completed a similar analysis
with respect to the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area in
preparation for Lease Sale 216/222. BOEM has completed an
extensive supplemental environmental analysis for the Chukchi
Sea Planning Area that addresses key issues including the
potential effects of a hypothetical, very large oil spill. The
analysis supported the Secretary's decision to affirm Chukchi
Sea Lease Sale 193, originally held in 2008. This analysis
resulted in Chukchi Lease Sale 193 being judicially upheld, and
the injunction of those leases being lifted. At the postlease
stage, BOEM currently conducts site-specific environmental
assessments on all deepwater exploration and development plans,
rather than relying on categorical exclusions as had been done
historically.
Ensuring a Fair Return.--BOEM lease terms now include a range of
fiscal and drilling requirements to ensure that taxpayers
receive fair value and encourage operators to undertake
diligent development, consistent with the administration's
Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. Recent changes made in
lease terms include raising the minimum bid level from $37.50
per acre to $100 per acre in water depths of 400 meters or
greater; promulgating policies that reduce the time a lease can
be held without drilling activity by up to 3 years in water
depths of 400 to 1,600 meters; and increasing rental rates to
encourage faster exploration and development of leases. The
higher minimum bid level strengthens the bidding process and
supports the goal of ensuring a fair return. It discourages
bidders from acquiring tracts with the intention to hold them
undrilled for many years. Lessees who meet the shorter drilling
timeframes earn three additional years on the lease term as an
added incentive for timely drilling. BOEM has both increased
base rental rates and established escalating rentals to
encourage faster exploration and development of leases, or
earlier relinquishment when exploration is unlikely to be
undertaken by the current lessee.
Conducting Reviews of Exploration and Development Plans.--BOEM
conducts efficient and thorough reviews of exploration and
development plans. Consistent with strengthened standards for
environmental analysis, BOEM is committed to ensuring that its
process for reviewing and approving plans is rigorous,
efficient, and transparent. BOEM works collaboratively with
industry throughout the review of plans, to ensure operators
understand and comply with BOEM's stronger operational and
environmental standards and that the review process is
efficient.
Advancing Renewable Energy Leasing and Development through the
``Smart from the Start'' Initiative.--BOEM has established a
regulatory framework for renewable energy leasing and
development on the OCS and has taken critical steps to support
the development of an offshore wind industry. On April 19,
2011, Secretary Salazar announced the approval of the Cape Wind
Associates' Construction and Operations Plan. The Secretary
signed the Cape Wind lease in 2010, and it is the first
offshore commercial wind lease in the United States.
The Secretary's ``Smart from the Start'' Initiative, announced in
fiscal year 2011, is intended to build on the existing
regulatory framework and facilitate the efficient and
environmentally responsible siting, leasing, and construction
of new wind energy projects in the Atlantic. Recently, BOEM
completed a number of important steps to advance additional
lease sales in fiscal year 2013 and beyond, including:
--developing a commercial lease form and conducting an analysis to
determine auction formats;
--completing an environmental assessment to support leasing in wind
energy areas off of four Mid-Atlantic States; and
--issuing Calls for Information and Nominations to gauge industry
interest in the areas offshore Rhode Island, Massachusetts,
Maryland, and Virginia.
BOEM also is moving forward with the review for a potential Mid-
Atlantic Wind Energy Transmission Line, which would enable up
to 7,000 megawatts of wind turbine capacity to be delivered to
the electric grid.
The fiscal year 2013 request continues these efforts and supports
ongoing collaboration between BOEM, intergovernmental task
forces, industry, and stakeholders and a continued focus on
environmental assessment, while developing formats and
processes for renewable energy lease auctions. BOEM expects to
hold the first competitive lease sales for offshore wind in
fiscal year 2013.
Science-Based Decisionmaking.--A core principle of BOEM is the
integration of science with decisionmaking through
comprehensive research and rigorous analysis. The new Office of
Environmental Programs establishes an umbrella organization
that integrates applied scientific research and information
with the environmental analyses that BOEM conducts in support
of programmatic decisions. This structure facilitates top-
quality research by talented scientists from a range of
disciplines, as well as targeted scientific study to support
policy needs and priorities.
Strengthening of the Environmental Review Processes.--BOEM is
committed to setting high standards for analyses conducted in
compliance with NEPA and other governing statutes, and this
budget request continues ongoing efforts to strengthen these
processes. BOEM is conducting a comprehensive review of its
application of NEPA to ensure that environmental risks are
thoroughly analyzed, appropriate protective measures are
implemented, and the process is transparent and well-understood
within the Federal Government and by stakeholders. This review
includes an ongoing assessment of the use of categorical
exclusions. In the interim, BOEM is conducting site-specific
environmental assessments for all new and revised exploration
and development plans in deepwater.
Developing the First Geological and Geophysical Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement for Areas in the Mid- and South
Atlantic.--BOEM is committed to conducting thorough, scientific
reviews that facilitate a better understanding of potential
conventional and renewable resources in the Atlantic, which is
central to our strategy for evaluating potential future leasing
in the Mid- and South Atlantic. This Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement (PEIS) will evaluate potential environmental
effects of multiple Geological and Geophysical activities, such
as seismic surveys, conducted to inform future decisions
regarding oil, natural gas, and renewable energy development on
the OCS in the mid and south Atlantic planning areas. BOEM will
issue the draft PEIS this spring.
boem deg.THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST
This fiscal year 2013 BOEM budget request is consistent with the
direction set forth in the fiscal year 2012 budget for BOEM and
consists of limited funding increases reflecting difficult tradeoffs
given the tight fiscal constraints. BOEM's fiscal year 2013 request of
$164.1 million includes careful analysis of the resources needed to
develop the agency's capacity and to execute its functions carefully,
responsibly, and efficiently. Consistent with the overall contours of
BOEM's request, these targeted increases, which amount to $3.3 million
more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, reflect modest increases
for renewable energy auction support services, environmental studies,
and fixed costs--and are necessary to advance administration priorities
that are vital to BOEM's mission.
Renewable Energy Auction Support Services (+$1,296,000; 0 FTE).--
In order to achieve the Secretary's renewable energy goal
outlined in the ``Smart from the Start'' Initiative, BOEM must
accelerate the auction schedule of potential wind leases.
Because it is not yet equipped with the technical support or
expertise to manage these auctions, BOEM will contract those
services and purchase wind resource data in the near term.
Environmental Studies (+$700,000; 0 FTE).--The requested increase
will enable BOEM to initiate high-priority baseline
characterization and monitoring studies. With the release of
the proposed 5-year program, establishing baseline information
will become an increasing need in order to ensure a scientific
basis for informed and environmentally responsible policy
decisions.
Fixed Costs (+$1,453,000; 0 FTE).--Fixed costs in the amount of
$1,453,000 are fully funded in this request. These costs
include increases needed to support employee pay, changes in
Federal health benefits and worker's compensation, rent to the
General Services Administration, and payments to the
Department's Working Capital Fund.
Offsetting Collections and Cost Recovery (-$322,000; +0 FTE).--
This requested change reflects a revised net estimate of BOEM's
fiscal year 2013 offsetting collections and cost-recovery fees.
Administrative Reduction (-$122,000; +0 FTE).--This reduction
offsets high-priority increases in the fiscal year 2013 request
and will be applied by reducing administrative costs within
BOEM.
The fiscal year 2013 request also includes legislative proposals
that directly relate to BOEM's programs including:
Deep Gas Incentives.--The administration proposes to repeal
section 344 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Section 344
mandated royalty incentives for certain ``deep gas'' production
on the OCS. This change will help ensure that Americans receive
fair value for federally owned mineral resources. Based on
current oil and gas price projections, the budget does not
assume savings from this change; however, the proposal could
generate savings to the Treasury if future natural gas prices
end up below current projections.
Fee on Non-Producing Oil and Gas Leases.--The administration will
submit a legislative proposal to encourage energy production on
lands and waters leased for development. A $4 per-acre fee on
nonproducing Federal leases would provide a financial incentive
for oil and gas companies to either get their leases into
production or relinquish them so that the tracts can be leased
to and developed by other parties. The proposed fee would apply
to all new leases onshore and offshore and would be indexed
annually. In October 2008, the Government Accountability Office
issued a report critical of past efforts by Interior to ensure
that companies diligently develop their Federal leases.
Although the report focused on administrative actions that the
Department could undertake, this proposal requires legislative
action. This proposal is similar to other nonproducing fee
proposals considered by the Congress in the last several years.
The fee is projected to generate revenues to the U.S. Treasury
of $13 million in 2013 and $783 million over 10 years.
CONCLUSION
BOEM plays a vital role in advancing safe and responsible offshore
energy development to secure our energy future. Given our environment
where serious fiscal constraints demand difficult decisions, we
appreciate the critical resources the Congress has provided in recent
appropriations--including investment in robust science to inform
decisions relating to ocean energy policy and management and
appropriate environmental safeguards. It is imperative to sustain this
investment moving into the next fiscal year and the fiscal year 2013
request reflects a careful analysis of the resources needed to ensure
our ability to carry out the important mission with which we are
charged.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify here today, and
for your consistent support throughout the reorganization process. I
look forward to our continued work together, and to answering your
questions today.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Director Watson, please.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES WATSON, DIRECTOR
Mr. Watson. Good morning, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member
Murkowski, and Senator Tester. Thank you.
I am pleased to appear before you for the first time as
Director of BSEE and to discuss the tremendous strides we have
made as well as our vision for the future of the agency.
We have a critical mission, providing safety and
environmental oversight of offshore oil and gas operations on
the OCS. In leading positive changes in the safety culture of
offshore operations, our near-term goal is to restore America's
confidence that offshore operations can be carried out safely
and responsibly and without the tragic human and ecological
costs that occurred as a result of the Deepwater Horizon
tragedy.
In the long term, our goal is to set standards and build
capacity for offshore safety assurance throughout this country
and also to be the world leader for safe offshore operations.
The key to our success is the employees of BSEE. Over the
past 3 months, I have met our employees from all of our
offices. They've made it clear to me that they believe in and
are passionate in our mission. They are unmatched in their
knowledge of the offshore industry and are making the best use
of the resources at their disposal to advance the cause of
safety and responsible offshore oil and gas operations.
Overseeing safety and environmental performance on the OCS
includes drilling permits and managing the orderly development
of the Nation's offshore oil and gas resources. A lot of
attention has been paid to our permitting pace, and I
sympathize with the people who depend on these permits for
jobs, the same people who were so negatively impacted by the
Deepwater Horizon tragedy in many cases.
Permitting is an essential part of our safety mission. We
issue permits only when companies have demonstrated that they
can conduct their proposed operations safely and responsibly,
they're meeting all of the enhanced safety standards, and they
can respond effectively in the event of a worst case discharge.
By working closely with the industry, we have significantly
decreased the amount of time it takes to approve a permit and
have issued hundreds of deepwater and shallow-water permits
over this past year.
However, those who believe that the pace of permitting
should be automatically the same as before Deepwater Horizon
are ignoring the lessons of that disaster.
I will commit to routing out inefficiencies in making the
permitting as straightforward, predictable and understandable
for the industry as possible, but not at the expense of safety.
When coupled with increasing hiring and training of
engineers, scientists, inspectors and other personnel, these
efforts will further enhance the permitting process and improve
safe and responsible operations on the OCS.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We've made a tremendous amount of progress since our
formation. In my written testimony, I've provided a number of
examples of how we spent the time focused on hiring new
personnel, enacting safety reforms, improving our permitting
process, and completing the reorganization of the Minerals
Management Service.
Thanks again for this opportunity to testify. I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Watson
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today to discuss the President's fiscal year
2013 budget request for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE) in the Department of the Interior (DOI).
BSEE has an enormously critical mission--providing safety and
environmental oversight of offshore oil and gas operations on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS). More fundamentally, however, our mission is to
restore the confidence of the American people that offshore operations
can be carried out without the tragic human and ecological costs that
were borne by the people of the Gulf of Mexico region nearly 2 years
ago.
The budget request for BSEE strengthens and advances the reform
efforts begun in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. This
request advances the President's vision of maintaining and expanding
responsible oil and gas production on our OCS as part of an all-of-the-
above approach to addressing our Nation's energy challenges, while
providing the funding necessary to be the world leader in offshore
safety and environmental oversight. The resources provided by the
Congress over the past 2 years have been instrumental in laying the
foundation and building a framework for a revitalized and enhanced
offshore regulatory regime. This request continues the development of
that framework, allowing us to continue the critical tasks that the
President, the Congress, and the American people have rightly demanded
of us.
Let me be clear: the employees of the former Minerals Management
Service (MMS) were, with isolated yet well-publicized exceptions, an
extremely committed group of public servants that dedicated their lives
to their communities and their Nation, often foregoing much higher
salaries they could have earned in the oil and gas industry. The need
for reform did not stem from the actions of these dedicated
professionals. It arose from outdated regulations, an inability to
match the pace and scope of the offshore industry's growth, and
leadership that was often forced to focus on one of several
fundamentally different priorities to the detriment of the others. The
reorganization of MMS by Secretary Salazar into BSEE, the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), and the Office of Natural Resources
Revenue was designed to address these issues and allow the employees of
each agency to apply their expertise with clarity of mission. The BSEE
employees I have met in the past 3 months have made it clear to me that
they believe in, and are passionate about, our mission, and I am fully
confident that we have the right core of people in place to start this
agency off in the right direction.
Overseeing safety and environmental regulations on the OCS includes
issuing drilling permits, and managing the orderly development of the
Nation's offshore oil and gas resources. A great deal of attention has
been paid to our pace of permitting recently, and I greatly sympathize
with the people who depend on these permits for jobs. It is in our
country's interest to have a robust offshore oil and gas industry, and
I am pleased to see a constant stream of new rigs coming into the gulf
and an industry becoming increasingly optimistic about both the short
and long-term outlook for their industry. However, I will not measure
success for this agency by the rate at which we issue permits.
Permitting is an essential part of our safety mission: we issue permits
only when companies have demonstrated that they can conduct their
proposed operations safely and responsibly. We will not rush permits
out the door; we will conduct thorough reviews that ensure that the
applicant is meeting all the enhanced safety standards put in place
after the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, and that they can
respond effectively in the event of a worst case scenario. Those who
believe that the pace of permitting should automatically be the same as
before the Deepwater Horizon are ignoring the lessons of that disaster.
I will commit to rooting out inefficiencies and making the permitting
process as straightforward and understandable for the industry as
possible, and these efforts, when coupled with increased hiring and
training of engineers, scientists, inspectors, and other personnel, may
very well enhance the permitting process. But our primary
responsibility is ensuring safe and responsible operations on the OCS.
In March 2011, the Director of the former Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation and Enforcement came before you to discuss the
reforms that agency had implemented to address the many safety,
environmental protection, and regulatory oversight weaknesses
highlighted in many reviews of the Deepwater Horizon spill, including
those identified in the final report of the National Commission on the
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (Commission). The
Congress responded by passing the fiscal year 2012 Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act that provided BSEE with new
resources needed to institutionalize these fundamental reforms and
implement additional regulatory measures needed to improve the safety
of offshore drilling, as well as to enhance protection of the ocean and
coastal environments. I would like to update you on the progress our
agency has made in the last year.
bsee deg.RECRUITMENT OF KEY POSITIONS
Although BSEE began operations as an independent agency only a few
months ago, the recruitment for key management positions began last
year after the reorganization effort received congressional support and
resources. As a result, all key senior management positions have been
filled. As part of our commitment to provide more comprehensive
oversight of offshore oil and gas operations, we have increased the
number of inspectors by 50 percent since April 2010, and the number of
engineers, who also perform critical safety functions, by nearly 10
percent. There are still a considerable amount of positions yet to be
filled, including additional inspectors, engineers, regulatory
specialists, environmental specialists, and other critical disciplines.
While recruiting is a time consuming process, we are confident that we
will continue to show significant strides in building out the new
organization.
bsee deg.REGULATORY CHANGE
We are continuing to update and enhance Federal regulations and
ensure compliance through our offshore regulatory programs. We plan to
update the Interim Drilling Safety rule, which was issued shortly after
the Deepwater Horizon spill, in the near future to increase regulatory
clarity while maintaining the same enhanced level of safety. Also, the
Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) rule, which was
finalized in September 2010, will be enhanced with the completion of
the ``SEMS II'' rule. We are currently addressing comments received on
the SEMS II proposed rule. We are also reviewing recent recommendations
from the National Academy of Engineering as we continue to update
regulations and enhance safety requirements.
bsee deg.PERMITTING
With significant new safeguards designed to reduce the chances of a
loss of well control, and a new focus on capping and containment
capabilities in the event that one occurs, the permitting environment
is completely different now than it was before Deepwater Horizon.
Comparing the pace of permitting pre- and post-Deepwater Horizon does
not consider the current reality that applications must now meet a
suite of new requirements that receive extremely close scrutiny by the
Bureau's engineers.
We have worked very hard to help industry better understand the
requirements and improve the efficiency of the application process.
Perhaps most significantly, BSEE held permit processing workshops for
industry, which has improved the quality and thoroughness of
applications. We published a permit application completeness checklist
to make it clear to industry what information is required and to reduce
the frequency with which operators submit incomplete applications. We
have established priorities for reviewing permit applications--
assigning the highest priority to permits for ongoing operations or
emergency operations. We have begun to balance workloads for our
engineers by taking some permit applications and moving them around to
different districts. We have also allowed authorized users of our
online permit application system to track the status of their
applications. This answered the call from many operators for greater
transparency in our permitting process. As a result of these steps, and
the industry's increasing familiarity with the process, permit review
times have decreased significantly in the past year. Rigs that had left
the Gulf of Mexico are returning, new rigs are being contracted, and we
are starting to see a small inventory of unused drilling permits
develop.
While staying focused on our primary objective--ensuring that
enhanced safety requirements are met--we plan to continuously monitor
and improve our permitting processes throughout the upcoming year, to
give industry increased confidence in the timeliness of the process,
while rebuilding the American people's confidence that these permitted
operations can be performed safely and responsibly.
bsee deg.inspection and compliance program
BSEE continues to expand its capacity to maintain a robust and fair
inspection and compliance program. With the additional resources
provided by the Congress, BSEE has been able to add 28 new inspectors
in the Gulf of Mexico region since the Deepwater Horizon spill, and we
are continuing our efforts to hire additional inspectors. BSEE's
inspectors now witness far more activity on drilling rigs than before
the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill, including critical tests of
blowout preventers (BOP).
BSEE has also begun to set up its new National Offshore Training
and Learning Center (NOTLC) and has put two groups of new inspectors
through a core curriculum in offshore inspections. We are also
supplying our inspectors with new equipment and tools, including
handheld computers, to make our inspection process more efficient and
effective. Both of these initiatives were initiated using the 2010 oil
spill supplemental funding, but will need base resources to continue.
Those resources are specifically requested in fiscal year 2013.
bsee deg.ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT
The Environmental Enforcement program was established as a separate
division within BSEE to elevate the importance and visibility of the
program, both internally and externally, to a level on par with safety
and regulatory compliance.
This program will ensure compliance with all applicable
environmental requirements, ensuring that operators keep the promises
they make at the time they obtain their leases, submit their plans, and
apply for their permits. The funding requested in fiscal year 2013 will
support the full build-out of this critical function.
bsee deg.FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST SPECIFICS
BSEE's fiscal year 2013 request is $222.2 million; an increase of
$24.8 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The request
is offset by $52.5 million in eligible OCS rental receipts, $8.4
million in cost-recovery fees, and $65 million in inspection fees,
resulting in a net request of $96.3 million in direct appropriated
funds. These additional resources are essential to effectively protect
our Nation's natural resources as well as to address industry's need
for an efficient, effective, transparent, and stable regulatory
environment.
BSEE's fiscal year 2013 budget fully supports the President's
``Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future'' by enabling the safe and
environmentally responsible development of the Nation's vast offshore
energy resources. Until offshore renewable energy facilities are
constructed, BSEE will focus its resources on conventional energy
programs. Funds will be used to recruit expert engineers, scientists,
and oil spill response specialists to support the development of strong
scientific information and timely and thorough review of permits. The
fiscal year 2013 budget request increases funding for operational
offshore safety, oil spill response initiatives, environmental
enforcement, and the development of modern electronic systems to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of offshore inspection and
oversight activities.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes funding to maintain the gains
made to date, and proposes the following specific changes:
Critical Funding Needs for the Environmental Enforcement Division
(+$4,177,000; +14 FTE).--BSEE will further develop and manage
an expanded environmental oversight role arising out of efforts
to reform offshore operations and regulations as recommended by
many external national investigative reports.
Research and Development for Offshore Drilling Safety
(+$2,000,000; 0 FTE).--BSEE will utilize this funding to
perform additional, and more in-depth, research relating to
safety systems and operations such as well cementing, BOP
research, methods of shallow gas containment, and well control
methods.
Operational Safety (+$4,495,000; +29 FTE).--Funds will support
ongoing reorganization efforts identified as critical to the
success of BSEE in strengthening post-Deepwater Horizon
regulatory and oversight capabilities. It represents a cross
section of staffing for newly identified efforts and increased
activities such as development of regulations, safety
management, structural and technical support, and oil spill
response.
NOTLC for Inspection Program (+$3,685,000, +11 FTE).--This will
provide base funding for the NOTLC. NOTLC supports the BSEE's
goals by providing upfront and ongoing learning and development
opportunities to BSEE staff.
e-Inspections for the Enforcement Program (+$2,300,000; 0 FTE).--
This multi-faceted initiative would allow BSEE to replace the
existing outdated paper-based process with a modern electronic
system for conducting the inspections mandated by the OCS Lands
Act.
Wellbore Integrity (+$1,395,000; +9 FTE).--The requested funding
will provide resources needed for BSEE to meet current
requirements to evaluate whether operators have submitted
adequate information demonstrating access and deployment
capabilities for surface and subsea containment.
Sustain Administrative Operations (+$5,000,000; 0 FTE).--Funding
is needed to sustain the necessary level of support services
for both BSEE and BOEM and to adjust the base to provide
sufficient administrative services to both bureaus
Fixed Costs (+$1,772,000; 0 FTE).--This request fully funds
increased personnel-related costs and other fixed costs such as
rent.
Inspection Fees (-$3,000,000; 0 FTE).--This request partially
offsets programmatic funding increases by increasing industry
inspection fee revenue. This is not an increase in the amount
of the fees, but rather increased revenue attributable to a
full year collection at the current fee levels. The additional
revenue will defray the cost of inspection and oversight
activities.
Offsetting Collections (-$1,800,000; 0 FTE).--BSEE anticipates a
net increase in offsetting collections including rental
receipts and cost recoveries. These collections reduce the need
for direct appropriations and offset the cost of programmatic
funding increases.
In addition to its continued focus on operational and environmental
safety and compliance, the fiscal year 2013 request will further the
completion of the reorganization of the former MMS and establish a base
operating level consistent with the recommendations from the National
Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling
and the National Academy of Engineering's report on the Deepwater
Horizon tragedy.
In fiscal year 2012, the Congress made a commitment to offshore
safety and environmental protection by providing the necessary
resources to complete our reorganization, hire additional people, and
provide the necessary oversight to allow for the continued growth of
offshore energy development while giving the American people confidence
that their Government is doing everything it can to prevent another
catastrophe like the Deepwater Horizon. The fiscal year 2013 request
builds on these efforts by providing necessary training for our
employees, and the tools to increase the efficiency of our processes
and operations. As the Nation looks to expanding domestic energy
development, we must provide the leadership and the expertise to ensure
offshore oil and gas development operations are conducted in a safe and
environmentally responsible way. BSEE provides that leadership and
expertise, and we very much appreciate your commitment to the Bureau's
mission and success.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be with you today.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Director Watson. We'll
initiate 6-minute question rounds to give my colleagues a
chance to ask questions. I anticipate at least one or two
rounds. We have a great many questions.
BOEM deg.OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
Let me begin with Director Beaudreau. By the way, thank
you, gentlemen, for your excellent testimony. Director
Beaudreau, you mentioned the accelerating approval of offshore,
wind in particular, along the Atlantic coast.
We have made some significant investment both with Federal
dollars and local dollars in terms of preparing Quonset Point,
one of our former Navy bases, as a potential site for
application. We have applications for 9 State projects, in
State waters, we have an application for a project offshore in
Federal waters.
We've also done a lot of planning, especially the area
management plan, which has drawn nationwide attention as one of
the best, comprehensive approaches to evaluating offshore
potential in areas of development. And, again, it's been
recognized nationally.
But we seem to be falling behind other States in terms of
approvals. The next big step for us is to release the draft
environmental assessment. Can you give us an indication when
that environmental assessment will be completed?
Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, Sir. You're absolutely correct about
the work that the State of Rhode Island has done to promote the
development of offshore energy. That work will feed and has fed
directly into BOEM's process in evaluating the wind energy area
in the shared area between Massachusetts and Rhode Island. What
we call the area of mutual interest.
One example is the Special Area Management Plan , which was
a comprehensive environmental assessment that is relevant to
our process under the National Environmental Policy Act in
evaluating the area. That analysis and the good scientific work
sponsored by the State of Rhode Island will feed directly into
our environmental assessment, as will all of the work that the
State task force has done.
It helped us define what the potential conflicts might be,
including the Cox's Ledge area which is a particular area of
sensitivity both environmentally and for fishing interests.
In light of all of that work, work already done by my
agency, and work done by the State of Rhode Island, we
anticipate issuing a draft of the environmental assessment this
spring, late this spring.
Senator Reed. One of the reasons I am being critical of
getting the environmental assessment out, is that it looks like
August of this year, 2012, is, the time where the final
environmental assessment will be issued, which would put us
back on track with some of the other States along the Atlantic
coast.
And if that's the case, would allow us to begin a leasing
process at the end of the calendar year 2012, or early in 2013.
Again, the fear is if we don't, we just fall behind, and that's
not just a question of where the towers go in the water. It's
also a question of the landside operations, where they might be
situated.
So I would urge you again to expedite--Secretary Salazar
has committed to expedite this draft environmental assessment.
And then with similar speed, finalize the environmental
assessment so we can begin the leasing process.
Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, Sir. This is absolutely a high priority
for the Secretary and for my agency.
BSEE deg.INSPECTION FEES
Senator Reed. Let me just turn to Director Watson. And, I
do anticipate a second round. Last year we included in, for
BSEE, the inspection fee program. Can you tell us what
improvements you're making with these fees? I think Director
Abbey said it very well in terms of the proposed fees this
year.
It makes sense to basically help defray the cost of
inspections and review to immediately rebound to the benefit of
the drillers because they're the ones who presumably get
quicker approvals, better inspections, better protection for
the environment and less problems down the road.
So can you comment, Director, about how you have been
ensuring that these fees are being used well and wisely?
Mr. Watson. Yes, Sir. The fees are focused on our safety
program, primarily our field operations and our permitting
operations.
The expense of these operations is mostly in the cost of
our work force. We're increasing the size of that work force at
a pretty steep rate for a small agency. We have already
increased the numbers of inspections--inspectors--by a
significant number.
We started at about 55, and I think we're up to 91 now.
We're headed up to more than 100 and into about the 150 range
that we're going to need for inspectors. And as you increase
your number of inspections, you also need helicopters to get
those inspectors offshore which are costly as well.
And then, turning to the permit side, we are adding almost
100 engineers. These are people who are plan reviewers for the
information that's submitted to get a permit. And they are a
combination of structural engineers, petroleum engineers, and
some geophysicists and geologists to review those permitting
applications.
So we are still challenged to bring those people into the
work force, but we have an aggressive outreach program. We did
get some incentives for hiring these people in the fiscal year
2012 appropriations which will be very valuable. And so, I'm
optimistic about that program.
Senator Reed. Just a quick--because my time has expired,
the initial feedback from the industry is positive in terms of
the more expeditious permitting process, the better sense of
the professional skill of the inspections, is that what you're
sensing?
Mr. Watson. Well, my experience is the industry is looking
at the bottom line, how quickly can they get a permit. But they
are also focused on the competencies of our people. I haven't
heard any disparaging remarks about our competencies.
On the permitting side, I think there's been a combination
of efforts by the industry to provide more comprehensive,
better-prepared applications than say a year ago. And on the
BSEE side, I think we're also better at doing these new safety
standards, at reviewing them.
And the numbers kind of bear this out. Just between last
March and September, our average was about 97 days to get a
permit processed. That was the average. And then between
September and today, it's gone to 62 days. So it's right around
2 months right now.
And I think we can probably make some more improvements.
But as I said in my opening statement, I'm not about the number
of days it takes. I'm still about safety and environmental
protection.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski.
BLM deg.OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen,
thank you for your testimony this morning.
I want to try to better understand some statistics that are
out there. Yesterday, the President released his, or he
discussed the 1-year progress report on energy within the
administration. He called it his blueprint for secure energy
future.
And in that report, he notes that oil production is up
overall. That's a statement that has certainly been made. He
doesn't disclose where that increased production comes from.
Whether it's on Federal lands, private, or State.
I mentioned in my opening comments, the Department of the
Interior's own numbers would seem to indicate that onshore oil
production is down 14 percent from last year, and offshore
production down 17 percent. And yet, yesterday, when Secretary
Salazar commented on the President's blueprint, he stated the
fact of the matter is that we're producing more from public
lands, both oil and gas, both onshore as well as offshore, than
any time in recent memory.
So I'm trying to understand our data here. Because I think
that this is important. People really do want to understand
what the situation here is in this country. So I guess we've
got a situation where either the data from the Department of
the Interior is wrong, or it has not been communicated
adequately or appropriately to the Secretary.
So the question that I have is, who's right here? When you
peel this back, are we seeing an increased production on
Federal lands and offshore as well, or not?
Mr. Abbey. Well, let me take a stab at this, Senator
Murkowski, and then others may contribute.
But, no doubt, the statistics would show that the United
States oil and gas production is up, and last year more oil was
produced in this country than at any time since 2003, according
to Dr.----
Senator Murkowski. And do we, do we dissect that as just
State, Federal----
Mr. Abbey. I can.
Senator Murkowski. Okay.
Mr. Abbey. And, you know, no doubt the aggressive
development of shale gas and shale oil has led to a shift to
private lands in the East and to the South where there are
fewer amounts of Federal mineral estate in those sections of
the country.
As far as natural gas, last year, there was more natural
gas produced from BLM-managed mineral estate than in decades.
Oil production was down somewhat last year. But we are moving
forward again now offering up additional parcels for leasing.
We're processing more applications for permits to drill than in
the past several years.
And so, we should see an increase in production of both oil
on public lands as well as natural gas. But, again, natural gas
production was up.
Senator Murkowski. So it isn't accurate--Right. So, I'll
grant you that. And I also recognize that--where that natural
gas production is primarily coming from is on the State and the
private side.
But is it an accurate statement then to state that a 14-
percent decrease onshore from last year, and offshore, down 17
percent for oil?
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, the statistics will speak for
itself.
Senator Murkowski. But this is where the confusion is
because the statistics are being used to suggest that there is
this incredible increase in oil and gas production. But we all
know that oil, you've got oil production, and you've got gas
production, and we're seeing remarkable, remarkable
opportunities with natural gas within our shale formations.
And that's good. I support that absolutely. What I'm trying
to understand is whether or not our oil production, offshore
and onshore, is up or down?
Mr. Abbey. The oil production from onshore, Federal
minerals, was down last year from previous years. I will say
this though. Where the industry decides to produce, or where
they decide to develop, is up to them.
For example, we have approved 7,000 applications for
permits to drill that are not being drilled. We have more than
25 million acres of lands that we've leased that are not being
developed. So a decision is being made by the market.
Senator Murkowski. I understand that. And I will, in
probably my next round here, ask about some of those incentives
or disincentives that we impose that kind of pushes, those that
are in the exploration and production realm, to go from Federal
lands to State lands.
I want to ask very quickly, and this is to you, Director
Abbey. I mentioned it to the Secretary last week, a couple
different times. This relates to the Legacy Well situation in
Alaska.
BLM deg.LEGACY WELLS
For members of the subcommittee, it's somewhat an
interesting situation. About 40 years ago, there was
exploration by the Government, by the Navy primarily, in the
National Petroleum Reserve, they drilled some 137 different
wells, looking around, and, then moved on.
The problem that we face is they moved on without properly
abandoning and caring for those wells. Now, decades afterwards,
we're having some of the casings collapse. We've got erosion
issues coming in. And it's not only unsightly, but it's an
environmental scar. And it's something that has been difficult
for Alaskans to accept because on the one hand the standards
for--the environmental standards are exceptionally high--and I
think appropriately so.
We want to make sure that we're taking care of the land
there. But on the Federal Government's side, they can come in.
They can explore. They can leave, and their environmental
responsibility is not attended to.
If you were on the private side, you would be fined--I
think the fines that we're talking about could be in the realm
of $40 million. The revenues that have been received from the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska are certainly sufficient to
help clean this up, but we're on track for cleaning up these at
about the rate of 1 per year.
It's going to take us another 135 years to clean it up
which is certainly not acceptable. So I asked the Secretary,
and I would ask you, Director Abbey, whether or not we can get
a commitment to be coordinating between BLM and the Alaska Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission to not only provide the
Commission with an inventory of the exact number, the
associated costs for plugging them, and then a plan.
An action plan, so that we can have a reasonable level of
assurance that we will move forward, that the Government will
move forward, in keeping their commitment to Alaska and to the
land up there.
Mr. Abbey. My response would be similar to what the
Secretary shared with you. We are committed to working with the
State of Alaska to identify where the highest-priority needs
are for cleanup.
We have spent millions of dollars to date in cleaning up
some of those legacy wells----
Senator Murkowski. And they're expensive, we acknowledge,
yes.
Mr. Abbey. Very much, very expensive. This year we are--we
do have sufficient funds to clean up an additional three, but
as you suggest, and I will admit, that's a pretty slow progress
toward dealing with the challenge that we face.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we need to be working on this
together, so I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. Senator Tester,
please.
BLM deg.OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, once
again, thank you all for being here.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, the number of rigs
operating in the United States this year is the highest number
in probably 8 or 10 years. The United States has more rigs
operating right now, and correct me if I'm wrong, than the rest
of the world combined.
Our domestic production is at an all-time high. And, you
know, maybe the public lands is down some, and I want to get
into that a little bit. But the fact is, if it's up on State
and private, we got more rigs operating in the United States
than the whole rest of the world combined.
And I talked to a person from eastern Montana today where
they've got a bunch of permits, and they can't get any rigs
because they're all tied up. I don't know, you know, I just
kind of want to get your perspective on all of this because
there's about 32 million acres of Federal land that's leased
right now.
As you pointed out there, I think there's 7,000
applications, permits to drill, that have been issued, and not
drilled? Can you give me--give me some insight into why that
is. Give me some insight into what you're seeing as trends on
the Federal lands.
Mr. Abbey. Well, Senator, I'd be happy to. Again, there's a
lot of factors that come into play relative to a decision that
would be made by the industry on where they choose to drill.
As it relates to the number of applications for permits to
drill, we issued 4,200 last year. That was more than the number
that were submitted by the industry. We had a little backlog
from the previous year, and we were able to address some of the
backlog.
But we issued 4,200 applications for permits to drill last
year. At the end of the year, we had more than 7,000 that were
not being drilled. As I mentioned, there are several factors
for that. Sometimes, it's financing. Another factor that comes
into play is that the industry themselves have chosen to drill
elsewhere where it's more economical.
But it is a choice that they have to make. It is a choice
that they make every day. We are moving forward as
expeditiously as possible to streamline our review processes
without forsaking the need to insure safety as well as
environmental diligence on the drilling operations.
We're increasing our inspections for all drilling. But much
of the easy plays are located right now on the private mineral
estate.
BLM deg.WELL INTEGRITY INSPECTIONS
Senator Tester. Okay. And this goes to, I think, Senator
Murkowski's last question, or last point, and that is as we
push to open up lands in a responsible way, not sacrificing one
resource for another, we also have to consider things like the
casing, how it's cemented in.
And, quite frankly, I hope we're thinking about what
happens when the wells usefulness is gone. I hope we're
thinking about that upfront. So, can you give me some sort of
idea on what the thought process is to make sure that this
land's being leased responsibly, and that the development is
being done in a responsible way so that we don't have a bunch
of wrecks like Senator Murkowski was talking about?
BLM deg.ONSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING
Mr. Abbey. Well, let me start by saying that in 2009, when
Secretary Salazar and I both came into our new positions, we
inherited an onshore oil and gas program that was on the verge
of collapse.
And I say that because more than 50 percent--or close to 50
percent of all the parcels that were being offered for lease by
BLM were being protested or litigated. That's unacceptable.
There were literally hundreds of leases that had been awarded
by the Department of the Interior, specifically, BLM, tied up
in protests and litigation.
And so the millions of dollars that we had collected from
the oil and gas companies for their leases that they purchased,
were placed in suspense accounts until those protests and
litigation could be resolved. Again, that was unacceptable.
The rules that were in place to govern the oil and gas
operations, and to ensure production verification of the oil
and gas that was being extracted from these public assets, were
more than 20 years old. Technology had advanced significantly
in that 20-year period, but no one was paying attention to
updating those rules.
We had EPA and other fellow agencies criticizing the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis that was
being performed by BLM, primarily as it related to air quality
documents.
We had sportsmen, we had other public land stakeholders
criticizing the leasing everywhere and anywhere mentality that
was going on at the time, and certainly, very much a part of
BLM culture.
Because there were concerns about the environmental damage
that was being--that was occurring as a result of not doing a
very good job of looking at these lands before we committed
those lands through leasing.
So we took it upon ourselves not to ignore the challenge or
the problems, but to address them. And one of the ways that we
have been able to address them is to insure that there is a
better opportunity to look at these lands prior to committing
them through leasing.
And we've done that through our leasing reforms. The
primary purpose for our leasing reform is to make sure that the
lands that we are going to be leasing, are the right ones to
lease, and they have the greatest chance to be developed in a
timely manner.
Senator Tester. Did you say that 50 percent of the leases,
when you took over, were being either litigated or protested?
Is that what I heard you say in this answer?
Mr. Abbey. Close to 50 percent----
Senator Tester. So where are you at, now?
Mr. Abbey. Close to 50 percent of the parcels that we were
offering were being protested or litigated.
Senator Tester. Okay. And what----
Mr. Abbey. At this point in time, it's around 35 percent.
Senator Tester. Okay, okay. My time is up. We'll save some
for the next round. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Tester. This is
a very, I think, useful line of questioning. Just as Director
Abbey points out, there are a significant number of leases that
are capable of being drilled, but not being drilled. Those are
the decisions of the private entrepreneurs, the companies,
onshore.
BOEM deg.OFFSHORE LEASING
Offshore, Director Beaudreau, is that the same situation
where you have a significant number of leases all ready,
approved, and yet the drilling activities are not commencing?
Mr. Beaudreau. Ah, yes, that's correct. There's a
significant percentage of the leases that have been issued by
the Interior Department offshore that are not currently subject
to an exploration or development plan.
And we've tried to develop, both through our leasing
process and postleasing processes, to try to encourage prompt
and diligent development of those leases to bring them into
exploration, bring them into production.
As Director Abbey indicated, there are a number of
commercial factors that weigh into industry's decisions about
when and where to drill. We're trying to line up our leasing
process and our incentives to influence those decisions so that
we can have prompt development.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
BLM deg.ONSHORE INSPECTION FEES
Director Abbey, in the President's budget, we've mentioned
there's a request for additional inspection fees that will be
comparable to the increases that we've provided to BSEE and the
Director is using, Director Watson, for improving his program.
Can you indicate how you can improve your program with
these fees?
Mr. Abbey. I'd be happy to. And, thank you for the
question. As Senator Tester alluded to, it's important that if
we are going to be leasing these parcels of public lands for
oil and gas development, that we have sufficient inspections to
insure that it's being done responsibly.
You know, we--it is our goal to inspect drilling operations
that are considered a high risk. And those high-risk operations
are those with the most violations, but also those that are
producing the most volumes of gas or oil.
We test for blow-out preventer equipment, setting and
cementing casings. We also test for plugging operations and
well-completion operations. The additional monies that we would
get from the inspection fee would provide sufficient funds to
add another 46 inspectors to our work force that would again
allow us another opportunity, or greater opportunity, to be
onsite when the drilling is actually taking place.
BLM deg.HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Senator Reed. One of the other complicating aspects is the
fact that the new technology, the fracking technology, has
raised at least issues which are being evaluated by State
authorities, by other agencies, and it's, I would think,
something that you are looking at more closely now in terms of
your inspection program; is that accurate?
Mr. Abbey. It is. You know, fracking is not new by any
means. About 90 percent of the wells that are being drilled
today on public lands are using the fracturing technology.
So our inspections have always included looking at the
fracking operations as they were occurring. But again, the
additional fees would provide us opportunities to be onsite
more often than where we are right now.
BLM deg.ROYALTY RATES
Senator Reed. The Secretary has also indicated recently his
intention to raise the onshore royalty rate from 12.5 to 18.75
percent. Can you tell me how these rates, the present rate and
the proposed rate, compare to State rates? Because State rates
is probably the comparable point.
Mr. Abbey. Well, it varies somewhat. Let me just suggest
that our primary goal is to make sure that the American
taxpayer is receiving a fair return for the assets that are
being developed. That's the least that we can do.
At the same time, as we go forward we have analyzed what
some of the States--well, many of the States actually--are
charging relative to royalty for production that are occurring
within or around State lands.
We've also done some analysis of what some of the other
countries have--are charging relative to royalties or similar
types of fees that are assessed oil and gas companies.
Even though our budget was based upon an assumption that an
increase of royalties would go to 18.75 percent for both oil
and natural gas, let me just reassure the members of this
subcommittee that that decision has not been reached.
We're continuing to look at the full range of statistics
that we have been able to compile, the analysis that we're
continuing to perform, prior to making any decision to increase
the royalties for oil and gas production on these public lands.
BLM deg.ONSHORE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much. And I know Senator
Murkowski is going to get into this, and she's raised a very
important question about the difference between production
figures on private lands and public lands.
And I think implicit in all your answers has been just that
there are commercial reasons why even if the lease is
available, it's not being utilized. Can you kind of list the
three or four general, number of rigs? Is there an insufficient
number of rigs?
Mr. Abbey. Well, no doubt--Well, I don't have the figures.
But I do know that the availability of rigs is an equation that
comes into consideration by the companies relative to where
they're going to be developing, or drilling.
Let me just say right up front. It is quite--it is a lot
cheaper to drill on private land than it is on public lands.
All they have to do is cut a deal with the private landowner.
When you come before BLM with a proposal to drill on public
lands, there are a lot of factors that we evaluate. Again, we
have to look at the appropriateness of leasing certain parcels
for oil and gas development or any particular use. We have to
adhere to NEPA. We have to adhere to consultation not only with
Native Americans, but with the Fish and Wildlife Service to
ensure that the proposals that are before us can be adequately
mitigated.
So there are an awful lot of rules and regulations that the
companies would have to adhere to. But each of those rules and
regulations are intended to make sure that the production goes
forward to the degree that it can be allowed as appropriate.
But also the leasing reforms that we have applied are to
provide greater certainty to the industry themselves that if
they lease a parcel of land, that they're going to be able to
develop that parcel of land. And I can tell you in 2009 that
was not the case.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you. My time has expired. Senator
Murkowski, please.
BLM deg.ONSHORE ROYALTY RATES
Senator Murkowski. Well, thank you. And I'll follow on
because you've given me a little bit of assurance by saying the
decision has not been made on this issue of increasing the
royalty rates onshore.
You have stated, and rightly so, that it is more costly to
develop on the public lands. And so, as we look to a royalty
rate increase as has been suggested, that too then adds to that
cost.
And again, to my earlier point, I think it causes
developers to look to develop on State and private lands before
they would turn to our public lands. I do think it's important
to recognize the study that was commissioned by the Department
to look at the royalty rate structures on our Federal lands and
compare them to other States, as you've noted, to other
countries.
There's a consensus coming out of the report that says that
they--that a rate increase is not warranted. They compare
Wyoming to other onshore areas and conclude that Wyoming's
competitive edge is on shaky ground, and Alberta and British
Columbia are aggressively seeking to attract investment by
offering incentives for lower royalty rates that encourage
development.
So I really hope that the Department is looking very
critically at your own analysis and working to insure again
that we are not putting additional hurdles in place for
development on Federal lands, additional costs on top of the
costs that are already in place.
So I am glad to hear you make the statement that it has not
been--a conclusion has not been reached. Do you have any idea
when you might make that determination, where you're going with
that?
Mr. Abbey. Well, Senator, we really don't--or least, I
don't, at this point in time. I do know that we had
conversations as recently as yesterday with the Office and
Management and Budget regarding proposed rules as it relates to
royalty increases.
You know, Wyoming is doing quite well. You cited that in
this study and said that they're losing their competitive edge.
Senator Murkowski. Your study, not mine.
Mr. Abbey. But nonetheless, there are a lot of factors that
we have taken into consideration relative to what we will
ultimately propose for any royalty rate increase.
I will say this to you that the 12.5-percent royalty rate
that's in place right now for both natural gas and oil has been
in place for decades. And so, I do think it was prudent that we
conducted this study. That we are doing the analysis to
determine what is a fair return to the American taxpayer.
BSEE deg.OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF INSPECTION PERSONNEL
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask about the timeliness of where
we are with OCS permitting. And I guess I'll bring you into the
conversation, Director Watson.
Can you tell us how the Department is doing with respect to
hiring the additional personnel that you need to conduct the
inspections and process the permits?
As I mentioned in my statement, in the last Interior bill,
we moved forward the new fees to help with this effort, provide
additional authorities to not only increase the level of
competition, but really to try to get additional funds for
those personnel responsibilities.
Where are we with that? I'm still hearing from folks that
they feel that the agency is still understaffed, and that is
causing what they consider to be ongoing delays. Where are we?
Mr. Watson. We began with about 60 inspectors and a modest
number of engineers that do the permitting. And we have a
target that is based on where the industry is projected to go
in terms of the number of applications that we would expect to
get, plus all of the new standards that we've implemented and
the workload that's required.
And it comes out to you need about a total of 150
inspectors, and you need about 230 engineers. And so, we are on
a process of hiring inspectors and engineers. In the area of
inspectors, we've gone up from about 60 last year to 91 this
year.
And on the engineers, we've added about 10 percent. So
we're needing to add more engineers.
Senator Murkowski. You've got a long ways to go.
Mr. Watson. We do have a long way to go in engineers. But,
as you know, the appropriation just came out in December. It
was vital that we had some ability to incentivize those
engineers to work for the U.S. Government instead of for the
oil companies. They're paid very well by the oil companies
especially when the price of oil is what it is today.
So we are in the process of implementing that pay
incentive. And we also are doing some aggressive outreach to
connect with new graduates from the engineering schools. We're
even working with the American Petroleum Institute and other
industry organizations to assist us with those people that may
want to work for the Government because of some of the benefits
and perhaps some of the stability that we can provide that the
industry typically doesn't.
So I'm optimistic. It'll take a couple of years for us to
reach our goal. But I think we will make a big stride this
year.
Senator Murkowski. Well, as you all know, the congressional
intent was that part of these new fees be used to expand the
capacity so that we could expedite the orderly development of
offshore there.
And I do appreciate the timelines and I also recognize that
we just can't snap our fingers and have these folks in place.
But I--you will be able to count on me to keep inquiring with
you on a regular basis to see how we are doing, not only in
getting the bodies in these positions, but again making sure
that it's going towards the goal which is a more orderly and
expedited processing for these OCS permits.
So it's not only getting the bodies in, but making sure
that we're seeing greater movement there. My time has expired,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
talk about fracking for a little bit.
BLM deg.HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
A current complaint from the industry is there's too many
cooks in the kitchen. The Department of Energy (DOE), United
States Geological Survey (USGS), and the EPA are all in the
process of studying fracking. I've heard that there's maybe as
many as 10 agencies that are involved in the process.
I think the budget gives $13 million to USGS. I think
there's about $45 million for fracking research in total in the
different budgets. Duplication is something that I'm always
worried about. People doing the same work in different
agencies, and we can get a little better bang for the buck.
I just want to get your perspective on what's going on with
the research effort. And is there coordination between agencies
so that there isn't overlapping research.
Mr. Abbey. Again, duplication is always a concern for all
of us, I believe, as we go forward during these lean times. I'm
aware of two studies that we are assisting with. We're not--
only with data.
One study by EPA, and then a second study that's being
conducted by the USGS within the Department of the Interior.
Our participation, like I said, is fairly limited to providing
statistics and data that they are then taking into account as
part of their analysis.
As it relates to BLM, we are proposing a new rule relative
to fracking. The components of that rule are based upon three
primary recommendations. It came to us from the DOE Task Force
on Fracturing Technology.
The three components that we're focused on are public
disclosure of the chemicals that are being used on drilling
operations on public lands. Many States have such disclosure
policies in place right now, and we want to make sure that the
standards that are going to apply to public lands, are similar
to what's being applied on State lands.
The second component of our proposed fracking rule will
address well-bore integrity, to make sure that the casings that
are being used during the drilling operation are secure.
They're going to protect groundwater.
And then the third component is water management, both
looking at the source of the water that's being used because
there's a significant amount of water that's used in fracking
operations in most circumstances. And then, second, what occurs
with the disposal of that wastewater after a fracking operation
ceases.
Making sure that the disposal is consistent with local and
State law, not Federal law, but local and State law. So those
are the three components that we've incorporated into our
proposed rule. We anticipate releasing a draft rule pertaining
to fracking as early as April.
Senator Tester. I want to take it one more direction, and
that is, when I talk to the industry, the industry says,
fracking is going on so deep that it can't impact the potable
water up above.
When I talk to folks, other folks, they're saying that
their water is being impacted by the fracking. I don't know
which is the truth. USGS has estimated that some aquifers in
the Bakken are losing about 1 to 2 feet per year due to
increased energy production.
I don't know why that is, if it's because of fracking or
some other reason. But water's very, very important. And I just
wondered, can you give me any idea if, number one, the aquifers
in the Bakken are indeed losing that kind of--that they're
being diminished by 1 to 2 a year?
And, second, why is that? And, third, is there something we
can do about it?
Mr. Abbey. Well, I would refer you to USGS for the answer
to your specific question relative to what is causing that
depletion. I do know that many fracking operations require an
extensive amount of water. That water has to come from
somewhere.
And so energy companies are securing water rights wherever
they're operating in order to have access to such water so that
they can continue with the fracking operation. But I would also
give acknowledgement to the industry for they understand the
potential impact, and certainly the long-term impacts of
continuing the operations that are currently taking place with
the amount of water.
And they're doing, or at least proposing to do, a better
job of re-using water. And actually treating water onsite so it
can be used there on additional or new fracking operations.
Senator Tester. Well, it is a big issue. I mean, there was
an amendment on the floor yesterday that I think failed because
some people didn't want to encourage more fracking. The Bakken
play is because we have the ability to frack. We're getting
natural gas because we have the ability to frack. We like to
see it done.
But by the same token, 10 years from now, we don't want to
look back and say, ``Oh, my God! What have we done?'' So I
would hope that the research that's being done is being done in
a coordinated fashion and very timely.
BLM deg.WELL CLOSURE
I want to talk about well closure for BLM wells, for wells
on BLM land. Could you compare the procedure to what happens on
state or private lands in a State like Montana when it comes to
well closure?
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, we take plugging and abandonment
quite seriously because it's the last time we actually have an
opportunity to look down the hole before the cement is placed.
And so, we give that one of the highest priorities as part
of our inspection program--is that when there is going to be a
well that's going to be closed and abandoned--that we have our
inspectors out there almost 100 percent of the time to make
sure that the process is completed based upon the engineering
that had gone into that design and approval process.
Senator Tester. Is that the--can you give me any idea--you
may not have knowledge--what goes on the State or private lands
as far as well closure?
Mr. Abbey. I really don't. I do know that there should be
some similarities, but some States do a better job of
prioritizing inspections than others. I won't cite any examples
relative to who does that better than others, but nonetheless,
you know, we are responsible for managing these wells on
Federal lands, and that's where our focus is right now.
Senator Tester. All right. Thank you very much.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Tester. I have a few more
questions and I will then obviously recognize my colleagues for
their additional questions.
BOEM deg.OFFSHORE LEASE AUCTIONS
Mr. Beaudreau, I understand that you're going to use a new
auction process format for offshore wind, alternate energy,
unlike what you do for oil and gas in the gulf, for example.
And it raises a question of why the different auction
procedures, first question. Second, we've got to get that
information out to potential applicants in a very expeditious
way otherwise they might not be prepared when the auction
occurs.
And, frankly, they also, deserve the opportunity of,
evaluating, and commenting on the procedures to insure that
they are fair to all potential parties.
So, could you comment on the reason for the new procedures
and also commit to getting the proposal out quickly so that
relevant parties can participate?
Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, the reason for the new procedures is
that, strictly speaking, offshore wind energy development is
fundamentally different than oil and gas. You have a finite
area that is being made available. You want to make sure that
you get as much efficiency out of that area as possible.
Unlike oil and gas where you purchase a parcel. You assume
the risk for the parcel. You drill a well. If it's a dry well,
you go someplace else. Here, we have a number of interested
companies. We have a number of interests that we need to take
into account in considering how to lease the finite area.
That includes the efficiency of their project. The
likelihood that this particular operator can actually bring a
viable project online, and the best configuration of multiple
projects within the limited area.
And so that creates a little bit more complex process. That
said, we are very actively evaluating alternatives for this
leasing process with the idea of, while addressing those
multiple factors that distinguish it from oil and gas, keeping
it as simple as possible.
And there's a number of reasons for that. We have gone
through an extensive process to make this area available. We
want to encourage the development of offshore wind, and so we
want to keep our auction process as simple as possible, while
at the same time, getting the area into the hands of operators
who will be able to stand up real projects.
With respect to the auction process and familiarity among
operators with that process, you're absolutely right. That is
essential. We put out a description, an auction format
information request last fall, and had a comment period
provided to operators and got a lot of useful feedback from
operators about the different factors and alternatives we could
employ in the auction format.
And so we've been extensively engaged with operators
through that process. And we are planning into the run-up to
lease sales, coordination with operators, to make sure they
understand exactly how a lease process will unfold, exactly
what would be expected of them, because we want an efficient
lease sale.
And we want it to work, and we want it to work right out of
the box.
Senator Reed. Do you have an idea of when you will be
prepared to sort of publish a final, or at least final for
comment, proposal?
Mr. Beaudreau. Yes. We've done all of the comment and so
now we're working on finalizing what the auction format will
be.
You know, each auction will have to be tailored a little
bit to the region, but we hope to have all of that in place for
competitive leasing later this year.
BOEM deg.OFFSHORE WIND INSPECTION
Senator Reed. Very good. Now, assuming you've got turbines
and transmission lines operating in the water, will BOEM
employees conduct the on-site inspections? Or, will BSEE step
in and take over?
Mr. Beaudreau. Yes. So in the near term, part of what we're
trying to do with the additional funding that we've received is
hire structural engineers who can help us evaluate construction
and operation plans which is a key component down the road to
getting steel in the water.
Eventually, when those operations are up, steel is in the
water, BSEE will have a role in conducting safety inspections
and compliance with respect to those operations.
Senator Reed. Director Watson, you're collaborating right
now for the hand off, I presume?
Mr. Watson. Yes, Sir. The two Bureaus were just recently
created, but we have a lot of inter-dependencies, and there's
still evolution going on. I think right now our priority is
with the oil and gas safety and establishing our environmental
enforcement division.
But we'll be ready when the time comes to take on the wind
work.
Senator Reed. Just a final question. You know, you don't
have the same dangers that we saw with the oil rig exploding,
et cetera, but you have the problems of hurricane damage, et
cetera.
Have we clearly set out the responsibility for the
leaseholders in terms of their obligation to repair and to
remediate? You know, there's no oil fund for this process, I
presume.
Mr. Beaudreau. No, that's right. And there are other
mitigation factors around the impacts on avian resources,
marine mammals. That is why we're doing these environmental
analyses so we can develop mitigation measures and requirements
to ensure that, one, the operations go up that can provide
energy from renewable sources, but, two, we're managing the
potential impacts.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to add a
couple more questions to the inquiry from Senator Tester on
fracking.
BLM deg.HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
One of the concerns that I'm hearing from folks is that the
concern that these will be overlapping or duplicative
regulations that are coming out of BLM on top of what they
already face within the States.
Can you speak to that as an issue? Give me some assurance
there that we're not just adding on additional, Federal
regulations, on top of what the States are doing, and how you
will work to eliminate any such redundancy?
Mr. Abbey. Again, as I mentioned earlier, there's going to
be three components of our fracking rule: disclosure of
chemicals, well-bore integrity, and water management.
The similarities that exist would be in the disclosure of
chemicals. Many States now are requiring----
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. Abbey [continuing]. As part of fracking operations, for
the companies to disclose what chemicals are being used as part
of their operations.
We will be requiring that, but we also hope----
Senator Murkowski. Will that information be shared
publicly, or will there be provisions that will allow for
protecting any trade secrets that might exist?
Mr. Abbey. The information would be available publicly
unless there's some rationale and justification that the
companies would provide us to keep that trade secret from being
made public.
Senator Murkowski. So that would be considered on a case-
by-case basis?
Mr. Abbey. It would be considered on a case-by-case, and we
have a process already in place to make that type of
determination.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. All right. Let me ask about
onshore inspection fees.
BLM deg.ONSHORE INSPECTION FEES
Currently, BLM collects more than $32 million for the
processing of the APDs, and this fiscal year 2013 budget
proposes new authority to collect an additional inspection fee
that apparently totals $48 million.
How did you establish these fees? Are they based on actual
inspection costs? Where did they come from?
Mr. Abbey. Basically, they are based on actual costs, or
what our estimates of actual costs would be. The fee itself
would be implemented in accordance with the number of wells
that are on a particular lease.
And, for example, if there's a lessee with a lot of wells
on that particular lease, they would pay more inspection fees
than a smaller operator would.
Senator Murkowski. So, has there been any assessment on the
impact to small businesses that may be on the Federal lands?
When we're talking offshore, we don't worry about that because
you don't have any very small operators there.
But, has there been any kind of an assessment there that
looks at what the impact may be on those smaller businesses?
Mr. Abbey. We have done that analysis and that assessment
and, you know, quite frankly though, the highest risk we have
sometimes are with smaller operators. They just do not have the
capital to do everything that's required to ensure
environmental protections for the drilling that's occurring or
the production that's occurring.
So there's a necessity for us to get out there on the site
to make sure that those operators are complying with all the
laws and rules of governing their operations. So we can't
ignore them. But we have taken into account--or taken into our
analysis the economic effects or impacts to operators.
Senator Murkowski. As you have done the analysis, have you
looked at kind of the cumulative impact of these additional
fees that we're talking about? You've got the existing APD
fees. You're talking about new inspection fees, increasing
royalty rates, perhaps.
Are you concerned that what might result is lower bonus
bids coming out, less production on Federal lands, which then
results in less revenue to the Treasury? Has that been factored
into the analysis as well?
Mr. Abbey. It is. And we understand the cumulative effects
on the industry itself based upon everything that we are doing
to ensure environmentally responsible drilling on these lands.
And to make sure that we're making appropriate parcels of
public lands available for such extraction. Well, that is a
factor that we've also taken into account as we review the
royalty rate options before us.
We are looking at the cumulative effects--that all the
other actions that we're also taking have on the industry.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. Got one more question, Mr.
Chairman. This is it for me.
BLM deg.BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT/OFFICE OF SURFACE MANAGEMENT
MERGER
But, the Department yesterday had announced its analysis of
this merger, the proposed merger between the OSM and BLM. It
generated a fair amount of discussion and controversy within
the Energy Committee when that was announced.
I do appreciate what the Department of the Interior has
done to avoid the violation of the statutory responsibilities
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, but the
analysis, as I understand it, fails to quantify how this merger
is actually going to generate any savings or efficiencies.
And we had asked for an assessment of the costs and the
benefits of the proposal. But, from what I can tell, the
Department has failed to include any of that. I am of the mind
that the Interior Department needs to go back and actually
calculate whether the consolidation of administrative functions
is really worth pursuing.
I know that you have been involved in this probably more so
than most others out there. What can you tell us about this new
proposal versus what was originally laid out there, and about
the fact that we haven't been able to demonstrate that we're
going to see any cost savings here?
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, I think the jury is out relative to
how much cost savings there actually will be. But----
Senator Murkowski. You do agree that it is's an important
part of what this was all about?
Mr. Abbey. It is. But we also believe that there will be
efficiencies gained based upon the actions that the Secretary
approved yesterday. And by that, and what you read, is that BLM
will be providing administrative support to OSM.
Where they were required to hire similar skills in
positions that we already had in place right now, they would no
longer need those type of positions because those services
would be provided by the BLM.
Some of the revenue collections functions would then be
transferred to the Office of Natural Resource Revenue (ONRR).
Again, gaining some efficiencies relative to the savings of
positions. But the OSM would remain an independent entity
within the Department of the Interior performing their mandated
functions.
All we are trying to achieve are some administrative
efficiencies, some cost savings, and to allow the OSM to focus
their limited dollars on the important work that they do
perform on behalf of this Nation.
Senator Murkowski. So, are you suggesting then that the
cost benefit analysis will still be coming to us? That, in
fact, there is an ongoing assessment in terms of what cost
savings might be achieved that we might be able to learn that
later?
Mr. Abbey. No, that's not what I'm implying. Basically,
what I'm saying is that we're going to learn how much
efficiencies there are, or cost savings there are, as we go
forward and implement the actions that were approved.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I'm leaving here to go to another
Appropriations subcommittee where I'm going to be inquiring
with the Secretary of the Air Force about where they're going
to achieve certain cost savings, and they're kind of going into
the same thing.
Well, we'll see if we get the cost savings that we're
hoping for. My argument to them was, you made that argument to
me in 2005 with the Base Realignment and Closure round. We
didn't achieve the cost savings. Now, you're going back and
you're doing the exact same thing.
So count me a bit as a skeptic if we're waiting to see
whether there's any efficiencies that are gained. I think you
know that there's a lot of consternation about this specific
merger. So I would hope that we would be focusing on how we see
those savings, how we gain those efficiencies.
Mr. Abbey. Again, I think that there will be some savings.
I just could not give you the exact amount of savings at this
point in time.
There will be fewer people that would be employed. The
systems would be consistent, or at least the systems that we
would have in place in BLM, that would allow us to provide the
support that OSM would require, are already in place. So it
wouldn't require us to do much adjustment or to increase that
type of capacity.
And, again, we would be benchmarking against what OSM is
currently doing and improving our own performance and
operations within the BLM.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. And thank you, gentlemen, for your
testimony.
Senator Reed. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a very
quick follow up on what Senator Murkowski was talking about.
You said there were going to be fewer people. Is there
duplication that will be eliminated?
Mr. Abbey. There is. I mean, that's why there will be less
people because there will be duplication eliminated.
Senator Tester. Okay. And will there be a higher level of
accountability at least for us in order to know who to look at
it, where the buck stops?
Mr. Abbey. Yeah. You have my telephone number relative to
the support function----
Senator Tester. Well, I mean, part of the problem that I
find is when it comes to accountability, I'm not talking about
your agency, necessarily, is that there is duplication in work
being done. And when it comes to a problem, when it arises,
that there's--well, too many cooks in the kitchen.
So you can't nail anybody down. Would this, from your
perspective, would this help with accountability?
Mr. Abbey. I do. Again, there's a lot of opportunities for
us to improve our performance.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Mr. Abbey. In these lean times that we're all in, we need
to be looking at every opportunity that we have to improve our
performance, to create the efficiencies that the American
taxpayers are demanding, and to reduce costs, because there are
no new dollars coming our way.
Senator Tester. All right. Thank you. That was just brought
up. I'm glad Senator Murkowski brought it up because I think
ultimately in the end, I think money is important but for us, I
think what's equally--well, it is equally important in my
opinion is--if something goes upside down and there's more than
one agency dealing with it, people slip through the cracks.
BLM deg.ONSHORE RENEWABLE ENERGY LEASES
But that's not what I want to talk about. In your budget
this year, $73 million was permitted to construct renewable
energy projects on public lands. The agency has a goal of
10,000 megawatts at the end of the year.
The Department has recently sent out a request for
information on proposing competitive leasing on public lands
for renewable energy. It's a proposal similar to a bill that
Senator Risch and I have, S. 1775, which directs the agency to
pilot competitive leasing for renewable energy on public lands.
BLM's request is a bit different, for information, it's a
bit different? It does not include revenue sharing for states
or communities or ecosystems which are most impacted by the
development and has minimal sideboards for mitigation or
avoidance of natural resource damage, and it doesn't return
funding to streamline the process, as S. 1775 does.
I believe it's because the BLM does not have the authority
to do so today. I am optimistic to see the agency moving
forward, but leasing is only a part of the equation. I would
like to have you expand on how your agency plans to address the
broader issue of impacts to communities, natural resources, if
the permitting is expanded.
Mr. Abbey. Well, first and foremost, we're quite intrigued
by your legislation. Not only encouraging competitive process,
but also, potentially, the return of some of the revenues back
to mitigate for the impacts associated with such development.
So we look forward to working with you, Senator, and others
in this Congress to pass common sense legislation that would
allow us to meet our common goals.
As we go forward with greater emphasis on renewable energy
development in using public lands to achieve that goal, we are
quite confident that by calendar year 2013 we will have
approved 11,000 megawatts of renewable energy generated from
public lands.
That would include wind, solar and geothermal, primarily.
We are also moving forward expeditiously through our land use
planning process and our NEPA process to actually designate--in
the case of solar, solar energy development zones, where we
would steer development, do our best to steer development to
areas that have already been screened, analyzed, and cleared
for such development.
We would be proposing to do something similar for wind in
the very, very near future, so that we could steer development
to the best places where that development could go forward and
actually achieve our mutual goal of diversifying the Nation's
energy portfolio.
At the same time, we understand that these are large-scale
projects. They're large foot prints on these public lands.
Therefore, we need to make sure that there is appropriate
mitigation to offset the lands that are being dedicated for
that particular type of use.
We will work very closely with the communities. We are
working very closely with all public land stakeholders, with
the industry itself, as well as environmental groups, to come
up with an appropriate mitigation for such a large-scale
commercial development. And I think we're seeing some
successes.
BLM deg.GEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT
Senator Tester. That's good. I want to flesh out geothermal
a little bit as long as you brought it up.
Mr. Abbey. You bet.
Senator Tester. I think it's an incredible opportunity to
provide baseload power. It is very costly at this point in
time.
Senator Murkowski and I have a bill which would expand our
knowledge about geothermal energy and its potential.
Can you speak specifically, you touched on it, but
specifically on your efforts to expand geothermal production
and the barriers that you're facing at this point in time to
deploying this technology?
Mr. Abbey. Well, quite honestly, the footprint associated
with geothermal is a lot less than with wind and solar. It also
has probably the highest potential for future development than
probably solar or wind as it relates to the amount of public
lands that would be dedicated or made available for that type
of particular use.
We're very optimistic about the future of geothermal. You
know, the prices are not necessarily competitive when you're
looking or competing against coal and some of the other
conventional energy sources at this point in time. But we do
believe that geothermal will be a major part of our Nation's
energy portfolio in the years to come.
Senator Tester. Are you facing any barriers at this point
in time other than money?
Mr. Abbey. No, we're not.
Senator Tester. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
think a three-member committee with a three-member board, this
works out pretty damn nice. So thank you all very much for your
time.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Tester. I want to thank
the witnesses for their excellent testimony and for your
skillful leadership of your agencies. I also want to thank my
colleagues for what I concur with Senator Tester was a very
productive and very thoughtful hearing.
There may be additional questions. I would ask all of my
colleagues to submit them within 1 week, by March 21, and for
you gentlemen to respond as quickly as possible to any written
questions.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Bureaus for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Robert V. Abbey
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
blm deg.NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT REVIEWS
Question. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is now just completing
work on the Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which
has been a 4-year effort to categorize Federal land into Solar Energy
Zones (SEZs) where solar development is encouraged, areas off limits to
solar development, and areas where solar development will be allowed
only in situations where a variance is awarded.
In theory, this process was supposed to identify zones of BLM land
where solar development is appropriate and the permitting process can
be done expeditiously.
However, I am concerned that the benefits of this process are still
unclear.
First, I don't understand how it will expedite permitting. BLM has
not conducted comprehensive field studies of the SEZs, so solar
development proposed within the zones will still be subject to a multi-
year period of field studies, consultation with Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), substantial species mitigation expenses, and likely
another full EIS.
Second, BLM has already permitting numerous projects in the only
large zone in California, known as Riverside East, and experts suggest
that the transmission capacity to this zone will be used up by the
projects already permitted and further development in this area is
unlikely.
What incentives does BLM propose that will ensure that development
of solar power on public lands in California is centered on these
zones?
Answer. The Supplement to the Draft Solar Programmatic Environment
Impact Statement (EIS) describes in detail proposed incentives for
developers to site new projects in SEZs--including greater certainty of
applications being approved and shorter permitting times. This will be
further refined in the final EIS.
BLM has taken a number of important steps through the Supplement to
the Draft Solar Programmatic EIS to facilitate future development in
SEZs in a streamlined and standardized manner. Utility-scale solar
energy development projects proposed in SEZs will be required to comply
with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable
laws, including, but not limited to the Endangered Species Act and the
National Historic Preservation Act, and applicable regulations and
policies. Nonetheless, much of the environmental analysis completed for
the Supplement to the Draft Solar Programmatic EIS will benefit future
development in SEZs by minimizing the level of detailed analyses
required for individual projects. In addition to this work, under the
Supplement to the Draft Solar Programmatic EIS BLM is proposing to
undertake a variety of additional activities that could help steer
future utility-scale solar development to the SEZs. For example, these
include faster and easier permitting in SEZs; improvement of mitigation
processes; facilitation of the permitting of needed transmission to
SEZs; encouragement of solar development on appropriate non-Federal
lands; and economic incentives for development in SEZs. For further
details please see the Supplement to the Draft Solar Programmatic EIS,
section 2.2.2.2.3 incentives for Projects in SEZs at: http://
solareis.anl.gov/documents/sup/Supplement_to_the_Draft_Solar_PEIS.pdf.
blm deg.WEST MOJAVE SOLAR ENERGY ZONE
Question. The Conference Report to the fiscal year 2012 Interior,
Environment, and related agencies appropriations bill states: ``. . .
the Secretary is instructed to complete a report evaluating the
possible Solar Energy Study Areas in the West Mojave that respect
designated off-road vehicle routes and provide the report to the
Committee on Appropriations within ninety days of enactment of this
Act.''
What is the status of this report?
Answer. BLM's California State Office is currently reviewing a
draft report that includes a summary of BLM's approach and progress in
the evaluation of solar energy development in the West Mojave. This
evaluation is part of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan
(DRECP). BLM is evaluating off-highway vehicle (OHV) access and other
recreational resources as part of the environmental analysis.
Recreation and OHV specialists at the BLM State offices, districts, and
field offices are involved in this analysis. Some of the alternatives
will include potential energy development impacts to OHV Open areas and
to designated trails in the West Mojave. BLM is aware of the importance
of access to multiple-use areas on public lands and is working with its
Federal, State, and local partners to maintain multiple uses within the
DRECP planning area.
When does BLM intend to create a SEZ in the West Mojave to
encourage development in this area of lower ecological value?
Answer. Planning and analysis of renewable energy development in
the West Mojave is currently underway. Draft environmental documents
are expected to be released for public review in mid-September 2012.
The final documents are expected to be released in mid-March 2013, and
BLM anticipates making a final decision on the plan in late May 2013.
DRECP is the largest landscape planning effort in California,
covering approximately 22.5 million acres of Federal and non-Federal
land in the Mojave and Colorado (Sonoran) deserts of southern
California. Solar, wind, and transmission development are all under
consideration for the West Mojave in the DRECP. Alternatives will
consider different configurations of development in the West Mojave on
both Federal and non-Federal land. One possible outcome of the DRECP
could be the designation of an additional SEZ in the West Mojave.
blm deg.PRIORITY PERMITTING
Question. When this administration took office in 2009, more than
200 applications had been filed to develop renewable energy projects on
BLM land in California, but no projects had been permitting, and only
two were under formal NEPA review. Objectively speaking, the process
for permitting was fundamentally broken.
Over the past 3 years, this administration has fixed a broken
system. BLM now creates a list of 8 to 12 ``priority projects'' each
year on which to focus its work. The projects on this list propose to
develop less environmentally sensitive lands in a manner less likely to
end up in court, and have developers who have done the necessary work
lining up transmission agreements, power purchase agreements and
conducting field studies to be considered, for lack of a better term,
``ready to go.''
Bottom line: BLM has prioritized the permitting of the best
projects, and it has been able to permit many good projects
expeditiously as a result. The proof is in the pudding. Very few of the
projects in California permitted through the priority list process have
been challenged in Court. (Brightsource's Ivanpaw, arguably the most
controversial project permitted by BLM, was one of the two projects
already under formal NEPA review when Obama took office.)
BLM is now just completing work on the Solar Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement, which attempts to categorize Federal
land into SEZs where solar development is encouraged, areas off limits
to solar development, and areas where solar development will be allows
only in situations where a variance is awarded.
How does BLM plan to integrate its highly successful ``priority
projects'' approach to permitting with this new approach?
Answer. Over the past 3 years, BLM has implemented a program to
prioritize the processing of renewable energy applications. These
priority lists were developed in collaboration with FWS, the National
Park Service (NPS), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs with an emphasis
on early consultation. The screening criteria for priority solar and
wind projects, developed through BLM policy memoranda issued in
February 2011, assisted in evaluating and screening these utility-scale
projects on BLM-managed lands. The process of screening for projects is
about focusing resources on the most-promising renewable-energy
projects. One of the likely outcomes of the Supplement to the Draft
Solar Programmatic EIS is that some SEZs would be established. Projects
located within the SEZs would be given priority for processing, all
other factors being equal, over projects outside these zones. However,
even if SEZs are established, there will almost certainly be legitimate
reasons for developing certain projects outside of these zones, and BLM
will work to ensure that permitting timelines are reasonable for all
meritorious projects. As described in the Supplement to the Draft Solar
Programmatic EIS (Appendix A, Section A.2.1.1), BLM will develop and
incorporate into its Solar Energy Program an adaptive management and
monitoring plan to ensure that data and lessons learned about the
impacts of solar energy projects will be collected, reviewed, and, as
appropriate, incorporated into BLM's Solar Energy Program in the
future.
blm deg.DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LAND
Question. A recent study by the Defense Department (DOD) found that
four military bases in California could produce 7,000 MW of solar power
on marginal base lands. The lands cannot be used for training and have
little ecological value. However, some of these base lands were
``withdrawn'' long ago. I understand that BLM and the Interior
Department continue to assert that these lands should be returned to
BLM management if they are developed for solar, even though these lands
are often surrounded on all sides by the base. Realistically, I think
Interior's position will prevent the DOD from opening its bases to
solar development if it means giving up control of lands in the middle
of military bases.
Will BLM agree to work with the DOD to settle, within 3 months, its
legal dispute with regard to management of withdrawn lands developed
for solar energy?
Answer. While the development of renewable energy on the public
lands is a national priority, providing opportunities for renewable
energy development on DOD lands (including BLM withdrawn lands), is
also important. We have established a collaborative process with the
DOD to address renewable energy development opportunities on BLM-
withdrawn land. The Department of the Interior (DOI) and DOD in April
2011 formed an Interagency Land Use Coordinating Committee (ILUCC) to
help facilitate that dialogue. The Committee is co-chaired by DOI
Deputy Assistant Secretary Sylvia Baca and DOD Assistant Deputy Under
Secretary John Conger. The ILUCC members include not only BLM, but also
FWS, NPS, Office of the Solicitor, and the individual DOD services.
Several subgroups have been formed under the ILUCC to address various
areas of collaboration, including a subgroup that is focused on
resolving authorities for the siting and permitting of renewable energy
projects on BLM withdrawn lands.
blm deg.BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SOLAR SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Question. Director Abbey, last October BLM issued its Draft
Supplemental Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS),
which includes large amounts of ``variance'' lands outside the solar
zones. It is my understanding that while applicants are strongly
encouraged to pursue projects within the identified solar zones, BLM
will consider permitting development in these ``variance'' areas. While
some flexibility to consider lands beyond the zones may be necessary, I
find it highly problematic that an estimated 50,000 acres of land that
were donated or purchased with Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars
have been included in the variance lands. Given that these lands were
intended to be preserved in perpetuity, I do not believe they should be
open for development. Can you tell me what is the process by which BLM
will consider and grant permission for solar projects to be constructed
on ``variance'' lands?
Answer. The process for considering solar projects on ``variance''
lands has been delineated in the Supplement to the Draft Solar
Programmatic EIS in detail. However, no final decision has been made.
In addition, there might be market, technological, or site-specific
factors that make a project appropriate in a non-SEZ area. BLM will
consider variance applications on a case-by-case basis, based on
environmental considerations; consultation with appropriate Federal,
State, and local agencies, and tribes; and public outreach. If BLM
determines a variance application to be appropriate for continued
processing, BLM will require the applicant to comply with NEPA and all
other applicable laws, regulations, and policies at the applicant's
expense. Applicants applying for a variance must assume all risk
associated with their application and understand that their financial
commitments in connection with their applications will not be a
determining factor in BLM's evaluation process.
Why have donated and LWCF-acquired lands been included among the
``variance'' lands and what steps are being taken to avoid their
development?
Answer. Comments received on the Supplement to the Draft Solar
Programmatic EIS have requested that donated and LWCF-acquired lands be
identified as exclusion areas for utility-scale solar energy
development. BLM is currently considering this request. However, no
decision has been made yet. We would be pleased to brief members of
your staff if you so desire.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Director Abbey, thank you as well for taking time to
appear. While reading your testimony, I was most interested in what
steps you take to increase the percentage of leased onshore lands which
are currently producing. We have 38 million onshore acres leased, which
is a slight decrease from the previous year, when 41 million acres were
leased. On these 38 million acres, only 32 percent, by your estimate,
are currently producing.
What is the prime deterrent to production on Federal onshore lands?
It certainly is not a shortage of companies able to do the work. In
fact, production on private lands has increased drastically--enough to
cover the 15 million barrel shortfall from 2010 to 2011. In your
opinion, what is holding back the huge amount of companies who want to
work onshore from doing so on Federal lands?
Answer. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) strives to achieve a
balance between oil and gas production and protection of the
environment. Facilitating the efficient, responsible development of
domestic oil and gas resources is part of the administration's broad
energy strategy that will protect consumers and help reduce our
dependence on foreign oil. BLM is working on a variety of fronts to
ensure that development is done efficiently and responsibly including:
--implementing leasing reforms;
--continuing leasing activities in the National Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska;
--continuing to process drilling permits in a timely fashion; and
--improving inspection, enforcement, and production accountability.
Oil and gas drilling and development are market-driven activities,
and the demand for leases is a function of market conditions. Market
drivers include prevailing and anticipated oil and gas prices, bidder
assessments of the quality of the resource base in a given area, the
availability/proximity of necessary infrastructure, and the proximity
of the lease to local, regional, and national markets and export hubs.
The shale formations that currently have high industry interest for
development, such as North Dakota's Bakken shale, Texas's Eagle Ford
shale and the Marcellus and Utica shales of the Eastern United States,
are primarily in areas with a high proportion of non-Federal land.
These areas have seen increased development recently due to a favorable
mix of the factors noted above. As drilling priorities shift due to
changes in technology or markets, an operator may choose different
areas for development. Further, BLM lands are primarily gas-prone.
Recent national rig counts (by Baker Hughes) indicate that rigs
drilling for gas are at an ``all-time low'' (by percentage) and the gas
is selling at ``a record discount to crude.'' (Wall Street Journal, May
14, 2012).
Approximately 38 million acres of Federal land are currently leased
for oil and gas development. Approximately 12 million acres are
producing oil and gas, and active exploration is occurring on an
additional 4 million acres. BLM has approved approximately 7,000
drilling permits that are not being used by industry.
Question. You mention that you plan to take steps to increase
production on leased lands, and I see that one step would be a proposed
$4 per-acre fee on nonproducing lands, which I do not support. Do you
have any plans to increase regulatory clarity to make the process or
permitting and oversight more straightforward? Do you plan to increase
the minimum bids for onshore lands or shorten the time leases may be
held without production?
Answer. The purpose of the nonproducing lease fee is to encourage
diligent development of leased parcels. The nonproducing lease fee will
provide financial motivation to either put leases into production or
relinquish the leases so they can be re-leased.
As part of BLM's ongoing efforts to ensure efficient processing of
oil and gas permit applications, BLM will implement new automated
tracking systems expected to significantly reduce the review period for
drilling permits and expedite the sale and processing of Federal oil
and gas leases.
The new system for drilling permits, which is expected to be fully
online by May 2013, will track permit applications through the entire
review process and quickly flag any missing or incomplete information.
This will enable operators to communicate with the BLM more promptly to
address deficiencies in their applications.
To expedite the sale and processing of Federal oil and gas leases,
BLM will launch a new National Oil and Gas Lease Sale System, which
will streamline the phases of competitive oil and gas lease sales by
electronically tracking BLM's leasing process from start to finish.
This new system will replace numerous stand-alone systems and provide a
consistent, easy-to-use electronic process for both the oil and gas
industry and BLM employees. BLM estimates the National Lease Sale
System will be ready to begin testing in a pilot State by December
2012.
The Mineral Leasing Act establishes the national minimum acceptable
bid and the primary term of an oil and gas lease. The act provides the
Secretary of the Interior with the authority to establish a higher
national minimum bid amount. However, the act does not provide
authority to the Secretary to modify the primary term of an oil and gas
lease.
______
Questions Submitted to Tommy P. Beaudreau
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Director Beaudreau, thank you also for taking time to
appear before this hearing today. In your testimony, you mentioned the
efforts that the Bureau of Energy Management (BOEM) is making to
increase offshore production, in light of the President's stated desire
to increase production. You mention that you aim to open 75 percent of
technically recoverable assets to drilling, and that you have taken
steps to increase the percentage of currently leased lands that are
producing.
I see that you have scheduled the final lease sale under this 5-
year plan and that you are already looking forward to the next 5-year
plan, under which you aim to open 75 percent of technically recoverable
assets. Since we currently produce on only 2 percent of the total land
in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), what effect will this have on the
amount of land being produced on--that is, is an increase to 75 percent
of technically recoverable assets as large a step as the President has
stated?
Answer. The proposed Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012
to 2017 focuses on encouraging exploration and development where the
oil is--and the Gulf of Mexico still has the greatest, by a large
margin, untapped resource potential in the entire OCS. The Gulf of
Mexico is the crown jewel of the OCS, and will remain so for the
foreseeable future as developments in seismic and drilling technology
have opened new resource frontiers in the gulf. The Gulf of Mexico, in
particular the deepwater, already has several world class producing
basins, and just in the past year there have been a number of
significant new discoveries.
The 75 percent represents the portion of BOEM's estimated total
``undiscovered technically recoverable resources'' on the OCS that
underlie areas being considered for oil and gas leasing in the proposed
program. Our geological and geophysical data indicate that those
resources are not evenly dispersed across the OCS and that a relatively
small area may have very high concentrations of potentially recoverable
resources.
According to BOEM's findings, the Central Gulf of Mexico is
estimated to hold more than 30 billion barrels of oil and 133.9
trillion cubic feet of natural gas of undiscovered resources. This is
nearly double the resource potential of even the Chukchi Sea. The
Western Gulf of Mexico is just behind the Chukchi Sea with more than 12
billion barrels of oil and nearly 80 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas. BOEM derived the 75-percent figure from an evaluation of the
undiscovered technically recoverable resources estimated in the
proposed lease areas as a function of this total estimated amount.
Question. You also mentioned the steps you have taken to increase
production on the lands which are currently leased, including a
proposed $4 per-acre fee on nonproducing leases, which I do not
support--you have raised the minimum bid on deepwater acres, and you
have shortened the time that a lease may be held without any production
occurring. What has been your feedback from industry on these two
steps? What effects do you believe that these steps will have?
Answer. While BOEM implements these measures for offshore leases,
we have continued to see robust industry interest in acquiring leases
that include these underlying terms. The increased minimum bid and new
lease terms were in place for Western Gulf of Mexico lease sale 218,
held in December 2011. The bidding activity in that sale demonstrates
that these changes are not having a detrimental impact on industry's
interest in acquiring leases in the gulf.
A $4 per-acre fee on nonproducing Federal leases would provide a
financial incentive for oil and gas companies to either get their
leases into production, or relinquish them so the tracts can be leased
to and developed by new parties. In general, industry has not been
supportive of the fee, citing concerns over delays that they argue are
out of their control. However, the administration believes that this
legislative proposal is important to encourage energy production on
lands and waters leased for development. The $4 per-acre fee would only
apply to new leases and would be adjusted for inflation annually. The
minimum bid on deepwater acres encourages prompt development and
production, and helps to ensure that the American public receives fair
market value for these shared resources. BOEM plans to use the minimum
bid as a way to limit the sale size, rather than arbitrarily adjusting
the size of the sale. This allows the market to determine which tracts
are leased. The minimum bid strategy used will be consistent with the
goal of maximizing the economic value of OCS resources.
As you mention, BOEM has taken several specific steps to provide
incentives for diligent development and to encourage operators to bid
on tracts that they are more likely to develop. These steps include:
Increasing Rental Rates To Encourage Faster Exploration and
Development of Leases.--In the Gulf of Mexico, during the
initial term of a lease and before the commencement of royalty-
bearing production, the lessee pays annual rentals which either
step-up by almost half after year 5--for leases in water 400
meters or deeper--or escalate each year after year 5--for
leases in less than 400 meters of water. The primary use of
step-up and escalating rentals is to encourage faster
exploration and development of leases, or earlier
relinquishment when exploration is unlikely to be undertaken by
the current lessee. Rental payments also serve to discourage
lessees from purchasing tracts they are unlikely to actually
develop, and they provide an incentive for the lessee to drill
the lease or to relinquish it, thereby giving other market
participants an opportunity to acquire these blocks. In March
2009, in addition to implementing escalating rental rates, BOEM
raised the base rental rates for years 1-5.
Tiered Durational Terms To Incentivize Prompt Exploration and
Development.--Industry maintains that producing oil is a
lengthy process that takes years between the time a lease is
awarded and the time energy begins flowing from a well on that
lease site. In order to address this concern, BOEM implemented
tiered durational terms to incentivize prompt exploration and
development for leases in the Gulf of Mexico for certain water
depths (400-1,600 meters): a relatively short initial lease
followed by an additional period under the same lease terms if
the operator has already drilled a well. In addition, BOEM
maintains lease terms graduated by water depth in order to
account for technical differences in operating at various water
depths. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement also
recently informed lessees of a decision from the Department's
Office of Hearings and Appeals that reaffirms the requirement
that lessees demonstrate a commitment to produce oil or gas in
order to be eligible for lease expiration suspensions.
Increased Minimum Bid.--In 2011, BOEM increased the minimum bid
for tracts in at least 400 meters of water in the Gulf of
Mexico to $100 per acre, up from $37.50, to help ensure that
taxpayers receive fair market value for offshore resources and
to provide leaseholders with additional impetus to invest in
leases that they are more likely to develop. Analysis of the
last 15 years of lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico showed that
deepwater leases that received high bids of less than $100 per
acre, adjusted for energy prices at the time of each sale,
experienced virtually no exploration and development drilling.
______
Questions Submitted to James Watson
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Thank you for making time today to appear before this
hearing. I realize that you only assumed office on December 1, 2011,
but I understand that you have already taken time to visit Port
Fourchon, a vital supply and support hub for our offshore industry. I
am hopeful that we will develop a close working relationship and that
you will bring new and effective leadership to the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).
Reading through you testimony, a few points caught my attention.
First, you mention that the new standards for inspection are much more
stringent, reflected in the fact that the timeline for permit approval
is now longer and that you have hired more inspectors and engineers. I
understand that these steps were taken to account for increased
difficulty in permitting, but despite this, I continually hear from
industry about the difficulty that they face not only in permit
approval, but also the submission process which occurs prior to any
technical review of a permit application.
Would it make the permit submission process more streamlined if
you were to hire more administrative personnel? I understand that
already work is being shifted from district to district to alleviate
excessive workload--could this be a function of understaffing on the
administrative side of things?
Answer. Permit reviews are addressed by engineers in the Bureau's
district offices. BSEE is hiring and training new engineers to reduce
review and approval time and improve upon the efficiencies that we have
achieved over the past year. The variation in workload that we see
among our district offices in the Gulf of Mexico region is a result of
the geographic distribution of oil and gas activity in the Gulf of
Mexico. The bulk of the activity in the gulf is occurring in the areas
overseen by our New Orleans and Houma District offices. When
appropriate, we shift certain high-priority permits from the New
Orleans and Houma District offices to other offices that have the
ability to provide assistance. Permit applications are submitted and
reviewed electronically, so engineers in any district have access to
all submitted applications. Administrative personnel are essential to
operations in our regional and district offices, and provide vital
support to our engineers who are educated and trained to review or
approve permit applications.
Question. I also hear that many of these submissions are being
returned for resubmission 8 or 9 times--because of small grammatical
errors or the use of footnotes. I understand that you have instituted a
workshop for permitting, might it be helpful to these companies to have
a workshop focused purely on the guidelines for submission, so that we
may avoid these problems. Might it also be beneficial to rewrite the
submission process so that permit applications are judged on their
technical merits more heavily than their grammar?
Answer. As you point out, BSEE has held permitting workshops for
industry that were attended by more than 200 offshore industry
personnel. In addition, the Bureau has also published an Application
for Permit to Drill (APD) submission checklist for operators to provide
clear guidance to operators about the requirements for submitting a
complete APD. Because of these efforts, as well as industry's
increasing familiarity with the new safety requirements instituted
after the Deepwater Horizon event, permit review times have decreased
significantly over the past year and the number of applications
returned to applicants for being incomplete or incorrect has also
declined. We return submittals to applicants for substantive reasons,
not for grammatical errors. The Bureau will continue to work with
industry to make the permit application and review process as clear and
efficient as possible, while continuing to ensure that every
application meets all safety requirements.
Question. I also understand that you plan to update the Interim
Drilling Safety rule to increase regulatory clarity, and that you are
currently reviewing comments on the Safety and Environmental Management
Systems II (SEMS II) rule to increase regulatory clarity and provide
for a more streamlined, but still safe, process moving forward. What
details can you give me about the changes you are making, and what
affects you expect these changes to have?
Answer. The Final Drilling Safety Rule will respond to the comments
received on the Interim Final Rule and is expected to be published in
the Federal Register in the near term. These changes will provide a
considerable amount of clarification and simplification of the
regulations featured in the Interim Drilling Safety rule.
The SEMS II Proposed Rule proposes to expand, revise, and add
several new requirements necessary to ensuring industry uses robust
SEMS programs and to facilitate oversight. The comment period for the
SEMS II Proposed Rule closed on November 14, 2011, and BSEE is
currently reviewing the comments.
Question. I know that your agency, as well as the others testifying
today, is actively involved in developing and implementing a long-term
restoration plan for the Gulf of Mexico. I am sure you are aware that
the Mabus report on America's gulf coast highlighted the need for
developing quantifiable performance measures to track progress in the
Gulf of Mexico recovery efforts, including an assessment of baseline
environmental conditions. The subsequent Gulf Coast Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force report echoed these recommendations and further
noted the need for a robust data collection regimen. In light of the
budget pressures facing your agency, how does the fiscal year 2013
budget support these important baseline environmental data collection
activities? Are you considering more cost-effective, technologically
advanced data collection systems, such as unmanned, persistent
propulsion marine robotic vehicles?
Answer. Baseline environmental data collection responsibilities
fall under the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) Office of
Environmental Programs, and are not BSEE functions. The environmental
program under BSEE focuses on environmental compliance and enforcement
efforts and relies upon BOEM for necessary environmental analyses.
BOEM's fiscal year 2013 budget request for environmental
assessments includes an increase of $700,000 to support environmental
data collection for baseline information on species, habitats, and
ecosystems. These studies and other scientific information form the
basis of environmental assessments and environmental impact statements
required under the National Environmental Policy Act prior to
development. This increase in funding will enable BOEM to initiate one
or two new high-priority baseline characterization and monitoring
studies. These studies will expand the scientific basis for informed
and environmentally responsible policy decisions at BOEM and the
enforcement of environmental regulations by BSEE.
With respect to advanced data collection systems, BOEM has
historically used the best-available technology in its studies and will
consider emerging technologies when looking at future analyses.
Question. The Interior Department administratively issued new
guidance for removal of idle iron--unilaterally changing previous
regulations for the decommissioning of offshore platforms and wells.
Would the Department of the Interior support amending the new idle iron
guidance to either allow for structures to be reefed in place or
provided an extension of time to remove structure that will eventually
be placed in the Rigs-to-Reefs program?
Answer. The regulations regarding decommissioning facilities and
wells (subpart Q of 30 CFR 250) have remained the same since October
30, 2002. The Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) No. 2010-G05 was
issued on September 15, 2010 to clarify the decommissioning
regulations, provide clearer definitions, and allow operators to submit
plans for the use of wells and structures that are potentially no
longer useful for lease operations. BSEE is currently reviewing plans
on a case-by-case basis and working with operators on schedules for
decommissioning and future use of wells and structures.
BSEE supports the reuse of obsolete oil and gas facilities. About
12 percent of all platforms decommissioned annually in the Gulf of
Mexico are used as artificial reefs through State-sponsored programs.
The NTL 2010-G05 does not prevent an operator from reusing a structure.
A proposal to reuse a facility as a reef is a complex multi-step
process that must comply with several State and Federal regulations as
well as engineering and environmental reviews. Consequently, not all
structures are good candidates for artificial reefs. The Bureau's
policy was developed in accordance with its mission and allows for
sound adaptive management. We are in close communication with the State
artificial reef coordinators, industry, and our Federal partners to
ensure that the reuse of obsolete oil and gas facilities remains a
viable alternative in the decommissioning process.
Question. It is my understanding that the Federal Fishery
Rebuilding Plan for Gulf Red Snapper is based on the critical marine
habitat provided by older oil and gas structures in the Gulf of Mexico.
Has the Interior Department discussed or coordinated with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the potential devastating impacts to marine
life from its idle iron directive?
Answer. The Department of the Interior, through BSEE, has
coordinated, and will continue to coordinate with NOAA's NMFS on the
decommissioning program and the possible impacts on marine life. The
Department, in coordination with NMFS and Louisiana State University's
Coastal Marine Institute, has also funded numerous studies regarding
the habitat provided by Outer Continental Shelf facilities and the
potential impact of decommissioning facilities on fisheries.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Reed. If there are any of my colleagues that wish
to have statements submitted for the record, they will be
accepted for the record without objection.
And with that, again, let me thank you, and conclude the
hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., Wednesday, March 14, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:34 a.m. in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Reed, Feinstein, Johnson, Tester, and
Murkowski.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
United States Forest Service
STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF
ACCOMPANIED BY SUSAN SPEAR, ACTING DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC PLANNING BUDGET
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Good morning. I would like to welcome
everyone to this hearing on the fiscal year 2013 budget request
of the United States Forest Service (USFS).
And on behalf of the subcommittee, I would like to welcome
Tom Tidwell, Chief of the USFS. Chief, thank you. And he is
joined by Susan Spear. Thank you, Susan.
We appreciate you appearing before us to discuss the issues
pertaining to the USFS.
As you may know, Rhode Island is not home to any national
forest, yet. But the reality is that 55 percent of my State is
actually forested land. It is in State or private ownership.
That's a huge amount given we are the smallest State in the
country, and also have the second-highest population density.
So, forests are important to every State, including Rhode
Island. We recognize the USFS's main role is to maintain our
national forests, but they also support outdoor recreation,
habitat, access to open space in every State in the country,
including Rhode Island.
Again, we thank you for your service, and believe it is
important everywhere. And the hearing today is to ask you
questions about your budget, and to see what we can do to
provide you the resources necessary.
FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST
As I turn to this budget, I note that the administration's
request for all USFS programs totals $4.849 billion in new
budget authority. That amount is $255.1 million or a 5.6-
percent increase more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
What looks like a large increase though has to be put into
perspective. It is important to note that this subcommittee
provided an additional $240 million in prior-year funding to
cover firefighting needs for fiscal year 2012.
So on an apple-to-apples basis, that means that the
administration's budget request is really only $15 million more
than the fiscal year 2012 level, well within the kind of
request we've seen for other departments under our
jurisdiction.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
Overall, the requested funds will continue wildland fire
management (WFM) programs at $1.971 billion, a level that's
essentially flat when compared to the fiscal year 2012 request.
Within that amount, fire suppression's portion is fully funded
at the 10-year rolling average of $931 million.
USFS has also set aside $24 million from within its fire
program to begin building its next-generation airtanker fleet,
an action that is long overdue and something that I hope we can
discuss at greater length this morning.
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
The request includes $1.62 billion for national forest
system operations, an increase of $69 million, or about 4
percent. Much of that increase is actually due to a major
budget restructuring to create a $793 million Integrated
Resource Restoration (IRR) program, a program which this
subcommittee started as a pilot in fiscal year 2012, while the
budget requests full funding. We will talk about whether the
time is right for full funding or whether the pilot still has
to be pursued.
This request also includes an 11-percent increase for land
acquisition and Forest Legacy programs for a total of $118
million. Funding for construction of roads, trails, and
facilities is cut by 12 percent, for a total of $334 million.
STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY
And, finally, State and Private Forestry programs are
slated to receive a 1-percent cut for a total of $251 million.
The budget request includes a number of proposed changes to
State Forestry Grants including a new $18 million competition
to fund landscape-scale restoration projects, which I also
expect we will have a chance to discuss today.
I look forward to hearing a more in-depth discussion of
these matters with you, Chief, and Ms. Spear, after you have
had the opportunity to share your testimony.
With that, let me recognize and acknowledge my Ranking
Member, Senator Murkowski. Senator.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning. And, Chief, good morning to you. Ms. Spear, welcome
also.
Before I comment on a couple of concerns that I have with
the USFS budget request, I would like to raise a recent court
decision that I believe has the potential to severely hamper
the ability of the USFS to get work done on the ground.
SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER VS. TIDWELL
Chief, I think you clearly know what I'm talking about. On
March 19, the Federal District Court in California found in
Sequoia ForestKeeper vs. Tidwell that the USFS's use of
categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) violates the Appeals Reform Act and enjoined the
USFS from using these exclusions nationwide without providing
for notice, comment, and appeal.
This will mean that simple, routine tasks that have no
environmental impact will be subject to full notice, public
comment, and appeal. I think we're already seeing some absurd
consequences.
For example, Mr. Chairman, the USFS Web site lists a
decision to replace a campground bathroom that is now subject
to notice, comment, and appeal due to the Sequoia ForestKeeper
case decision even though the USFS explicitly found that it
will have no impact on the environment.
So if a project as routine as replacing a bathroom in a
campground is now subject to appeal, it's hard for me to
imagine any USFS action that some group could not appeal or
delay. And, in a time of extremely tight resources, I think
this will cause waste within the Agency.
We will lose enormous amounts of time. It will increase the
costs of getting necessary work done, and it concerns me. I'm
particularly concerned how this decision will affect activities
on the Tongass National Forest in Alaska.
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION IMPACTS
In a local press account in the Juneau Empire earlier this
month, the region 10 regional forester indicated that a
categorical exclusion was used during the exploratory drilling
process associated with Greens Creek.
And I hope that you'll be able to explain to me the impact
that this court decision may have on mining activities on the
Tongass National Forest, not only at Greens Creek, but at the
Niblack and Bokan Projects as well.
I'm told that compliance with the court's order could add
140 days to the permitting process where categorical exclusions
have been used. These added delays will have even more harmful
impacts in Alaska where the field's season is shorter than it
is in the lower 48.
I do hope, Chief, that you can assure me today that USFS
plans to appeal the court's decision in Sequoia ForestKeeper
vs. Tidwell, and that you're doing everything possible to
mitigate the impacts of this decision.
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION
Now, turning to the budget, I'm concerned that, once again,
USFS is proposing to collapse several different budget
activities, including timber, into one large pot called IRR.
This subcommittee explicitly rejected the same proposal
last year and instead gave you the authority to pilot the
concepts in regions 1, 3, and 4. The clear intent of the pilot
was for USFS to prove that the concept had merit before the
committee would consider it again.
At this point, I don't think we've got the information from
these three regions that would provide for an informed judgment
on the merits of the proposal.
There are many constituencies from the environmental
community to industry that are skeptical of the big bucket
approach to the budget, and I think that we need some clear
data from the regions before we approve the consolidation of
budget activities.
And I certainly understand the Agency's desire for
flexibility. The Congress and the public require the
accountability, and I'm concerned that we're going to lose that
with this proposal.
AIRTANKER MODERNIZATION
I do applaud USFS for including $24 million in its budget
for modernization of the large airtanker fleet. However, I am
troubled by the lack of specifics within the budget about how
these funds are going to be spent.
Likewise, I appreciate that USFS issued a large airtanker
modernization strategy, but again, I'm concerned about the lack
of details. It does contain general description of several
aircraft, but no indication of how and when the Agency intends
to make its selection or whether it plans to purchase its own
aircraft or continue to use the existing model of contracting
for industry aircraft.
So I do hope that you can give us some additional details
on USFS plan for this. Again, Chief, I welcome you and thank
you for your service, and look forward for the opportunity for
questions and answers here this morning.
Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Reed. Let me ask if any of my colleagues have
opening statements. And, of course, all statements will be made
part of the record. But if anyone wants to make statements now
is the time to do so.
Also, I have been informed that Senator Blunt regrettably
could not attend this hearing in person, but has submitted a
prepared statement for the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Roy Blunt
Thank you, Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski, for holding
this hearing today. I appreciate this opportunity to examine the
budgetary needs of the United States Forest Service (USFS) in order to
make sure taxpayer dollars are spent on programs that reflect our
Nation's priorities.
Additionally, I would like to thank Chief Tidwell and Director
Spear for being here today.
USFS manages more than 193 million acres of public land. The Mark
Twain National Forest in Missouri represents a significant part of that
mission. The Mark Twain National Forest consists of 1.5 million acres
spanning 29 Missouri counties.
USFS announced that more than $40 million would be dedicated to
projects under the Land and Water Conversation Fund, including the Mark
Twain National Forest. This includes almost $1 million to connect
existing national forest lands to the Ozark National Scenic Riverways,
with the stated goals of protecting watershed quality and providing
maximum benefit for both resident and migratory wildlife species.
While, of course, conservation activities with respect to forests
are critical, I would hope that USFS focuses their efforts on the
opportunity to increase harvest levels, without compromising forest
health, and improve the Federal Government's return on its investment.
Over the last 5 years, annual saw timber harvests in the Mark Twain
National Forest averaged about $2.1 million for the 17.2 million board
feet sold, according to Forest Industry and Analysis data.
However, timber sale proceeds cover only about 7 percent of the
Mark Twain National Forest's annual budget of $28 million.
With annual saw timber growth of more than 210 million board feet
worth an estimated $21,273,000, the National Forest System is missing a
significant opportunity to capitalize on these resources.
I hope that USFS takes these types of considerations into account
when allocating, spending, or establishing new management plans.
We need to both protect and utilize our natural resources to boost
contributions to the GDP and create jobs. I look forward to your
testimony, and thank you again for being here.
Senator Reed. Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Reed, and Senator
Murkowski, for holding this hearing today. And thank you, Chief
Tidwell and Ms. Spear for being here to discuss the
administration's request for USFS.
I've appreciated your attention to forest health in South
Dakota, and I look forward to continuing this discussion today
in the context of the fiscal year 2013 budget. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER
Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
you holding the hearing, and along with the Ranking Member,
once again, thanks for being here, Chief. And, Susan, thank you
very much for both of your time and your service to this great
country.
H.R. 1581
I just want to touch on one thing that you might be able to
address in your opening statement. It deals with a bill in the
House--H.R. 1581. It's a bill that, quite frankly, I think is a
direct attack on our hunter and our fishermen in this country
as far as access.
One of the huge assets we have in this country is our
Federal lands, particularly in the West. And the ability to
utilize those Federal lands in a way that makes sense is
critically important.
What H.R. 1581 is going to do is release a lot of pristine,
back-country land, good elk, good fisheries, just incredibly
prized elk habitat and blue ribbon fisheries.
Montana has one of the highest percentage of hunters and
anglers in the Nation and it amazes me that some over in the
House want to take away these opportunities. They want to talk
about second amendment on the one hand, and in the other hand,
take away the opportunity to use rifles in the wild.
I would like to have you address that, if you can, in your
opening statement, on what USFS thinks about extreme proposals
like H.R. 1581, and what you think we ought to do about it.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both.
Senator Reed. Thanks, Senator Tester. Chief Tidwell,
please.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
it is a privilege to be here to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2013 budget request for the USFS.
I want to thank you for the support that we have received
from this subcommittee in the past, and I look forward to
working with you in the future.
The President's budget request, as you've already noted,
reflects some very difficult choices we need to make to help
reduce the deficit while investing in long-term economic growth
and job creation.
Our budget request supports these priorities through three
key objectives. The first is our focus on restoration. This
budget request would restore and sustain another 2.6 million
acres of forest and grasslands by increasing collaborative
efforts and building support for restoration activities, which
helps create thousands of jobs each year.
It requests full funding for the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Fund that you gave us last year. We have
been able to identify an additional 10 projects that are now
moving forward because of what you were able to provide us in
last year's budget. So I want to thank you for that.
The fiscal year 2013 budget also requests permanent
authorization for stewardship contracting, which is an
essential tool that we need to have available, along with our
timber sale contracts, to be able to do this restoration work.
It also allows us to continue to apply the science, as
developed by USFS research, to address the increasing frequency
of forest disturbances. These range from longer fire seasons,
record insect and disease outbreaks, and invasives to the
floods and the droughts that we are experiencing.
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION
The budget request proposes an IRR budget-line item to
align our budget structure with the work. I know that we need
to first demonstrate through our pilot and the pilot regions,
that this approach will not only increase our productivity and
efficiency but also for us to be able to show not only the
outputs that will be produced, but also how the outcome of this
is going to help us address the watershed conditions across all
our lands.
Once again, I want to thank you for this pilot authority.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
The second key objective with our budget request deals with
WFM. It includes a level of preparedness that will continue our
success in suppressing close to 98 percent of the wildland
fires that we take on during initial attack. It does request
the 10-year average for suppression.
This is the area where you see a large increase, Mr.
Chairman, as you have mentioned, in our budget request. It will
also reduce the threat of wildfire to homes and communities by
reducing hazardous fuels on a million acres in the wildland
urban interface (WUI).
AIRTANKER MODERNIZATION
It does request an additional $24 million to begin
modernizing our large airtanker fleet. These funds will be used
to pay for what we anticipate will be the additional contract
costs to bring on what we call our next generation of large
airtankers.
AMERICA'S GREAT OUTDOORS INITIATIVE
The third objective is through the America's Great Outdoors
Initiative, where we will increase support for community-based
conservation. This enables us to continue to support
recreational opportunities that improve on our quality of life,
which we enjoy in this country, but it will also help maintain
more than 223,000 jobs and about $13 billion in annual spending
by recreational visitors.
INCREASING EFFICIENCIES
It will help America to reconnect with the outdoors by
increasing conservation education, volunteer opportunities, and
increasing youth employment opportunities. We also request a
slight increase in LWCF funding, in our Forest Legacy Program,
to use conservation easements and land acquisition to protect
critical forests and acquire public access while reducing our
administrative costs of managing the national forests and
grasslands.
We will continue to work together with our States to use
both State and private funding programs to promote conservation
and to help keep private forests forested.
We also encourage biomass utilization and other renewable
energy opportunities while working to process oil and gas
permit applications and energy transmission proposals more
efficiently.
We also propose a framework for reauthorization of the
Secure Rural Schools Act, which I believe is vitally important
to continue. Especially in these very difficult economic times
that our counties and boroughs are currently facing.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We have also included some actions to increase our
efficiencies. Over the next 2 years, between 2013 and 2014, we
will reduce our overhead costs by more than $100 million. This
is an ongoing process of always looking at everything we do in
order to increase our efficiencies; to make sure that we're
doing everything that we can to get as much work done on the
ground as possible through the appropriations.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Tidwell
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a privilege to
be here today to discuss the President's budget request for the United
States Forest Service (USFS) for fiscal year 2013. I appreciate the
support this subcommittee has shown for USFS in the past, and I look
forward to working together with members of the subcommittee in the
future to ensure that stewardship of our Nation's forests and
grasslands continues to meet the desires and expectations of the
American people. I am confident that this budget will allow USFS to
meet this goal while demonstrating both fiscal restraint and efficient,
cost-effective spending.
Our Nation can and should take steps to reduce the deficit and make
Government leaner and more efficient in the 21st century. The fiscal
year 2013 budget that the President is proposing reflects the difficult
choices we need to make to help reduce the deficit while investing in
long-term economic growth and job creation. To make the strategic
investments to grow the economy and tackle the deficit, this budget
makes difficult cuts to programs. It also reflects efficiency and
improvements to reduce our administrative costs. It is designed to
appropriately fund programs that matter to Americans.
BUDGET CONTEXT
USFS manages 193 million acres of public lands on 155 national
forests and 20 national grasslands in 44 States and Puerto Rico. We
also work effectively with States, tribes, local governments,
communities and private forest landowners to support the sustainable
stewardship of the 423 million acres of private forest, 68 million
acres of State forests, and 18 million acres of forestlands on Indian
reservations in the United States. USFS management is based on peer-
reviewed science; we lead the way for the Nation and, indeed, the world
in cutting-edge research on a full range of conservation issues,
including bioenergy, ecological restoration, wildland fire management
(WFM), forest pests and diseases, and sustainable outdoor recreation.
Our mission is to work with the American people on all lands to
sustain all the benefits needed and wanted from their forests and
grasslands. For example, approximately 80 percent of the Nation's
freshwater resources originate on forests, and Americans get more than
one-half of their water supplies from sources that originate in the
Nation's forests. USFS management, combined with assistance to private
landowners, helps to protect the single greatest source of drinking
water in the Nation.
Jobs are maintained and created through the work of USFS. Millions
of Americans have forest-related jobs, from forest restoration work to
recreation use, wood products, grazing, and energy and mineral
development. In 2010, the National Forests attracted more than 170
million annual visitors, and recreation use, which alone sustained
nearly 223,000 jobs while contributing $14.5 billion annually to the
U.S. economy.
Water and jobs are only some of the benefits Americans get from
their forests and grasslands. These lands provide a whole range of
ecosystem services-- clean air, clean water, fertile soil that provides
timber, forage, energy, food and fiber, fish and wildlife habitat,
carbon storage, and opportunities for outdoor recreation just to name a
few. These critical services to people are now at risk due to declining
forest health, such as bark beetle infestation in the West. Regional
drought, invasive species, loss of open space, catastrophic wildfires,
devastating outbreaks of insects and disease, and the overarching
challenge of a changing climate are degrading our Nation's natural
infrastructure--the forests and grasslands that Americans depend on for
so many services, values, and benefits.
By making targeted investments in the landscapes most at risk, we
can restore healthy, resilient forests and grasslands, provide
recreational and hunting access, and provide forest products for the
benefit of all Americans. Our fiscal year 2013 budget request is
designed to do just that by working with partners across borders and
boundaries at a landscape level. Our focus on landscape-scale
conservation dovetails with broader administration priorities,
including the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative, the
Secretary's ``All-Lands'' vision, and the Department's high-priority
goal for enhancing water resources. Landscape-scale conservation is
designed to maintain and enhance the resilience and productivity of the
Nation's forests and grasslands through targeted investments in natural
infrastructure. Our investments will put Americans back to work,
maintaining and creating jobs and economic opportunities for both rural
and urban Americans.
FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST AND PRIORITIES
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $4.86 billion for
USFS, an increase of $15.5 million more than the 2012 appropriated
level. This budget responds to the public's desire for the conservation
and stewardship of the Nation's forests and grasslands. Through
strategic partnerships, we accomplish more work that yields benefits
for all Americans, while sustaining forest and grassland ecosystems for
future generations. In these tough economic times, this budget balances
spending on priorities against reductions. It establishes spending on
conservation principles and natural resource development needed by the
public and for the Nation's economy. USFS managers will continue to
scrutinize spending and programs to ensure the public's investment is
used wisely toward safely achieving key outcomes and shared priorities.
USFS's fiscal year 2013 President's budget prioritizes USFS funding
in three themes:
--restoration;
--communities; and
--fire.
Our priorities are designed to respond to the needs of the American
public. The President's budget aligns with the Secretary's ``All
Lands'' vision to meet the challenges of ecological restoration through
collaborative approaches to address forest mortality and live tree
density, invasive species and watershed degradation. The budget request
will engage communities and help Americans reconnect to the outdoors,
expand on recreation benefits and create a wide range of opportunities
for economic expansion to retain and create jobs. The budget request
also fosters partnering with communities and cooperating agencies to
reduce the threat of wildland fires to people, property and watersheds.
RESTORATION THEME
With the current threats from insects and disease, wildfire, urban
development, and impacts of a changing climate, active restoration is a
key component of our fiscal year 2013 budget strategy. To achieve our
restoration goals, we engage a broad set of partners in active forest
management at large, landscape scales and apply peer-reviewed science
related to forest disturbances, fire management, and the effects of a
changing climate. Our restoration efforts are guided by a continuous
cycle of assessing, implementing, and adapting based on information
from inventory and monitoring efforts. This strategy will yield a
variety of forest products and restore the structure, function,
composition, and processes of healthy, resilient ecosystems across the
Nation.
Restoration means jobs and economic opportunities. In order to
maintain forest-related jobs we are requesting permanent authority for
stewardship contracting. This authority allows the agency to accomplish
collaborative restoration work at a landscape scale. Current authority
for stewardship contracting expires in September 2013.
LANDSCAPE SCALE RESTORATION PRIORITIES
Through active forest management, USFS is restoring ecosystem
structure, functions, and processes in order to improve the health and
resilience of ecosystems across large landscapes. Through the proposed
Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) program, we expect to continue to
collaborate using an inclusive process to find common ground across the
many stakeholders and to leverage our investments for broader
conservation impacts. IRR blends a cross-section of forest management
activities, such as forest thinning to reduce hazardous fuels,
decommissioning roads, and removal of fish passage barriers--all of
which lead to improved forest and grassland health and watershed
function. The Watershed Condition Framework, released in 2011, will
help managers prioritize IRR activities. This framework provides a
nationally consistent approach for classifying watershed conditions and
allows us to track the number of watersheds that move to an improved
condition in the long term.
In fiscal year 2011, we restored or enhanced more than 4.9 million
acres of both public and private lands. We will continue to invest in
and accomplish restoration on the ground. In fiscal year 2013, through
IRR we propose to restore or sustain 2.6 million acres on National
Forest System lands; provide 2.8 billion board feet of timber;
decommission more than 2,000 miles of road; and restore or enhance
2,750 miles of stream habitat. By focusing on restoration outcomes, the
IRR program empowers USFS managers and local communities to find the
best, most-efficient way to meet their ecological, economic, and social
objectives. For example, a landscape thinning project may be
accomplished under a combination of timber sales and stewardship
contracts which reduces the threat of catastrophic wildfire, improves
forest and watershed health and resilience, and removes unneeded
erosion prone roads. These outcomes help reduce risk from threats like
fire, insects, and diseases; provide clean, low-cost drinking water to
communities; and maintain local infrastructure and jobs by creating
economic opportunities such as uses for biomass and other forest
products.
Our Forest Health Management program provides insect, disease, and
invasive plant survey and monitoring information on forest health
conditions on Federal and non-Federal (cooperative) lands and provides
technical and financial assistance to prevent, suppress, and control
outbreaks threatening forest resources and watershed conditions. Forest
Health Management helps to implement the States' Forest Action Plans
and focuses on the highest-priority areas and on high-priority pests,
as identified by mapping and surveys. In fiscal year 2013, Forest
Health Management will continue to utilize science, active land
management, and technology transfer expertise to restore and sustain
forest landscapes, across urban, private, State, tribal, and Federal
forests, and create private sector jobs because of the expertise
required to carry out this work.
The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is a high-
priority program that embodies our integrative, collaborative,
landscape-scale restoration focus. In fiscal year 2011, Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration projects implemented treatments to restore
ecosystem resilience and adaptive capacity while generating forest
products to help support local infrastructure and economies. Forest
vegetation was improved or established on more than 26,000 acres; 121
million board feet of timber was sold; and approximately 268,000 green
tons of woody biomass was made available for biomass or bioenergy-
related production. Cooperators played a substantial role in fiscal
year 2011 by providing more than $8 million in additional funding. The
fiscal year 2013 request supports the community-based Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration projects chosen in fiscal year 2010 and
fiscal year 2012. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Program is creating job stability by supplying a reliable wood and
biomass supply for forest products and bioenergy production; improving
forest health and wildlife habitat; and reducing fire suppression costs
in overgrown forests.
RESEARCH PRIORITIES
USFS houses the world's largest forestry research organization. We
conduct research that develops new technologies and brings cutting-edge
science to bear on the sustainable management of the Nation's forests
and rangelands. Long-term research from our experimental forests and
rangelands contributes to an understanding of the impacts of forest
disturbance on the natural and cultural resources of U.S. landscapes.
This knowledge assists public and private land managers in identifying
strategies to mitigate and adapt to forest stressors. Rigorous, applied
research is also key to supporting new and emerging markets with
innovations that enhance and diversify the forest products industry.
Private investment in the forestry sector relies on USFS research.
Finally, our social science research is critical to appropriately
aligning agency activities with society's values and priorities for the
Nation's natural resources and public lands.
The proposed funding will maintain essential levels of research in
our high-priority and strategic program areas to ensure that we
develop, apply, and deliver new knowledge and technologies that support
sustainable management objectives. One high-priority program is Forest
Inventory and Analysis, which provides the resource data, analysis, and
tools needed to assess current status and trends of forests; management
options and impacts; and threats such as fire, insects, and disease. In
fiscal year 2011, USFS's Research and Development deputy area
implemented the Forest Inventory and Analysis annual forest sampling in
all 50 States (though we have not been able to sample interior Alaska),
providing accessible data for 96 percent of the Nation. The data
provides important information for private forest landowners to use in
developing management objectives for sustainable management of private
forests. In fiscal year 2013, Forest Inventory and Analysis will
continue in all 50 States and seven reports will be published.
PLANNING, MONITORING, AND ANALYSIS PRIORITIES
Restoration efforts are guided by a continuous cycle of assessment,
project planning and implementation, and adaptation based on
information from inventory and monitoring. Consistent with the USFS's
priority of landscape-scale conservation, our proposed Planning Rule
emphasizes a collaborative, science-based approach with broad-scale
monitoring strategies at the regional and national level for the
National Forest System. USFS managers collaborate with a wide variety
of stakeholders to consider all interests affected or influenced by
land management planning and project level implementation decisions. We
are integrating and improving monitoring databases to enhance
efficiency and transparency. These monitoring data provide baseline
information from which managers plan the mix of goods and services for
individual national forests and frame objectives for planning and
subsequent restoration activities. The data helps managers set
conservation objectives to sustain the health, diversity, and
productivity of the National Forest System.
This budget proposes consolidation of the Land Management Planning
and Inventory and Monitoring programs to form the single, integrated
program of Land Management Planning Assessments and Monitoring. This
new budget structure highlights the connectedness of these activities
under the proposed Planning Rule. High-priority resource issues include
watershed and ecological conditions; habitat needs for a number of
species; visitor use and recreation objectives; forest disturbances;
and other local, regional and national objectives. USFS units completed
58 plan assessments in fiscal year 2011--an initial step for
determining the need to revise or amend land management plans in
response to changing ecological, social, and economic conditions.
COMMUNITIES THEME
Communities continue to be a priority for USFS in fiscal year 2013.
We are committed to engaging communities across the Nation to reconnect
with the outdoors, expand recreation benefits, and harness the many
economic opportunities our land management activities create in a way
that supports diverse employment in forest-dependent communities. As
part of the President's fiscal year 2013 budget, we request
reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000 for 5 years. The fiscal year 2013 proposal
supports rural communities through assuming enactment of the fiscal
year 2012 President's proposed reauthorization through mandatory
funding.
We continue to develop successful collaboration with
municipalities, nongovernmental organizations, and private companies at
many levels. Through approximately 7,800 grants and agreements in
fiscal year 2011, we engaged a wide circle of partners in land
management projects and activities, leveraging agency investment for an
additional $616 million in partner contributions. In fiscal year 2013,
this collaboration will continue to expand recreation opportunities,
reconnect people with the outdoors, and use land management activities
to create employment and sustain communities. Our budget request
includes proposed language that would authorize the Secretary to enter
into agreements with interpretive associations (including scientific,
historical, educational, and other societies, organizations, and
associations) to enhance visitor awareness and knowledge of the
Nation's natural resources and cultural heritage, and to enhance and
leverage our collective interpretative efforts. Based on our current
efforts, we know that increasing collaboration with local communities
can move conservation efforts from a scale of thousands of acres to
hundreds of thousands of acres. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget
strategically allocates resources to support exemplary local
stewardship and collaboration models and to catalyze new partnerships
and innovations.
LANDSCAPE SCALE CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
Restoration projects across broad Federal landscapes, such as the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, are not sufficient
alone to address the restoration needs and challenges of today. USFS's
approach to land management focuses on landscape-scale outcomes through
cross-boundary landscape conservation. We consider current and desired
resource conditions across all ownerships--putting national forests and
grasslands in the broader social, economic, and ecological context of
the entire landscapes. Considering the well-being of communities
adjacent to national forests, as well as urban populations that depend
on forest-derived ecosystem services such as water filtration, is a top
priority
In fiscal year 2011, our State and Private Forestry programs
competitively allocated $19.8 million to State Foresters, supporting 72
projects in 47 States. These allocations enable USFS to leverage more
than $21 million in partners dollars and in-kind contributions. In
fiscal year 2013, we propose to build on the success of our recent
redesign of State and Private Forestry by combining funds into a
Landscape Scale Restoration Program to continue our work with the State
Foresters and engage multiple landowners across boundaries. This
program helps address challenges like forest fragmentation and the
conversion of forestland due to urbanization and other land uses.
Through competitive grants, it will implement innovative projects that
address the greatest threats to forest sustainability, as identified by
States in their Forest Action Plans.
The Forest Legacy Program is an incentive-based approach that uses
easements to permanently protect non-Federal forest lands vital for
wildlife habitat and rural jobs. The focus is on forest lands at risk
of conversion to other (non-forest) land uses. To date, more than 2
million forested acres have been protected from conversion, ensuring a
robust natural infrastructure to support rural jobs in the forest
sector.
Through Land Acquisition, we work to consolidate non-USFS
properties within or adjacent to national forest boundaries. These
acquisitions protect critical ecosystem connectivity, enhance visitor
access, and reduce expenditures associated with boundary management and
fire suppression. This request includes up to $25 million for support
of the Federal Interagency Collaborative Land and Water Conservation
Fund Initiative. This interagency partnership with the Department of
the Interior will guide acquisitions in support of objectives set by
the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, achieving targeted,
coordinated Federal acquisitions that are locally driven and supported
by local governments. The request also includes up to $5 million to
acquire land to open up additional access for recreational purposes,
specifically to increase priority recreation access to National Forests
System lands. USFS will use the funds to acquire parcels that provide
access to National Forest System lands whereby access is not currently
available or is impeded.
Just as we recognize the importance of conserving working forest
lands in rural areas, we also support the creation of community forests
that connect urban populations to nearby outdoor areas. Through the
Community Forest and Open Space Program, we fund cost-share (matching)
grants for the acquisition of community forests that provide public
recreation and watershed benefits. Such benefits include enhanced
drinking water quality, wildlife habitat, forest management jobs, and
opportunities for wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, and other outdoor
experiences readily accessible to urban populations. In October 2011,
USFS issued regulations to ensure a consistent and transparent program.
We are in the process of soliciting applications to award the first
projects.
RECREATION AND TRAILS PRIORITIES
USFS lands are a public treasure providing unparalleled outdoor
recreation opportunities. Population growth and loss of open spaces
contribute to ever-greater demand for high-quality recreation
opportunities. Annually, more than 170 million visitors enjoy
activities such as camping, picnicking, skiing, fishing, and hunting.
The Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Program provides the
interpretive, outreach and infrastructure needs vital to connecting
Americans to the great outdoors.
In response to the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, we are
improving recreational access and expanding opportunities for youth and
diverse populations. The Youth Conservation Corps creates jobs, as do
expanded opportunities for private sector outfitters, guides, ski
areas, and resorts. Through the Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor
Recreation, we are implementing actions to eliminate redundancy and
create seamless programs between the Federal agencies to increase
recreation opportunities.
Our Trails program ensures public safety and backcountry access
through the operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and improvement of
National Forest System trails, serving a wide constituency of visitors
at a relatively low cost. In fiscal year 2013, we are prioritizing the
designation of trails for motorized use, consistent with the Travel
Management Rule. Our trail system also accommodates nonmotorized uses
such as cross-country skiing, hiking, hunting, fishing, wildlife
viewing, horseback riding, and mountain biking. In fiscal year 2011,
partners contributed approximately $7 million and maintained almost
5,500 miles of national and scenic trails. Through strengthened
partnerships in fiscal year 2013, we will emphasize trail stewardship
activities and youth programs.
Our proposed legislative language to make permanent our authority
on administration of rights-of-way and land uses would ensure timely
customer service, reduce the potential liability to the United States
associated with uses on National Forest System lands under an expired
authorization, and enable us to accept new applications to expand our
support for local and regional economies. Special uses enable a wide
range of public services that support thousands of jobs, from large-
scale energy and communication transmission to small-scale outfitters
and guides. Processing these permit applications is time intensive and
expensive. Recovered funds will remain at the local office of
collection to enable more-timely service to permit holders and
applicants. The existing authority expires on September 30, 2012.
USFS assists in developing and sustaining urban forest
infrastructure within cities, as well as connecting urban residents--
especially youth--to recreation experiences in national forests. With
more than 83 percent of all Americans living in metropolitan areas,
USFS Urban and Community Forestry Program supports the active
management of forests and trees in more than 7,000 communities,
reaching 194 million people in fiscal year 2011. This program seeks to
optimize benefits from urban forests by planting trees for carbon
sequestration and energy conservation objectives. USFS research and
development helps to create more livable and desirable urban areas and
improve urban ecosystem services, like cleaner city air and water,
through leading science and new technology. In New York City, for
example, USFS's iTree tool provided baseline information about trees
that has been a critical foundation for the MillionTreesNYC campaign.
The Conservation Education program--through initiatives like
``Children's Forests'' and ``More Kids in the Woods''--builds on both
long-term and new partnerships. In fiscal year 2011, more than 5
million children and families participated in environmental education,
recreation, and related literacy programs on public lands and waters,
increasing their understanding of the natural world and its benefits.
FACILITIES AND ROADS MAINTENANCE PRIORITIES
Maintenance of physical infrastructure--including the best and safe
use of over 40,200 buildings for administrative, recreation-related,
and other uses, approximately 373,000 miles of roads (102,000 miles are
closed, but provide options for future use) and 6,200 bridges--is an
important priority in fulfilling USFS mission. Maintaining our
facilities saves money over time and provides for safe, pleasurable,
and accessible sites for the public's enjoyment while recreating. In
fiscal year 2013, strategic investments in facilities and
infrastructure maintenance will reduce our agency's environmental
footprint and save money by lowering energy costs. This budget request
proposes deferring new facilities construction when other cost-
effective and reasonable options exist.
This budget request also prioritizes road maintenance to ensure we
protect water quality, meet Highway Safety Act standards, and meet the
need for motorized use, as identified on USFS motor vehicle use maps.
We also emphasize replacing deficient bridges, upgrading stream
crossings, and providing a transportation system to and from timber and
stewardship project sites that support local jobs and our collaborative
restoration priorities.
FIRE THEME
Our final priority for the fiscal year 2013 budget request reflects
the President's commitment to a responsible budget for WFM. We will
continue to partner with States, communities, and other Federal
agencies to maximize our suppression capabilities and support community
efforts to reduce direct threats from wild fires.
Wildland fire is a natural and necessary component of restoring
ecosystem resilience in fire-adapted ecosystems. In many places, drier
conditions and longer fire seasons, along with invasive species like
cheatgrass, have further altered the timing and pattern of fire, making
fires bigger and harder to suppress. Addressing these challenges will
reduce fire risk to communities and maintain and create jobs through
activities that restore ecosystem resilience.
The cost and complexity of both fuels treatments to reduce fire
risk and wildfire suppression have gone up due to growing numbers of
housing developments adjacent to wildlands and other factors. In this
context of more costly fire management, we continue to refine our use
of decision-support tools. These tools help us allocate resources more
efficiently and to adopt appropriate risk management principles.
Further, we responded to the Federal Land Assistance, Management and
Enhancement (FLAME) Act of 2009 by collaborating broadly to develop the
new National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy. The strategy is designed
to:
--Restore and maintain resilient landscapes at a regional and sub-
regional scale;
--Create fire-adapted communities; and
--Respond to wildfire effectively through partnerships among local,
State, tribal, and Federal fire organizations.
The Nation depends on USFS to take proactive measures to reduce the
threat of wildfire. By working proactively to re-establish fire-adapted
ecosystems, we can reduce the costs associated with catastrophic
wildfire. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 would direct fire
management resources toward the highest-priority areas while maximizing
cost-effectiveness. We are ready to protect life, property and
community, and public safety.
FUELS REDUCTION PRIORITIES
The Hazardous Fuels budget line item for fiscal year 2013 focuses
on treatments in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and other high-
priority areas with a target of 1 million acres vital to protecting
lives, property and public infrastructure. The priority for these funds
is in WUI communities that are working to achieve firewise standards,
have demonstrated local investment, and that have developed a community
wildfire protection plan. The agency will continue to emphasize the
importance of community wildfire protection plans by prioritizing
hazardous fuels treatments in WUI areas that are identified in these
plans. This funding is also used for grants that encourage woody
biomass utilization and to facilitate market development for the
biomass removed from the landscape through fuels treatments.
Biomass for energy is an important byproduct of hazardous fuels
reduction and restoration work. Currently one-quarter of all renewable
energy consumption comes from wood. Biomass utilization is important
because it helps diversify the forest products industry and creates new
markets that ensure alternative uses for material that would otherwise
be piled or burned at the treatment site. With active management,
America's forests can sustainably supply woody biomass for fuels and
high-value chemicals and help meet national energy, environmental, and
employment goals.
In fiscal year 2013, USFS plans to reach out to municipal water
providers and pursue additional investments to protect water supplies.
For example, three of the five major Front Range water utilities (in
Denver, Aurora, and Colorado Springs) have invested nearly $34 million
in forest thinning treatments to reduce wildfire risks. Our strategy is
to attract investments from all Front Range cities and to substantially
increase amounts invested by those cities and other partners through
matching USFS funds.
The hazardous fuels management efforts compliment restoration
activities conducted through Integrated Resource Restoration and the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program to reduce fuels,
restore forest landscapes, and protect communities. These projects
leverage partner investments through innovative collaboration to
restore landscape resilience across 50,000 acres or more. Contracted
services for fuels reduction in core forest zones provide jobs, as do
the forest products and woody biomass utilization activities that
result from fuels removal and reduction.
PREPAREDNESS PRIORITIES
The second way we are responsibly addressing WFM with this budget
request is through our preparedness program, which ensures the
capability to protect life, property, and natural resources while
assuring an appropriate, risk informed and effective response to
wildfires, consistent with land and resource management objectives.
The preparedness program pre-positions resources as needed to
ensure an appropriate, risk-informed, and effective wildfire response.
This budget also includes $24 million to pay for the increased costs of
modernizing the firefighting large airtanker fleet. We are soliciting
bids for modern airtankers to complement the remaining 11 in our fleet.
SUPPRESSION PRIORITIES
The suppression program combined with the FLAME Wildfire
Suppression Reserve Fund, meets the funding level at the 10-year
average cost of suppression for fiscal year 2013. Wildland fires
continue to be larger and more difficult to suppress due to many
factors including longer fire seasons, fuel accumulation, and the
increased size and complexity of housing developments adjacent to or in
forested lands.
In fiscal year 2011, USFS contained more than 97 percent of the
fires we managed during initial attack. Wildfire response
decisionmaking is evolving based on risk-informed analysis that reduces
exposure to wildland firefighters while ensuring that high-value
resources are protected. The results of these decisions allow us to
manage fires more cost-effectively while achieving agency land
management objectives by enabling fire to play its natural role in
restoring landscapes. For fiscal year 2013, the suppression,
preparedness and FLAME budget request continues to emphasize our
efforts related to strategic risk assessment and programs to improve
wildland fire operational decisions and meet overriding objectives of
maintaining public and firefighter safety. These efforts are expected
to result in significant increases in the effective and efficient use
of agency resources.
For the few fires that escaped initial attack, the percentage that
exceeded expected containment costs fell from 39.7 percent in fiscal
year 2010 to 20.8 percent in fiscal year 2011, a notable achievement in
responsibly budgeting for fire suppression. Implementing the agency's
broader restoration goals will lead to further progress. Given the
highly variable nature of fire seasons from year to year, the FLAME
Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund ensures our ability to cover the cost
of large, complex fires that escape initial attack.
GAINING EFFICIENCIES AND COST CONTROL MEASURES
We must be efficient and effective in meeting our mission and
delivering services to the American people. We have been gaining
efficiencies and managing costs and our workforce to achieve our
mission in the past and will continue to do so. We are making difficult
choices to work better and leaner to live within constrained budgets.
USFS's fiscal year 2012 target for cost savings is $44 million. Reduced
travel accounts for $14 million of these savings. An additional $30
million is achieved through new acquisition management procedures
including the use of strategic sourcing, competitive and/or
performance-based contracts, and ongoing training of contracting staff
to better manage contracts.
Our efforts to gain efficiency in fiscal year 2012 and this fiscal
year 2013 budget request focus on implementing the President's
Executive order, ``Promoting Efficient Spending''. We identified
reduced spending levels in travel, information technology, printing,
fleet and promotional items. We have planned a $100 million reduction
in cost pools over the course of fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014.
We are also implementing the Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Administrative Solutions Project to reduce redundancies and take
advantage of existing resources across USDA. We will also continue our
strategic investments in safety and cultural transformation for our
employees. These efforts will enable employees to spend less time on
operational functions and more time on priority work in a safe,
healthy, and productive manner. We expect these efforts to result in
costs savings in the future. We also estimate that our workforce will
be reduced by nearly 1,500 full-time equivalents between fiscal year
2011 and fiscal year 2013. This level of reduction is within our
average annual attrition rate. We will continue to manage our workforce
and organizational changes to provide service at the local level.
CONCLUSION
USFS's fiscal year 2013 President's budget aligns with priorities
set by the administration and USDA while balancing the need for fiscal
restraint. The magnitude and urgency of forest restoration work, along
with the demand for safe, accessible outdoor recreation opportunities,
are growing in a context of declining budgets. This means that the
agency will face unprecedented fiscal challenges in the next few years.
USFS must act strategically and tackle fiscal challenges directly,
focusing our resources on continuing to provide services and goods to
the American public.
Through landscape-scale conservation, our three funding priorities
of restoration, communities, and fire will pass on to future
generations the water, wildlife habitat, renewable resources, scenic
beauty, and other natural riches that Americans enjoy today from their
forests and grasslands.
Mr. Tidwell. Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
this opportunity to be here, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Chief. We will
hear from Senator Feinstein. Senator Feinstein, do you want to
make a brief comment, as our colleagues have, before we begin
the questioning?
Senator Feinstein. I would like to talk about firefighting,
so I will wait my turn. Thank you very much.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Again, Chief, thank you for not only your testimony today,
but your leadership. We'll do 8-minute rounds, and I'll
anticipate we will do at least two, for those who want to stay
for the second round.
Senator Feinstein, Senator Murkowski, and I, all have
mentioned the issue of fire suppression. One of the annual
challenges we have is to ensure you have the appropriate
resources to deal with fires.
You might begin by letting us know what your sense is for
this fire season, given the weather, modeling and other data
that you have, as to will you have the resources, do you expect
a very challenging fire season this year?
FIRE SEASON 2012
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, our predictive services, when
they put out their last report the first of April, indicates
that we will have a fire season similar to what we had last
year. That is based on getting some favorable weather that will
continue to occur in the Northwestern part of the country and
also through the Central part.
If that does not occur, then we anticipate that we will
probably have a more active fire season than we did last year.
We are prepared with the resources, the crews that are in
place, the large helicopters, and we are moving forward with
acquiring some additional large airtankers under contract, to
better enable us to deal with this fire season.
A lot will depend on the weather. But we have already seen
some very active fire behavior here in the East. We had the
tragic fire out in Colorado just a few weeks ago in March.
Today, we have a very large fire burning here in Virginia, on
the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. We have a
Type 1 team that we have had to deploy under that fire today.
We are seeing an active fire season right now, and a lot
will depend on how the weather develops over the next 30 to 60
days; that will determine just how difficult this season will
be.
Senator Reed. Thank you. Along with Senator Feinstein, I'm
interested in your aircraft modernization program.
In February, you released a strategy, a large airtanker
modernization strategy; there's been several strategies, but
what we need is a plan. Specific numbers of aircraft, whether
they'll be acquired, or they'll be leased. To what extent will
you have to rely upon Air National Guard C130J's to supplement,
or helicopter supplements.
Can you describe the plan you have in place, for this
season, for the aircraft, the number you'll have available, the
types of availability, and the adequacy of that plan?
AIRTANKER MODERNIZATION
Mr. Tidwell. Well, our plan not only for this year but for
the future is to move forward and acquire additional contracted
aircraft. For this year, we expect to bring on three additional
aircraft to supplement what we currently have. This will give
us 14 large airtankers for this year.
We are also bringing on two water scoopers down from Alaska
to augment the fleet down here, and we will also have one very
large airtanker that will be available.
In addition to that, we have brought on some additional,
Type 1 helicopters. These are helicopters that can carry almost
as much water as the large airtankers can retardant.
They are very effective and a little more expensive, but we
have brought on additional large helicopters for this year.
As we move forward, we expect to bring on 10 additional
aircraft next year. These will all be contracted aircraft. This
is what the $24 million part of our request is for. We
anticipate that the new aircraft will be a faster aircraft, and
they will have a little larger capacity.
It will be a little more expensive than what our current
costs are. We are going to need $24 million to be able to cover
the additional costs for probably up to an additional 13 planes
next year.
For next year, I anticipate we are going to be in much
better shape. This year, we are down and we will be down at
least 4 large airtankers from what we had at the start of last
season, but we are bringing on those additional large
helicopters.
MODULAR AIRBORNE FIREFIGHTING SYSTEM
In addition to that, we will probably have to rely and
depend on the Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS)
units again, like we did last year.
We have been using those MAFFS planes for 40 years. Even in
the past when we had the large number of large airtankers we
would often hit periods of time during an active fire season
where we needed to rely on that additional capacity.
It works out very well because they are ready to go early
in the season. They are ready to go late in the season, and we
have continued to appreciate the partnership we have with those
units. I can assure you that we are in constant communication
to make sure that if those planes would not be available, that
we would know about it ahead of time, and then we can make
additional plans.
All indications are that those units are ready, and ready
to fly when we need them. We will probably have to rely on
those a little bit more than we have in the past.
Senator Reed. My final question with respect to this issue
of the aircraft is that I think the number in this year and
next year is roughly 13?
Mr. Tidwell. I expect we will probably have 14 this year.
Senator Reed. Fourteen. But your long-term strategy calls
for somewhere between 18 and 28.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Reed. So the obvious question is, how do we get
from 14, let's say, to double that literally in the timeframe
you're talking about with your strategy?
AIRTANKER LONG-TERM STRATEGY
Mr. Tidwell. With the request for proposals that we put out
a few months ago, we anticipate to bring on 3 additional
aircraft this year, and then up to 10 additional aircraft next
year. Those will all be contracted.
An ideal situation would be at this time next year, I would
be reporting to you that we have 23 to 24 aircraft that are
available for the 2013 fire season.
Senator Reed. And that would be based on the $24 million
incremented funding?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Reed. Very good.
Just a final question I have, and I might revisit this one,
and that's the integrated resource restoration.
You know, last year's appropriations bill provided the
flexibility to conduct your pilot in three regions. This year's
budget with full funding without essentially the results of the
pilot, in a way, might be anticipating the results.
We would like to see the results. So, can you comment very
briefly?
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, we will be sending up our plan
that not only lays out how those funds are allocated, but how
they will be used, and how they will be able to account for
what is produced from those funds throughout the year.
At the end of the year, I look forward to when we can come
up here and actually show what we have accomplished by having
the flexibility that this fund affords.
I recognize that we need to first show you that this is a
better way through the pilot. At the same time, I would not be
proposing this if I did not think it was a better way, and if I
did not have the confidence that we can demonstrate that this
will be better.
So I understand I first need to prove it, and we will be
doing that and I look forward to working with you.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to follow on that, Chief. If I understand what you are
saying, you are asking within this budget request for the full-
on IRR proposal. And yet, you say you are not going to be in a
position until the end of this year to basically be able to
show the accomplishments.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. So this is kind of a ``trust me''
moment. And I think you heard last year from this subcommittee
that we were willing to move forward with the pilot, but we
wanted to see step by step.
So, since we're in this ``trust me'' time, can you tell me
how, whether or not, you've issued any guidance to the field on
how to implement the authority, what performance measures you
are using currently to evaluate the pilot, and then, how we'll
be able to assess whether or not this pilot is actually more
effective than how the regions operated under the current
budget structure?
Can you give me a little bit more than just say, wait until
the end of the year?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator.
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION DIRECTION
As soon as the bill was passed, we sent out directions to
the three pilot regions about how to move forward with using
the Integrated Resource Restoration budget line item, and then
allocated their percentage of those funds to those three
regions.
At the same time, we laid out that they need to be able to
track our accomplishments: the amount of timber that's
harvested, the number of acres that are going to be restored,
watershed conditions improved, the number of miles of stream
that are restored, and the miles of road that are
decommissioned.
In addition to that, we set up a watershed condition
framework. We had taken every one of the watersheds across all
of the national forests and grasslands, and developed criteria
that puts them in a specific category so we know what their
current condition is.
These three regions would then be able to track how they
actually made a change and improved the condition in those
watersheds in addition to the outputs that we will be tracking.
This will be part of the plan that we will have up here
hopefully in the next few weeks to be able to share with you.
Then, at the end of the year, to be able to come up here and
show what work we were able to get done.
And then also to compare with what we have done in the
past, in these same regions, with the same level of funding.
Senator Murkowski. And I think we'll all look forward to
seeing that plan when you bring it up then.
Let me ask you a little bit about this lawsuit out there,
the Sequoia ForestKeeper decision that deals with the
categorical exclusions.
As you heard in my opening comments, I think that this
could have some considerable repercussions within the Agency.
Can you tell me what the current legal status of the case is,
and whether or not the USFS plans to appeal the decision?
SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER VS. TIDWELL
Mr. Tidwell. There have been numerous discussions with our
attorneys about what the next course to look at this, and a
decision has not been made on what is the next legal step to
take.
Immediately though, we started looking at how we could move
forward. We sent out direction to the field that for these
projects that would be covered under a decision memo, we wanted
them to go ahead and put out a 30-day notice, for notice and
comment.
If we don't receive any substantive comments, then we can
go ahead and move forward with the project. As you pointed out,
that if we do, then we also have to allow for an appeal process
that could easily delay these projects up to 140 days like you
mentioned.
There are 600 of these projects that were ready to move
forward in the next 90 days. Not only on some of the minimal
operations that you mentioned in Alaska, but there are more
than 200 associated with oil and gas operations, primarily in
North Dakota.
More than 90 are hazardous fuel projects that we had
planned to move forward with and do that work.
Senator Murkowski. Is that 600 projects across the Nation
then in all of these different areas? Whether it's oil and gas,
mining, et cetera.
IMPACTED PROJECTS
Mr. Tidwell. Yes. There are 600 total that were planned to
go forward in the next 90 days. Of that 600, there are more
than 200 that are associated with oil and gas operations, and
more than 90 with hazardous fuels. There are at least six in
Alaska, just dealing with mining activities.
Senator Murkowski. So, will the USFS notify these permit
holders and the contract holders if their operations next
season are going to be delayed or cancelled because of this
decision out there? How does that work?
Mr. Tidwell. We will need to do that. I am optimistic that
many of these projects, after the 30-day time limit for public
notice and comment, will be able to go forward.
As you mentioned, the one project, I would assume that is
one that after 30 days, we would not get any substantive
comments on it, so we could just go forward with it.
Senator Murkowski. But, we're assuming that that's going to
be the case. We get lucky, basically?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, I need to remain optimistic as much as I
can on this. I do expect that there will be some, if not many
of these projects that we will probably need to go through the
appeal process on, and there will be significant delays.
Senator Murkowski. Well, and you've been able to detail the
number of projects. Do we have any estimate on the number of
jobs that we're talking about, the number of different economic
activities that could be potentially delayed or held up because
of this? Have you done that kind of an assessment?
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Mr. Tidwell. We have not done that yet. That is something
we could pull together, especially for the projects because of
our short field season in some parts of the country, that we
would not be able to implement this year.
If we need to wait 30 days for notice and comment, that
will not be a significant impact, and we will be able to move
forward with those. We will track the potential job impacts,
and we can get back to you on that.
PREDECISIONAL OBJECTION PROCESS
Senator Murkowski. I'd appreciate that.
Now, last year, in the Interior, environment, and related
agencies bill, section 428, we gave you the authority to
promulgate regs, that use the Healthy Forest Act predecisional
objection process instead of the process under which the
Federal court found that you couldn't use the categorical
exclusions.
So I guess the question to you is whether or not you plan
to issue these kinds of regulations pursuant to section 428,
and whether or not the issuance of these regulations through
this section would be an opportunity to perhaps fix what we're
dealing with with this court decision?
Mr. Tidwell. First, we do plan to move forward with
rulemaking, to be able to use this predecisional objection
process, that will actually be a better process. It allows us
to have that additional discussion before the final decision is
made.
It supports our collaborative efforts very well. Part of
the legal discussion that has been going on is if it would also
give us an opportunity to address the current court order to
use common notice and appeals on categorical exclusions.
I am not sure if it will. It may not because the
appropriations language was very specific to Environmental
Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), and
it did not mention categorical exclusions. It is one of the
things our attorneys are looking at, and we will have to get
back to you on that.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. Can you update the Committee, the
subcommittee, when you know?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. I think it is an area where we looked
and said, okay, we might be able to get around this, this court
decision, which I think you and I would both agree, has the
potential to really snarl things up through a process.
And, if in fact, we have allowed for a fix last year, it
would certainly seem to me that that would be one way to try to
approach the problem. So, if you can just keep us current with
that, I'd appreciate it.
Mr. Tidwell. I will. I look at the predecisional objection
process as really a better way. It still provides the
opportunity, especially on EAs and EIS.
With categorical exclusions, because of the type of
projects that we have to do I have already addressed all of the
potential environmental impacts prior to using the categories.
Hopefully, we will be able to find a way forward with this
so that those type of projects can move forward rather quickly.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
We are following the early bird rule so I'll recognize
Senator Tester and then Senator Feinstein.
Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, once again, I want to thank both you, Chief, and
Susan, for your service.
I want to flush out a little bit more about what the
chairman talked about in his questioning about the planes. The
number of planes has declined, with tankers from 43 in 2000 to
11 in 2011.
I've had the opportunity over the last year to be all over
the West pretty extensively, and, of course, you know, I farm
in Montana. So weather is something that I pay particular
attention to, and I know that the snow pack is claimed to be
average up in the high elevations. I don't know if that's true.
I talked to a couple of ranchers this morning and said if
there's a lot of snow up there, they haven't seen it.
So, the question becomes that sets us up for a pretty
potentially big fire year. I know we do a lot of praying and we
say, you know, if it's the same as last year, I mean, if we get
decent rainfall, it could be the same as last year. And last
year, at least in my neck of the woods, it was a pretty decent
fire season from a cost standpoint.
You talked about going from 11 to 14 this year. There's
three more tankers that you're going to contract for. When do
you anticipate those contracts to be let?
AIRTANKER CONTRACTING
Mr. Tidwell. Hopefully within the next 30 days, we will be
able to make the decisions on the proposals that were
submitted.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Mr. Tidwell. Then there will be a period of time that the
aircraft will be able to demonstrate that they can meet our
standards for retardant and delivery. We are optimistic that we
will be able to bring on another three planes this year.
Senator Tester. Okay. And I am familiar that you said that
these planes are going to be faster so they're going to be a
little more expensive, and I am familiar with what you're
talking about.
The question becomes, is there an analysis to know if the
delivery of the product onto the fire is more cost beneficial
with these bigger, more expensive planes? Maybe not bigger, but
faster planes.
AIRTANKER DELIVERY STUDIES
Mr. Tidwell. The information we have from the studies that
have been done is that if we have a larger payload, ideally up
to around 3,000 gallons, and then deliver it in a way that
penetrates the brush and the heavy timber like up in your
country, that is the type of delivery system that we need.
Also, with the larger tank, they can split their loads and
be able to drop two or maybe three from the same load. So that
is where the efficiencies are gained.
We are also moving forward with a study to put additional
equipment into these aircraft so that we will be able to
collect more information about their effectiveness. Not only
how often they hit right where the ground crew are requesting
retardant, but how it was delivered.
By this time next year, we are going to have additional
information that will help us as we move forward with
determining just what is the right mix of aircraft. I want to
stress that we are going to need a mix of aircraft. We are
going to rely on our current contractors to keep delivering
those resources.
We are going to need some additional contractors to come
onboard to provide aircraft for us.
Senator Tester. Okay. And because you talked about a mix,
so I do want to talk about helicopters for a second. You said
that it was potentially--well, maybe not potentially, I don't
want to put words in your mouth--that there will be additional
helicopters this year.
Could you tell me what that increase would be, and where
we're at, and where it would be after the increase is done?
FIREFIGHTING HELICOPTERS
Mr. Tidwell. We are contracting for four additional of the
Type 1, which is what we call our heavy helicopter. Last year
we had 26 of those, and then we had eight Type 2s that were
available for really large fires.
In addition, there is another 90 helicopters that are
available for initial attack. By going with four more of the
large helicopters, it gives us more capacity than what we had
last year.
However, there are additional costs. We had to put another
$4 million into those contracts just to start the season.
Senator Tester. Okay. So and I know you're going to say,
just fine, but can you tell me how confident you are between
the airtankers and the helicopters that will be available to
shut the unwanted fires down when they occur in a timely basis
and effectively deal with the other ones as your management
plan dictates?
FIREFIGHTING ASSET CONFIDENCE
Mr. Tidwell. I have a lot of confidence in our firefighters
ability to do the job and the mix of resources. I acknowledge
we are short of large airtankers. I would feel much more
comfortable if we had another four, five, or six of those
available this year.
We will probably be quick to call on the MAFFS units to
bring on those additional aircraft. With the MAFFS units, we
will be well prepared to be able to deal with this fire season.
However, if it becomes much more active than what we
currently predict, which it could, there will be times like in
years past, when there will be a shortage of resources in the
near term during initial attack. And we will have to deal with
that just like we have had to in the past.
Senator Tester. Are you familiar, I talked about a team
with H.R. 1581? It appears to me that at a time where you guys
are trying to get some stewardship stuff done, I think you've
got about a $6 billion backlog in roads as it is, that we're
going exactly in the wrong direction.
Hunter and fishermen interests aside, we're going exactly
in the wrong direction for what you guys are trying to get
accomplished. Has the Department taken a stand on H.R. 1581 and
its impact on outdoor activities?
H.R. 1581
Mr. Tidwell. I don't have a position on that bill yet. I
can tell you that there is very strong support to maintain the
undeveloped character of our back country, the roadless areas
in this country, to provide recreational benefits, clean water,
and wildlife benefits that come out of that land.
What I want to focus on is being able to address the
restoration needs and the millions of other acres, the roaded
part of our country. It is often adjacent to our communities,
that we need to restore, to make these areas much more
resilient to fires, insects, and disease.
You mentioned our road backlog. There are many places in
the country--because of the erosion--that are coming off of the
road system, it is limiting some of our management options.
If we could ever get on top of that to the point where we
could eliminate those concerns, it would free up and give us
more flexibility to do restoration work and the timber harvest
that needs to be done on these lands.
Senator Tester. I agree.
Very quickly. Region 1 has been honored to have the
regional forester become the chief or the deputy chief in the
USFS. You, in fact, yourself, made this jump.
We have had now four regional foresters leave the region in
the last decade and they've been darn good people. You're one
of them.
The management and oversight, continuity in that region
takes a hit because of that. We are in kind of, between a rock
and a hard place, so to speak, because although we'd love to
have the regional forester become the person in your position,
it does impact continuity.
What steps since Leslie has left are you taking to get a
new Director and are you concerned about the continuity in
region 1, being intimately familiar with that region, as I am?
REGION 1
Mr. Tidwell. I am with every region and every station
whenever we have a change in leadership. I am very pleased with
the work that the regional foresters have been doing for us.
I can assure you that the next regional forester, who I can
at least say will do a better job than I did--I will not say
she did a better job than the last one.
I will say that the next person will do a better job than
I did up there for you.
Senator Tester. How about the length, the continuity?
Mr. Tidwell. I would hope in the future that our regional
foresters can stay in place a little bit longer than at least
the last couple have stayed up there.
I can assure you that the people that will be stepping into
those positions have the experience, they have decades of
experience in dealing with these resources. When they do step
in, they will be ready to go and will be able to continue to
provide the leadership that is necessary in our regions.
Senator Tester. I appreciate that. They have been top
flight, I agree. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tidwell, you know, I think we're all really very
concerned about what's happening. The President's budget for
you is up about 1 percent. And yet, I want to show you fires.
Here are ``Total Acres Burned By Decade''. And you can see
from 2002 to 2011, 70,482,958 acres.
So you can see, there was a decline, 1982 to 1991, and from
that point on, acreage burned has gone up. Here are the numbers
of times planes were used.
Do we have the one on planes? Could we put that up?
Shows the total number of times airtankers were used between 1990 and
2011.
Shows the number of times a request for a tanker was not filled.
The percentage of unfilled requests compared to the sum of filled and
unfilled requests.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, the number of times planes were
used.
And you see the line going straight up. So we have more
acres burned, more need for planes. And I want my staff to
bring you down a copy of a letter that you received on March 7
from CAL FIRE. I don't know if you have that in front of you.
[The information follows:]
State of California--Natural Resources Agency,
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,
Sacramento, CA, March 7, 2012.
The Honorable Tom Tidwell,
Chief, USDA Forest Service,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chief Tidwell: The California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE) and the United States Forest Service (USFS)
Region 5 have a long history of cooperative fire protection, including
an integrated air attack program. Air attack bases were located
throughout the State based on a maximum 20 minute response time to any
location, including both State Responsibility Area (SRA) and National
Forest lands. CAL FIRE's fleet of 23-Type 3 airtankers, mixed with the
assigned Federal Type 1 airtankers, provided a mixture of aircraft to
meet our joint initial attack goals, as well as the needs of extended
attack and major fires.
The reduction in the number of Federal airtankers from 43 in 2000,
to 11 in 2011, has resulted in significant impacts on this integrated
system, placing an increasing burden on CAL FIRE aircraft to respond to
fires on National Forest lands. Initial and extended attack fires on
Federal lands are increasing the flight hours on CAL FIRE's airtankers
and reducing their availability for response to new fires.
The USDA Forest Service Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy
(Strategy), released on February 10, 2012, is long overdue and is a
critical step toward identifying the next-generation large airtanker
platform. I have concerns, however, that the Strategy falls short in
several areas:
--The Strategy does not reference the individual needs of the States.
The Federal aviation program is critical to meeting the fire
protection goals of the States as well as those of the Federal
agencies, especially in California. Fire fighting aircraft are
a very limited resource and, therefore, it is critical that the
national strategy include collaboration with the States to
ensure the plan provides for efficient and integrated use of
all assets.
--The identified optimum number of 18 to 28 aircraft is insufficient
to meet the needs of the combined Federal, state and local wild
land firefighting missions. As the Strategy indicates, the
current drought cycle will continue through the next decade,
only exacerbating the already dry fuel conditions and potential
for extreme fire behavior. Over half of California's most
devastating fires have occurred within the last 10 years. The
Federal aviation program must build capacity back to a level
that adequately supports the initial and extended attack needs,
both nationally and within individual states. I am concerned
that during periods of multiple large fires in other Regions,
California will be left with an insufficient number of Federal
aircraft to meet the normal initial and extended attack
workload. This places additional burden on CAL FIRE and local
government aircraft and risks additional large fires that
threaten lives and natural resources.
--The Strategy identifies a desire to look at dual mission aircraft
that can transition from delivering retardant to transporting
cargo or fire fighters. It is critical that aircraft identified
as airtankers remain dedicated to initial attack response and
that retardant systems be designed for the most effective
delivery and application of retardant. Switching between
multiple functions often leads to a reduction in performance
for any given task.
--The Strategy does not adequately address the potential use of very
large airtankers (VLATs), especially for the extended attack
incidents. The VLAT should be considered to meet your interim
needs, and as part of your long-term strategy. Use of the VLAT
on extended attack incidents, where large amounts of retardant
are required over extended periods of time, could free up other
airtankers for initial attack incidents where they are arguably
more effective.
CAL FIRE has maintained its own aviation program in California for
many years and has worked very closely with our Federal partners. We
have a vested interest in an effective national aviation program that
supports all of our missions. Unless there are a sufficient number of
Federal airtankers, CAL FIRE cannot continue to support extended attack
fires on Federal lands without adversely affecting our aviation
program.
States stand ready to assist you in developing and implementing a
plan for the appropriate number, type and location of Federal
airtankers. I look forward to discussing this issue with you and Tom
Harbour in the near future.
Sincerely,
Ken Pimlott,
Director.
cc: (USFS) James Hubbard, Deputy Chief for State & Private Forestry
(USFS) Tom Harbour, Director of Fire and Aviation Management
(USFS) Randy Moore, Regional Forester Pacific Southwest Region
(CAL FIRE) Andy McMurry, Deputy Director, Chief of Fire
Protection
(CAL FIRE) Caroline Godkin, Deputy Director of Legislation
FIREFIGHTING CAPACITY
Mr. Tidwell. I do, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. You do.
I've underlined certain parts of it, and I'd like you to
follow along. Well, CAL FIRE's fleet of 23 Type 3 airtankers
mixed with the assigned Federal type 1 airtankers provide a
mixture of aircraft to meet our joint, initial attack goals, as
well as the needs of extended attack on major fires.
And then he points out what the reductions are. And he
says, initial and extended attack fires on Federal lands are
increasing the flight hours on CAL FIRE's airtankers and
reducing their availability for response to new fires. And then
he talks about your strategy.
I have concern that the strategy falls short in several
areas. And the one I would talk of the identified optimum
number of 18 to 28 aircraft is insufficient to meet the needs
of the combined Federal, State, and local wildland firefighting
missions. The current drought cycle will continue through the
next decade.
I'm concerned that during periods of multiple large fires
in other regions, California will be left with an insufficient
number of Federal aircraft to meet the normal initial and
extended attack workload.
Now, here's the deal breaker. Unless there are a sufficient
number of Federal airtankers, CAL FIRE cannot continue to
support extended attack fires on Federal lands without
adversely affecting our aviation program.
So what this is saying is if you're going to provide, you
know, reduced ability, CAL FIRE is considering stopping
fighting fires on Federal land, and we have huge amounts of
Federal land in California.
Where do the new helos come from? You're cancelling four
helos, three of them in California, is that right?
FIREFIGHTING HELICOPTERS
Mr. Tidwell. Those were the smaller Type 2 helicopters.
Senator Feinstein. But you're cancelling four, right?
Mr. Tidwell. We replaced those. We actually have eight less
of the Type 2 helicopters, and we are bringing on four Type 1s
which actually will carry more, have more capacity, and are
able to deliver more water per hour than those eight.
Senator Feinstein. How many will be available during fire
season in California?
Mr. Tidwell. Depending on what's going on in California,
Type 1 helicopters could be in California.
We move these resources to where the fire season is
starting to increase, and we pre-position these large
helicopters to be available.
They are not the helicopters that we rely on for initial
attack. These are large helicopters that are dedicated to fire
suppression, the large fires. And so we will move those and
pre-position them wherever in the country we need them.
Senator Feinstein. You're staying that 30 of these
helicopters will be available in California during fire season?
HELICOPTER POSITIONING
Mr. Tidwell. They could be, depending on what's going on in
California, and the rest of the country.
Senator Feinstein. Could be.
Mr. Tidwell. We also have our initial attack helicopters
that will be located throughout the State. This is one of the
things that we are also looking at, especially as the fire
season develops. If we need to bring on additional helicopters
over the next 30 to 45 days.
It is one of the things we are considering, to actually
bring on some additional helicopters depending on how this fire
season develops over the next 30 to 45 days.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I'm concerned because I know CAL
FIRE, and they don't say things that they don't mean. And I'm
worried that we're on our way to a confrontation which is not
going to be helpful.
And, you know, we've got big national forests up in the
Tahoe Basin, up in the northern part of the State. You've got
the Los Angeles National Forest where if they have a fire
there, it impacts subdivisions and a lot of forestry land as
well, different forest land.
That you will not have adequate equipment available in the
State. You are saying to me that you will, is that right?
Mr. Tidwell. We will be able to move these resources to
California depending on the fire season. If we determine in the
next 30 to 45 days that there's a need to bring on additional
helicopters, we will do that.
We also have the hundreds of call-when-needed helicopters
that we can also bring on.
Senator Feinstein. Are they adequate? Is the supply going
to be adequate? Look, hazardous fuels mitigation money is down.
We have had a wet winter. You're going to have huge food for
fire.
And if what happens with weather is more heat which is
suspected, we've got two nuclear power plants down in Southern
California, the possibility of rolling blackouts in the summer.
What I'm trying to find out is, will you make a commitment
that there are adequate Federal firefighting resources for
Federal land in California this next firefighting season?
Mr. Tidwell. I will make a commitment that we will provide
the resources that we have available to address the situation.
I would like to remind the subcommittee that there are
times when we have the large airtankers, the large helicopters,
the Type 1 crews that are within minutes of a fire.
If it gets started under certain conditions, we are not
able to catch that fire during initial attack.
Senator Feinstein. Well, my understanding is that the helos
are not available to hit fires when they're small, only after
they burn out of control; is that correct?
FIREFIGHTING WITH HELICOPTERS
Mr. Tidwell. No. Our helitack crews, their primarily
responsibility is initial attack. We have more than 90
helicopters that are just available for initial attack.
As the fire season develops, we can bring on dozens to 100
more on-call helicopters when needed to do initial attack, to
drop water and also move crews.
Senator Feinstein. I don't want to go through another
Station Fire.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. And you're telling me now that the
helicopters will be available on the initiation of what could
be a big fire. You're not going to wait until it's out of
control.
Mr. Tidwell. No. Usually, depending if the fire starts near
one of our helitack bases, that helicopter is the first
resource on the fire.
If it is farther away, then it is the airtanker that is
going to be the first resource on the fire, and then the
helicopters are usually the second resource on that fire.
Senator Feinstein. Is it your intention in a wildfire,
wildland fire on Federal land, to let the land burn or to
attack it at its beginning? What is the policy now?
WILDLAND FIRE POLICY
Mr. Tidwell. The policy is that when we need to take
initial attack, we are going to take initial attack. Our record
of being successful on close to 98 percent of the fires that we
take initial attack on has held up over the years. I expect we
are going to be able to continue that.
There are fires in the back country, where the planning has
been completed. If we have the right set of conditions, we will
manage that fire in the back country for resource benefits.
But when I say it is managed, it is still suppression
actions that are taken to make sure that it is contained within
an area that has been basically already addressed through a
planning process.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I'm going to follow this fire
season very carefully and come back and look at this
transcript. Because I am really concerned. And I hope you will
give California some attention.
Things are happening weather-wise out there which are very
serious, and it's getting warmer, and drier. And as I say, I
think the decision was made in the Station Fire, not to attack
early. And I think that was a mistake.
Initially, we had more than 1,000 lightning strikes on a
given day up north, not last year, but a couple of years ago,
which started hundreds of wildfires. And I went with President
Bush and flew over and the damage that was done was just
enormous. It looked like another planet.
STATION FIRE
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator, I worked in that region, and I
was up there on those fires when we had that. I think it was
one storm, we had more than 3,000 fires get started there in
the northern part of California.
We will continue to work very closely with CAL FIRE along
with all the other States. The only way we can deal with
wildland fire in this country is for all the cooperators to
work together. We will take initial attack, like we did on the
Station Fire. We had crews and resources that were on that fire
right from the start. Early the next morning, we had a large
helicopter dropping close to 2,000 gallons of water every few
minutes on that fire.
But you get the right set of conditions, and you get the
wind behind it, and there are a few of these that we are just
not able to catch during initial attack.
Senator Feinstein. I know that that's true. Have you
responded to CAL FIRE's letter of March 7?
Mr. Tidwell. We have been working with them, having
discussions with them, and I will be sending a written
response.
Senator Feinstein. Would you please ``cc'' me on the
response, I'd appreciate it.
Mr. Tidwell. Certainly, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. I'm sorry
I took so much time.
Senator Reed. Quite all right, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Very important and timely questions. In fact,
let me just follow up.
As Senator Feinstein pointed out, not only do we look at a
very complicated and challenging fire season ahead, we lost a
lot of acreage last year which raises a question about
rehabilitation.
And I note, and you may correct me if I'm inaccurate, that
there's no line item for rehabilitation in the fiscal year 2012
budget, so how are you rehabilitating some of the lands? Where
are you getting the money?
LAND REHABILITATION
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, you are correct. We no longer
have the budget line item that we have had in the past to deal
with restoration following a fire.
So the initial work that is done is through our burn area
emergency rehab work, where we do have current year funds that
we can use, but a lot of the work has to be done following
that.
We will have to rely on using the funds--the fund codes
that make up the IRR proposed line item.
We use force management of watershed funds, fish and
wildlife funds at times, to be able to do that work. We are
going to have less resources to be able to respond in the
future.
Senator Reed. Let me follow up with a related question. One
of the ways that you try to minimize the risk is hazardous
fuels reduction. And I looked at the fiscal year 2012 budget,
and in the 2013 budget proposal, you are taking $75 million
from hazardous fuels, and you're putting it in the IRR line
which we both talked about as perhaps the cart before the horse
in terms of the pilot program.
That raises the question of how are you using these limited
dollars for fuel reduction mitigation efforts that will help?
HAZARDOUS FUELS
Mr. Tidwell. The $75 million that we proposed to put into
the IRR is basically that part of our hazardous fuel money that
we have been spending in more of the back country to do the
work.
Over the years, we have spent the majority of our funds in
the WUI. We have 25 million acres of WUI on the National Forest
and grasslands.
We have a system that we have been using for the past
years, a model that we follow, to determine the highest-
priority areas for distributing fuels funding across the
country.
We follow that model to set the priorities and the
allocations out to the regions, and the regions then use a
similar model to actually determine which forest receives the
hazardous fuels funding so that we are putting the funding
where we have the highest priority.
Often when there are resources like communities that are at
risk from a large wildfire those projects are going to rate out
very high. That is why you are going to see us continue to
spend the majority of our appropriations dealing with WUI
hazardous fuels projects.
They are also the most expensive work. The work we do in
the back country, we can treat a lot more acres for a lot less
money. So over the last few years, as far as acre
accomplishment, we have been getting about 50 percent of our
accomplishment in the WUI, and then 50 percent in the back
country, even though we have been spending the majority of our
appropriated funds in the WUI.
It is just much more expensive to work in communities'
backyards.
Senator Reed. Yes. You presumably have evaluated the cost
benefit, you know, the relative efficiency of this program. Can
you share that with us? Whatever analysis you have.
Mr. Tidwell. We can do that. I can tell you that we
continue to learn. We had last year with the Wallow Fire, the
largest wildfire of record in Arizona.
We were fortunate that a few years ago, we started the
White Mountain Stewardship Project down there that had treated
thousands of acres before that fire got started.
Because of that work, when that large wildfire hit those
treated areas, areas that had been thinned out, that fire
dropped out of the top of the trees onto the ground, and our
suppression crews, our firefighters were successful.
It saved thousands of homes. It is tragic that we lost
dozens, but because of that work, I would be glad to show you
some photos that demonstrate the difference it can make.
We have also learned with the fire seasons we are dealing
with now, that we need larger treatments. Some of the work that
we did in the past was not large enough. We have to be able to
understand that these wildfires, the conditions that we have
today, that it is going to take much larger areas that have
been treated to really make a difference.
Those are some of the things that we are looking at more
now as we move forward. Taking more of a landscape approach so
that we are not treating 50 or 100 acres. We need to be
treating the thousands, the tens of thousands of acres.
COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE FOREST RESTORATION PROJECTS
That is our current approach with these Collaborative
Landscape Forest Restoration projects across the country. I
used the one project down there in Arizona that we are moving
forward with as an example.
We are also doing another one, an environmental impact
study on 750,000 acres, to be able to address, do the analysis
for 750,000 acres under one environmental document. Then we
will be able to move forward and do the restoration work across
this four-forest area over the next decade or so.
That is what we need to do. That is what we have been
learning, and I will be glad to provide you with the
information that we have on some of the studies we have been
doing on the effectiveness.
Senator Reed. Let me turn now to the urban and community
forest program. You are looking at a $3.2 million reduction,
and yet you are indicating that you'll maintain the same level
of activity.
That would be very good. How do you do that?
LANDSCAPE SCALE RESTORATION
Mr. Tidwell. Well, actually, our request is very similar to
what we received in fiscal year 2012. But there is a portion of
those funds that have moved into our Landscape Scale
Restoration proposed budget line item.
This Landscape Scale Restoration proposed budget line item
reflects what we have been doing over the last few years.
Taking a portion of our State and private funds and setting it
aside, so that the States actually compete for those funds.
They get their initial funding, and then there is this
other pot of money that we have had them compete for over the
last few years. What we have noticed through this is that they
have learned to look at how they can put together better
proposals, even working across State lines, so that we have
been able to increase our efficiency.
URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY
When it comes to Urban and Community Forestry, we are
requesting a similar amount of money. There is just a portion
of it that will be in this other proposed line item that the
States will have to compete for just like they have had to over
the last few years.
Senator Reed. There's another aspect here, and that is with
respect to States, particular States that don't have large
national forests but have private and State owned forests.
That's the proposal to consolidate the State Wildland Fire
Assistance and the Forest Health Management Program, which
could leave some States, one of which being mine, unsure of
where they stand or not receiving adequate resources for
current programs.
Can you comment upon that?
PROGRAM CONSOLIDATION
Mr. Tidwell. There is a very slight decrease in what is
available for the State Fire Assistance funds.
Once again, we have proposed to put both of the funds into
one budget line item just to make it a little easier for us to
track just one budget line item.
It is going to be a little easier for the States, instead
of having two. Basically, they have done the same type of work,
and we feel that it's more efficient to have one budget line
item.
Overall, it is a slight decrease from what we requested,
what we received in fiscal year 2012. Those funds are still
going to be available for Rhode Island and for all the States.
As it has been pointed out so clearly here a couple of
times, our fire seasons are becoming not only longer, but more
severe, and are becoming a bigger problem for us to deal with.
It is essential that we can continue to be able to provide the
support to our States and to local fire departments.
Without them, we would not have near the success ratio that
we currently do, because we rely on both the State and the
local fire department to be the first resources that come onto
fires that are on the national forests.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Chief. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief, let me ask you about the 9th Circuit, Court of
Appeals decision that decided that forest roads are point
sources that require industrial discharge permits.
Last year in the appropriations bill, language was included
that temporarily prevented this ruling from taking place. So
the question to you this morning is whether or not insertion of
that language actually allowed USFS to get more work done on
the ground?
Was that helpful, not helpful? Can you just kind of speak
to how that played out?
FOREST ROADS
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, it allowed us to continue to do what
we have been doing to address the need for clean water, and
that is to follow the use of our best management practices that
we have been relying on to address any potential concerns of
erosion coming off of logging roads.
It's something we're working closely with Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) as we move forward. They had a court
order they had to address. But to be able to work with them to
find a way we can continue to use our best management practices
to be able to apply that.
Because it has proven to be very effective not only on the
national forests but also on the private forested lands, that
most I think every State requires the use of best management
practices.
And they have been effective to address, the potential
concerns and be able to not only meet the intent of the Clean
Water Act, but also to address any concerns with the impacts to
water.
Senator Murkowski. So if in fact this is actually helped
you, is there a reason that you didn't request extension of
this authority in the budget this year?
You mentioned you are working with EPA. We understand that
we need to do that. But if it's proven effective, why wouldn't
we want to continue this?
Mr. Tidwell. I'm optimistic that through the work of EPA,
we will be able to find an administrative path forward to be
able to address this. I am optimistic we will be able to get
that done.
Senator Murkowski. Can you give me any indication at this
point in time that you think you have that administrative
authority?
Mr. Tidwell. We do not have it at this point in time, but
we are continuing to work closely with the EPA.
I would be glad to, as those discussions move forward, and
a decision is made by the EPA on what steps they are going to
take, provide that information to you.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. I would appreciate that because if
it appears that that isn't possible, if you've indicated that
you think you've actually made some improvements, you've been
able to get some additional work done on the ground, then maybe
we need to look again to inserting that language.
Let me ask you about Secure Rural Schools program. You
mentioned very briefly in your statement a reference to Secure
Rural Schools program. Clearly very important to States like
mine and to many on this panel.
Can you tell me what the allocation split is? I'm looking
at the budget justification here. And it just indicates that,
let's see, the fiscal year 2012 proposal assumes the enactment
of Secure Rural Schools program for 5 years, funds payments for
mandatory funding.
And the proposal revises the allocation split between the
schools and roads, economic investment, forest restoration, and
fire assistance portions of the program.
Can you tell me where you are going to the Secure Rural
Schools program?
SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS PROGRAM
Mr. Tidwell. In the President's request, we identified
mandatory funding that could be used for this program.
Senator Murkowski. So where did you identify that from?
Mr. Tidwell. It is part of the President's budget request.
Senator Murkowski. Okay.
Mr. Tidwell. It is the overall request, and at the same
time, we need to work with you to put together the legislative
framework on how to move forward with this program.
We put it in there as mandatory funding this year, it shows
the importance, the understanding of the importance of this
program, especially in these current economic times, about how
we need to be able to find a way to work together to be able to
move forward, to be able to continue to provide this funding to
the counties and the boroughs.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. Well, I want to understand a
little bit further the administration's proposal.
Again, this is something that many of us are very focused
on, and want to make sure that we've got the funding piece of
it figured out, but also the formula going forward over the 5
year proposal.
Let me ask you about the new forest planning rule. On the
23d of March, you finalized the new planning rule. This is the
latest attempt to revise the 1982 planning rule.
Of course, we've seen a series of litigation over the
years. The 1982 rule remains in effect. I guess a question to
you is whether or not you also similarly expect that this new
rule will be challenged and whether you think that this one is
one that could actually be held up in a court challenge?
PLANNING RULE
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, I do not know if it is going to be
challenged or not. As you mentioned, we have had to deal with
this for the last two decades, and the last three attempts were
challenged.
We definitely have learned from those previous attempts.
From my perspective, we have done the best job of having a very
transparent process involving and engaging more members of the
public across this country than we ever did before.
To be able to factor in what we heard from all those
different meetings, and all the comments that we received, I
believe we have the best proposal we have ever put together. It
is very balanced. It will save money. It is going to save time.
It will do a better job than what we did under the 1982
rule. I also believe we did an excellent job dealing with the
analysis that is required, and that we are optimistic about
moving forward and demonstrating how we will apply this.
The other thing we are relying on is that we are putting
together a Federal advisory committee to provide
recommendations to the Secretary and myself about the
directives and about how to move forward with this and also
with the collaborative process that is required.
I think by having that committee in place, which will be a
very diverse, group of individuals, that will need to spend the
time to really look at this. We will be able to bring in not
only employees from the forest that are moving forward with the
plans, but also members of the community to be able to say,
that this is how we're moving forward with it.
Here is how it is working. They can hear directly from
them. I am optimistic that this time around, we will be able to
demonstrate that this is a better process than in 1982. That if
and when there is a court challenge, we will have that
additional evidence to be able to demonstrate that this is a
better way, while at the same time, addressing the same
concerns that have been brought up in the previous litigation
on our past attempts.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I think we all know there's been a
somewhat tortured history out there going through the courts.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. I was a little surprised that the
Chugach National Forest was selected as one of the first eight
forests to revise its plan under the new rule because as it
stands right now, the Chugach Plan doesn't require revision for
yet another 5 years.
So the question is, why was the Chugach National Forest
selected when you've got other forests out there that are well
past their life of their 15-year plan? Why did you single out
the Chugach National Forest?
Mr. Tidwell. First of all, it is within every 10 to 15
years, and so they will be closed here in a couple of years,
but they asked. The forest felt they were well positioned to be
able to move forward.
They wanted to use this new rule to make some changes in
their current forest plan based on what they are hearing from
their communities and from the public.
So they requested that they could be one of the first
forests to move forward with implementation. That was one of
the things that we factored in as to which ones need, have a
pressing need, and the ones that were positioned and had the
ability to move forward.
Then, if there was a strong desire. The Chugach National
Forest met all of those.
Senator Murkowski. Do you worry that not only the Chugach
National Forest, but the others, the other eight, might start
revising their plan under this new rule, and then as we saw
before, the rule gets thrown out in court.
And you're in a situation where you've effectively wasted a
lot of time, clearly, a lot of money, because you have to start
all over again.
Do you worry about that course ahead?
Mr. Tidwell. We do factor that in, and that is where the
forests that are currently going, they have been going through
planning for the last couple of years. They will probably all,
or most of those, will continue under the 1982 rule.
This new rule is so much more efficient, and it eliminates
a lot of unnecessary modeling and analysis. So that, under any
scenario, we probably are not going to lose any ground. I
remain optimistic that because of the work that we did this
time around, the additional work, working with our communities,
that I feel that we have finally done this.
That this will be a rule that will withstand any
challenges, and that we will be able to move forward and revise
our forest plans for decades to come. I know, you know, there
is a chance it could be challenged.
I feel really strongly about this, and I tell you I would
not have this level of confidence if it was not based on just
the work that has gone into this. The amount of support across
the board, and not everyone is supportive. I understand that.
We definitely have more support for this rule than we have
ever had for the previous three attempts.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I guess it remains to be seen. Mr.
Chairman, I have one more question, but my time is up.
Senator Reed. Take your time. Go ahead.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
Senator Murkowski. Okay. Then this is as it relates to the
stewardship contracting and the Tongass. I'm sure you probably
anticipated this question.
You indicated in your comments that you're seeking a
permanent extension of the stewardship contracting authority,
and have indicated that this is a real priority for USFS and
its restoration efforts.
Unfortunately, this hasn't been met positively in the
Tongass as it relates to the stewardship contracting. Back in
2008, USFS promised to offer four 10-year commercial timber
sales at approximately 150 to 200 million board feet.
Those have been modified into two stewardship contracts at
a greatly reduced volume. We've yet to see these contracts
completed and offered to the industry.
So I'm concerned that with the focus on the stewardship
contracting, what is happening is it's coming at the expense of
a commercial sales program, and our very small male
infrastructure is being squeezed here.
So I would ask you to address that criticism that USFS
focus is on, in an area that directs resources away from the
commercial sales, whether or not, I guess, the volume of
commercial sales that you would anticipate be part of these
contracts, and how you see it really operating in the Tongass?
Mr. Tidwell. Stewardship Contracting is just another tool
to augment the work that needs to be done. It is not to replace
the timber sale contracts.
I share your concern about the lack of progress we have
made with the Stewardship Contracts that USFS has been working
on. It is one of the things that I would really like to work
with you to maybe look at some of the different options that we
may have up there on the Tongass to be able to move forward
with that.
I want to be very clear. It is just part of our program. We
are currently doing about 20 percent of the restoration work,
the timber harvest under Stewardship Contracts across the
country.
Ideally, would I like to see a little more of that? Yes.
But we are still going to be using the timber sale contract. It
is the right tool for certain projects.
However, we are finding the Stewardship Contract to be a
very effective tool. I think it does have some use up on the
Tongass. Maybe not as much up there as in other parts of the
country, but we did have one very successful project last year.
It was small.
But I think those are things that build confidence not only
in the industry, but in the communities, that this is a good
tool.
I am hoping because of the success they had last year on
that small project that we will be able to move forward with
the Stewardship Contracts, and to make these multiple-year
contracts, so that it allows someone to be able to come in and
make that financial investment in either maintaining the mill
or investing in upgrading the mill.
If they know that there is a long-term contract here and
that there is going to be a certain amount of material that is
going to be available, it is going to be harvested, they can
make sound financial decisions.
That is what we need to be able to do. Senator, I really
look forward to being able to work with you to look at maybe a
couple of different options I have been thinking about that
maybe could help us on the Tongass.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I'd like to take you up on that
offer. Again, my concern is that you have a diversion of
resources that goes toward the stewardship contracts at the
expense of the other projects and how we affect these
commercial sales.
So if we can sit down and discuss how some of these options
might move forward on the Tongass, I think the people in the
region would greatly appreciate it. I would appreciate it.
It's something that, again, in our conversations both in
hearing and in my office, I've expressed the concern of those
that are really just hanging on by their fingernails out there.
And the assurance of a longer-term contract and some
reasonable volume is all they're looking for. They're not
looking to take it back to the days of the timber industry 30
years ago. They're more pragmatic about that.
But we need to have some assurance. So if your folks can
sit down with us and work through some realistic options, I
think that that would be appreciated.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, thank you.
I look forward to having that opportunity because I do
think we have some additional flexibilities, some things we are
doing here in the lower 48 that we should be able to have those
same flexibilities on the Tongass too. Especially in these very
difficult economic times that we are facing.
Senator Murkowski. Exactly.
I would rather the people of Ketchikan and Prince of Wales
be able to harvest timber, be able to have jobs in the small
saw mills than figure out ways that we're piecing together
Secure Rural Schools program funding.
Trying to rob Peter to pay Paul type of an approach. But
knowing that that's all we have to offer right now, I think
they would rather have the jobs. They would rather have that
small industrial base.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. So I look forward to working with you,
and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the additional time.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. And thank you,
Chief, for your testimony. Did you have a comment? Please, go
ahead.
H.R. 1581
Mr. Tidwell. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I just need to, for the
record, correct an earlier statement from Senator Tester about
H.R. 1581.
I did not recognize the H.R. number versus the Senate
number.
Senator Reed. You didn't? I'm shocked.
Mr. Tidwell. I apologize to the subcommittee, but we did
testify on that bill in the past, and our position is that we
strongly opposed that bill. I just wanted to correct the
record. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Reed. The correction is duly noted. We will keep
the record open for 1 week. You may receive additional
questions from my colleagues. Any further statements by my
colleagues will be submitted for the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Tom Tidwell
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY
Question. The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a $3.2 million
reduction for the Urban and Community Forest program while the budget
justification states that the fiscal year 2012 level of activity will
be maintained in fiscal year 2013. How will a $3.2 million reduction
result in the same level of activity?
Answer. In fiscal year 2012, as in the previous 4 years, 15 percent
of funds from selected State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs,
including Urban and Community Forestry (UCF) were used to fund
competitive, landscape-scale ``Redesign'' projects. The fiscal year
2013 budget proposes a Landscape Scale Restoration Program as a new
Budget Line Item (BLI) that would formalize the Redesign competitive
process. The $3.3 million reduction is similar to the amount that would
have been used to traditionally fund ``Redesign'' projects, which will
now be funded by the Landscape Scale Restoration BLI. As such, the
amount proposed in the UCF program is similar to previous years and is
expected to have similar accomplishments.
Question. Can you specifically detail the initiatives planned for
urban forests in fiscal year 2013?
Answer. UCF will work with the State forestry agencies and other
partners to provide assistance to develop and maintain urban and
community forestry programs. These programs protect and maintain urban
trees and forests in more than 7,000 communities, representing more
than 194 million people. In fiscal year 2013, UCF will continue to
support the national strategic tree planting initiative launched in
fiscal year 2012 to reduce energy consumption and provide communities
with all of the benefits that urban trees provide including:
--improved air and water quality;
--improved human health and well-being;
--green jobs;
--recreation; and
--wildlife habitat.
In fiscal year 2013, UCF will also work with partners to advance
the recommendations contained in the Vibrant Cities and Urban Forests
Task Force Report, issued in the fall of 2011 and available online at
http://issuu.com/vibrantcities/docs/vibrantcitiesreport.
Question. What are the goals of the proposed Landscape Scale
Restoration program and how will States with predominately State and
private forest lands, such as Rhode Island, likely to compete?
Answer. The goal of the proposed Landscape Scale Restoration
Program is to focus and prioritize S&PF resources to better shape and
influence forest land use at a scale and in a way that optimizes public
benefits from trees and forests across all landscapes, from rural lands
to urban centers. This increased focus on ``All Lands'' projects brings
particular attention to implementation of the priorities identified in
Rhode Island's State Forest Action Plan, formally called the State-wide
assessment. Over the past 5 years, Rhode Island has been successful in
receiving project funding through the competitive process and will
continue to compete for project funding which includes projects with
universities and nonprofit organization partners, and through project
partnerships with adjoining States.
Question. Will the Forest Resource and Inventory Analysis program
continue to have the same authority to partner with the States under
research as it has had in S&PF?
Answer. Yes, this program, proposed for consideration under the
Forest and Rangeland Research budget line item as Forest Inventory and
Analysis (FIA), will continue as a priority research area. FIA will
continue to have the same ability to partner with States under research
as it had under S&PF.
Question. How will you maintain these State partnerships without a
distinct funding line?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2013 President's budget, FIA will have
distinct funding within the Forest and Rangeland Research budget line
item. This is identified as a priority research area in the budget
justification with $66,805,000 proposed for funding in fiscal year
2013. We will continue to work within our authority to diligently
maintain these State partnerships. We will also continue measurement of
field plots for data collection and provide State reports, but at a
slower pace.
STATE FIRE ASSISTANCE
Question. Detail any changes in implementation of the following
programs, which are proposed to be consolidated,
Answer. The proposed consolidation of the National Fire Plan-State
Fire Assistance with Cooperative Fire Protection-State Fire Assistance
in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget is expected to have minimal
effects on how the program is implemented. States will continue to
receive funding, as they have in previous years, for programs and
projects such as hazardous fuels reduction, developing community
wildfire protection plans, capacity building, training, increasing
initial attack capabilities, improving firefighter safety and creating
fire adapted communities. The combination of funding from two budget
lines into a single budget line will simplify program management and
performance measurement in addition to reducing administrative
complexity.
VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE
The proposed consolidation of the National Fire Plan-Volunteer Fire
Assistance with Cooperative Fire Protection-Volunteer Fire Assistance
in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget will have minimal effects on
how the program is implemented. States will continue to receive funding
targeted for rural fire departments that can be used for improving
initial attack capability, providing training and improving
firefighting safety. Funds will match financial assistance in 4,500
rural communities (population less than 10,000 people) to build and
maintain fire suppression capacity.
FOREST HEALTH MANAGEMENT--FEDERAL
The proposed consolidation of the Wildland Fire Management Forest
Health Management with S&PF Forest Health Management in the fiscal year
2013 President's budget will have minimal effects on programs or
funding compared to fiscal year 2012. Major programs in fiscal year
2013 such as gypsy moth suppression, eradication and Slow-the-Spread
program; and priority treatments to control invasive pests such as
southern pine beetle and western bark beetle are planned at similar
levels as fiscal year 2012. The combination of funding from four budget
lines to two lines simplifies program management and performance in
addition to reducing administrative complexity.
Forest Health Management-Federal Lands will continue to conduct
forest insect and disease surveys on more than 400 million acres of
forestlands; conduct forest insect and disease prevention, suppression,
restoration, and eradication projects; provide technical assistance;
and monitor forest health on all Federal lands including those of the
Departments of Defense and the Interior, and the Army Corps of
Engineers.
FOREST HEALTH MANAGEMENT--CO-OP
The combination of funding from four budget lines to two lines are
similar as stated for Forest Health Management-Federal Lands. Forest
Health Management-Cooperative Land funds will continue to provide
technical and financial assistance to States and territories to conduct
monitoring and treatments such as the Slow-the-Spread program for gypsy
moth and for work on sudden oak death, southern pine beetle, and
hemlock woolly adelgid.
FOREST RESOURCES INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
Historically, the FIA program has been funded from both Forest and
Rangeland Research and the State and Private Forestry Forest Resources
Information and Analysis program. In fiscal year 2013, FIA is proposed
for consolidation under the Forest and Rangeland Research
appropriation.
FIA will continue with reduced annual forest inventory data
collection in all 50 States. This will result in extending the
inventory cycles and State forest resource reports by 1 year for each
of the 50 States.
Question. What will the effect be of the consolidations for States
like Rhode Island that are not at risk of catastrophic wildfire, but
still receive base funding in State and volunteer fire assistance?
Answer. The proposal to consolidate the State Fire Assistance (SFA)
and Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) budget line items in the fiscal
year 2013 President's budget is not expected to reduce base funding for
States such as Rhode Island. The allocation methodology for SFA and VFA
funding is reviewed approximately every 5 years. At this time, the
different allocation methodologies being considered include base
allocations for both State fire assistance and VFA.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
Question. Provide a table of the available aerial firefighting
resources on the following dates, detailing at least the aircraft model
(tanker and helicopter), exclusive use (EXU) vs. call-when-needed
(CWN), type (VLAT, SEAT, Type I, Type II, etc.), and owner (Minden,
Neptune, CalFire, etc.):
--August 1, 2011;
--May 1, 2012;
--August 1, 2012 (projected); and
--May 1, 2013 (projected).
Answer. The United States Forest Service (USFS) does not maintain
records on CalFire or other States' aircraft numbers or availability.
Other States including Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska
contract for or operate airtanker and/or helicopter resources, which
provide an interagency aerial firefighting response in those States.
The table below shows available contracted aviation assets and
Department of Defense supplied Mobile Aerial Firefighting System
(MAFFS) capabilities for USFS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Owner Contract Type August 1, 2011 May 1, 2012 August 1, 2012 May 1, 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large airtankers..................... Minden--2; Neptune--9... EXU.................... 11 11 11 Up to 8
Next-generation large airtankers..... To be determined on EXU--Not awarded as of .............. .............. Up to 3 Up to 13
contract award. May 5, 2012.
Type 1 helicopters................... Multiple................ EXU.................... 26 30 30 30
Type 2 helicopters................... Multiple................ EXU.................... 41 33 33 33
Type 3 helicopters................... Multiple................ EXU.................... 61 61 61 61
Helicopters--All types............... Multiple................ CWN.................... Up to 378 Up to 378 Up to 378 Up to 378
Water scoopers....................... Aero Flite.............. EXU--Department of the 2 2 2 2
Interior contract.
Water scoopers....................... To be determined on CWN--Department of the .............. .............. Up to 4 Up to 4
contract award. Interior contract.
Very large airtanker................. 10 tankers.............. CWN.................... 1 1 1 1
Single engine airtankers............. Unknown................. EXU--Department of the 1 1 1 1
Interior contract.
Mobile Aerial Firefighting System: C- Air National Guard and None. Activated by 8 8 8 8
130H/J. Air Force Reserve. request.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Provide a detailed explanation for how the $24 million
for the next-generation airtankers in the fiscal year 2013 budget will
be spent.
Answer. The $24 million will pay for contract costs associated with
additional next-generation large airtankers in accordance with our
large airtanker modernization strategy. The $24 million augments
existing funding to help account for inflation and anticipated
increased cost of next-generation large airtankers.
Question. How many new aircraft do you expect to bring online in
fiscal year 2013?
Answer. USFS will shortly award contracts for up to three next-
generation large airtankers, to be operational in 2012, in addition to
the 11 legacy P-2V airtankers. This contract may provide up to 10
additional next-generation airtankers in fiscal year 2013. The
potential exists to have up to 20 large airtankers in 2013. The P-2V
airtankers will continue to be part of our strategy to maintain large
airtanker numbers until next-generation airtankers are fully
operational.
Question. The airtanker Modernization Strategy calls for 18 to 28
next-generation tankers in total, which will require contracting
aircraft over the next several years. What is the long-term plan for
securing the fleet?
Answer. The long-term strategy is a modern large airtanker fleet as
outlined in the Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy. It is not the
intent of USFS, nor does USFS believe that there is an adequate supply
of next-generation large airtankers, to replace our existing legacy (P-
2V) fleet in 2013.
The next-generation aircraft are unproven airtankers, some with
new-design retardant delivery systems or other new features which will
take time to evaluate and modify to fully meet performance standards
and airworthiness requirements. Therefore, a legacy airtanker contract
will be a necessary part of our strategy to maintain large airtanker
numbers until enough next-generation airtankers are fully operational.
The current contract for the legacy airtankers ends December 2012.
Another contract will be advertised in late 2012 or early 2013, which
would include legacy large airtankers and will be structured to provide
flexibility to both private industry and the Government. If next-
generation large airtankers are available and approved they will be
given preference.
Question. What are the estimates for how much additional funding
this new fleet of aircraft will cost?
Answer. Since USFS does not have any long-term contracts for next-
generation airtankers, it is not possible to provide this information.
Question. If a full complement of next-generation tankers called
for in the Strategy is reached, how frequently will the National
Guard's mobile airborne firefighting system units be used?
Answer. The National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130s equipped
with USFS owned MAFFS 2 retardant delivery systems will continue to
provide surge capability to supplement commercial contract airtanker
support.
We cannot predict how often MAFFS will be called upon; their
activation is dependent on weather, fire activity, and other values
which cannot easily be forecast. However, since 2003, MAFFS have
averaged more than 250 missions annually.
Question. How is USFS ensuring that the limited Hazardous Fuels
dollars are targeted to the highest-priority areas?
Answer. USFS continues to improve its processes for allocating fuel
reduction funds, which prioritizes fuel reduction projects based on
national priorities. These improvements include the use of a computer
model to assist in making allocation decisions, rather than relying
primarily on historical funding patterns and professional judgment. The
computer model uses data from various sources and considers wildfire
potential, negative consequences of wildfire, program performance with
prior year's allocations, and potential opportunities that meet other
integrated resources objectives.
The agency annually updates the model inputs to use the best
available data and science. USFS also directs its regional offices to
use a similar process and finer scale information, to further inform
allocations to units and selection of fuel treatment projects based on
national and regional priorities. USFS provides annual direction to its
regional offices on how to fund fuel treatment projects that best meet
national priorities.
Question. The subcommittee has made an investment of more than $1
billion in the last 3 years alone for fuels reduction in USFS. How is
USFS showing the return on investment, such as reduced risk to
communities or reduced suppression costs?
Answer. USFS now requires its field units to complete a
standardized report whenever a wildfire burns into an existing fuel
treatment, in other words, when a fuel treatment is ``tested'' by
wildfire. This report includes an assessment of how the fire behavior
changed, if the fire effects changed as the wildfire burned through the
fuel treatment, and if the fuel treatment made management and
suppression of the wildfire easier and safer. These are real world
examples of fuel treatment effectiveness.
The initial results indicate that most fuel treatments reduce
wildfire behavior and reduce fire severity under all but the most
extreme wildfire conditions. As this data set grows and is combined
with the latest research, USFS expects to be able to draw conclusions
about which fuel treatments are most effective under various
circumstances of ecosystems, fuel types, weather conditions, and other
variables. The agency also expects to refine its estimates of how fuel
treatment effectiveness will decline over time and to evaluate the cost
effectiveness of these treatments. USFS takes fuel treatment
effectiveness very seriously and continues to improve its measurement
and understanding by incorporating the latest research.
LAND ACQUISITION
Question. Why were the ``Crown of the Continent'' and ``Florida/
George Longleaf Pine'' ecosystems chosen as the Collaborative Landscape
Planning Areas for fiscal year 2013?
Answer. These selected projects contain landscapes that are among
the most important for conservation, recreation, and restoration in the
United States. These projects support American Great Outdoors Action
Item 5.2a: Implement an interagency process to invest part of the
Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund funds in high-yield
conservation projects that address shared ecological goals.
The Crown of the Continent project is one of the last remaining
intact mountain ecosystems in the coterminous United States and 1 of
the 23 last remaining large intact ecosystems in the world. The mixed
wetland and longleaf pine habitats of the Florida panhandle and
Okeefenokee swamp in southern Georgia protect critical drinking water
sources for growing human populations in the region, and provide
important habitat for migratory birds and the remaining bear
population. Both areas are threatened with development and landscape
fragmentation that would impair resource management. Both landscapes
also have robust local support and grassroots organization and
planning, including local and State government supporters that desire a
public-private partnership to address conservation needs.
Question. What is the long-term plan for the Collaborative
Landscape Planning Areas? Will the same landscapes continue to be the
budget priority until they are completed, or will different
geographical areas be the focus in fiscal year 2014?
Answer. The long-term plan of the interagency work is to maintain
the focus in a landscape until the stated conservation goals are as
complete as possible. Not all agencies have the same demand in each
landscape, but Collaborative Landscape Planning (CLP) will seek to
complete as much as possible before moving to a new landscape. There
may be new geographical areas considered for fiscal year 2014. Both
agencies are waiting on pre-proposals from the field to determine
whether or not there is capacity or funding to start working in one or
more new landscapes.
Question. How do the Collaborative Landscape projects rank vis-a-
vis the 14 ranked acquisitions on the prioritized list?
Answer. All of the projects, core and collaborative, are important
agency priorities. The core projects focus on acquiring the highest
priority lands within the National Forest System boundaries that
further specific agency goals for forest and grassland restoration,
watershed management under the Watershed Condition Framework, and
public and private access. The Collaborative Landscape Planning
projects are focused on landscapes where the Federal agencies can more
effectively coordinate land acquisitions with government and local
community partners to achieve the highest priority shared conservation
goals. These projects respond to locally supported planning efforts to
protect critical ecosystems before fragmentation occurs.
Question. The proposed Priority Recreational Access program
requires a cost-share and caps projects at $250,000 each. How were
these requirements determined?
Answer. A per project cap is proposed to help distribute the
opportunity to complete a recreational access project among the nine
USFS regions. Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) is the
cap because it equates to each region getting at least two projects.
The cost-share proposal would help the appropriated dollars go further
and demonstrates a strong show of support from non-Federal partners.
The cost-share rate was set at 25 percent, a low percentage and a
resultant relatively small amount of non-Federal money to bring to the
table (less than $62,000 for the most expensive project).
Question. Are there $5 million worth of identified Priority
Recreational access projects (matching the budget justification's
requirements) that can be accomplished within fiscal year 2013? Provide
a list of potential projects detailing at least the location by
national forest, total acreage, types of recreation served, cost, and
whether the project is a conservation easement or fee title
acquisitions.
Answer. There is a substantial need for access to National Forest
System lands for these purposes as demonstrated in our annual land
acquisition programs. USFS has not developed a list of projects. This
is an important initiative for potential projects to be proposed by the
public and nongovernmental organizations. While we are anxious to issue
a Request for Proposals so that we can learn about projects that are
new to us, we have already been contacted by several groups. One
potential example is gaining an easement for the Seely Lake Community
Trail across Montana Department of Natural Resources and State school
lands. This trail provides year-round motorized and nonmotorized access
for 5,000 acres of hunting and hiking, 16,000 acres for horseback
riding, and 32,000 acres for mountain biking. We are confident there
will be a number of robust responses from all USFS regions to the
Request for Proposals that meet the fiscal year 2013 budget
justification requirements.
Question. While the proposed Priority Recreational Access program
would be funded at $5 million, the longstanding Critical Inholding
Acquisitions account is zeroed out in fiscal year 2013. Why does the
new focus area come at the expense of inholdings?
Answer. The Priority Recreational Access line item is proposed for
only 1 year to focus on unique recreational access problems.
Question. Will USFS be able to secure critical inholding
acquisitions without a specific line item?
Answer. USFS may secure some inholdings with the Priority
Recreational Access line item, but projects will be selected based on
different criteria than is required for critical inholdings. The
criteria for recreational access will rate tracts based on the
project's ability to maximize access to areas previously considered
inaccessible and that increase visitor use. Recreational Access
acquisitions may or may not be inholdings.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. This year's budget provides you with $24 million to
contract for new firefighting aircraft. And you have publicly stated
that you intend to acquire three new planes this year, so that works
out to $8 million per plane acquisition.
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $24 million to
acquire new firefighting aircraft. We are estimating contracting for 10
additional next-generation airtakers in 2013. In addition, the three
next-generation airtankers that may be awarded and operational in 2012
will be funded utilizing fiscal year 2012 budget appropriated funds.
Question. Following this pricing model, will the United States
Forest Service (USFS) be seeking $80 million to purchase the 10 planes
you intend to acquire next year?
Answer. USFS does not intend to purchase these aircraft. The
services will be acquired through contracts operated by the contractor.
The $24 million in fiscal year 2013 will be used to help account for
inflation and anticipated increased cost of next-generation large
airtankers.
Question. Aerial firefighting contractors tell me that the USFS's
5-year contracts, with single year options, are not long enough for
them to secure the capital needed to purchase firefighting aircraft.
Answer. The next-generation large airtanker contract was lengthened
in response to private industry input. It is a Firm Fixed Price Multi-
Year contract(s) not to exceed 10 years (a 5-year base period with five
1-year options).
Question. What indication do you have from your contractors that
they will be able to actually provide the 13 planes by the end of next
year?
Answer. USFS is skeptical that private industry will be able to
design, build, test, and gain approval of the next-generation large
airtankers as quickly as they state. These aircraft are generally
unproven as airtankers, some with new-design retardant delivery systems
or other new features which will take time to evaluate and modify to
fully meet performance standards and airworthiness requirements.
However, several of the contractors are represented by an aerial
firefighting industry group (American Helicopter Services and Aerial
Firefighting Association) which has publicly stated that private
industry is ``technically capable and financially able to bring about
this fleet modernization plan.''
Question. If the terms of the contract were longer, would that
reduce the Federal cost of acquiring these planes?
Answer. Private industry has told us that longer contract periods
should reduce overall costs during the full contract period. The next-
generation contract with a base 5-year period and five 1-year options
and an incremental delivery option provides flexibility for private
industry and the Government delivering next-generation large airtankers
this year, while providing time for current and new airtanker vendors
to secure financing, design, and develop aircraft for 2013 and beyond.
Question. Do you have the authority to offer a longer contract?
Answer. Under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs) USFS was
able to solicit this 5-year base with five 1-year options contract for
airtankers. The FARs do not allow for more than 5 years with 5 years of
extensions for this type of contract.
Question. Chief Tidwell, with the proposed 25-percent cut to
hazardous fuels, how many fewer acres will you be able to treat?
Answer. The hazardous fuel's program request for fiscal year 2013
is about the same as fiscal year 2012, but we request that $75 million
of that be transferred into Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR). The
$75 million represents the amount hazardous fuels is shifting to IRR in
fiscal year 2013. These are hazardous fuel funds that have
traditionally been spent outside the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and
for restoration in previous years. These funds will now be combined
into IRR and support integrated restoration and accomplish landscape-
level ecosystem restoration which includes hazardous fuel reduction.
IRR is designed to help address at the national level the complete
scope of restoration activities, highlighting water, fuels reduction
and road decommissioning, while also integrating the many other
activities that have always been central to the agency's mission.
Question. How many fewer acres will be treated in California?
Answer. We don't anticipate fewer acres treated in California due
to IRR. If fewer acres are treated it will be due to other factors such
as cost per acre, weather, and the time needed to complete analysis
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. Also,
the acre target has been reduced due to the increased cost of treating
the WUI.
Question. It is my understanding that you revoked the 10-percent
pay raise for firefighters because retention rates improved.
This reasoning doesn't hold water. If the pay raise worked, and
retention rates have stabilized, why roll back the successful
initiative?
Answer. During March 2009, USFS implemented two retention
incentives to address the 13-percent attrition rate affecting the fire
program for permanent/career conditional employees. The first incentive
implemented converted less than full-time employees in certain
positions to a full-time tour of duty. This incentive is still in place
and includes a full-time tour of duty for all new employees hired in
these positions. The annual cost of this incentive is $21 million and
is funded from our Wildland Fire Preparedness allocated funds.
The second incentive implemented was a 10-percent increase in base
pay for primary fire positions for grades GS-5 through GS-8. This
incentive required annual approval with the Department of Agriculture
(USDA). Approvals were requested and granted for March 2009 through
February 2010, March 2010 through February 2011, and March 2011 through
February 25, 2012. USFS did not request reauthorization from USDA for
this retention incentive after February 25, 2012. The decision was
based on the agency's ability to maintain Fire Fighting Production
Capability due to the low attrition rate. USFS will continue to monitor
our fire management workforce situation and respond appropriately.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. Can you provide a brief update of the land acquisition
program for the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) and what priority
projects may be secured this year? I have made GMNF land acquisition a
priority during my entire time in the U.S. Senate and have seen Federal
ownership go from less than 300,000 acres to more than 400,000 acres
during that time. Seeing the benefits of GMNF land acquisition helped
inspire me to create the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) which has
protected more than 2 million acres nationally.
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget request did not propose
specific new land acquisition projects for the GMNF. The GMNF is in the
process of completing various land acquisitions including the
following:
Recently the GMNF acquired from the Trust for Public Land, a 300-
acre parcel ($318,000), that contains approximately 8 acres of
wetlands. It is contiguous to a large block of National Forest System
lands to the west and east. The property is also within a bear corridor
(a species of high public interest), and provides a swath of currently
undeveloped land that serves as an east-west traveling corridor for
black bears.
Partnering with the Manchester Land Trust, the GMNF recently
acquired a 120-acre parcel ($350,000) in Manchester and Winhall that
contains a significant portion of Stony Brook, which is a tributary to
the Batten Kill River, high-quality northern hardwoods, that provides
opportunities for backcountry recreation.
The GMNF also acquired from a private landowner a 4-acre parcel
($20,000) that consolidates the last block of private land within the
section of National Forest System lands in the Town of Ripton.
Under contract is an 80-acre parcel located in the Town of Woodford
that is contiguous to National Forest System lands on the south and
east and provides the public with opportunities for backcountry
recreation.
The GMNF is actively engaged with the potential purchase of a
multitude of properties, including two parcels totaling 330 acres that
provide public access to a larger block of National Forest System lands
and a 36-acre parcel entirely surrounded by National Forest System
lands within the Taconic expansion area. In addition, several
additional parcels that meet the GMNF Land and Resource Management Plan
and National Strategic Plan goals are being negotiated.
In addition we have worked with partners to protect 78,829 acres of
important forests across 62 tracts in Vermont, through FLP. Although
not in Federal ownership, many of these tracts are strategically
located adjacent to the GMNF.
Partnering with third parties, such as the Trust for Public Land,
the Conservation Fund and the Manchester Land Trust, the GMNF
acquisition program continues to work with local communities to
identify and support priority acquisitions.
Question. I introduced the legislation which created the Moosalamoo
National Recreation Area (NRA) within the GMNF in order to literally
put this fantastic recreational resource ``on the map''. Since its
creation in 2006 however, this NRA has struggled to gain the national
recognition that it so richly deserves. Can you tell me what the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) is doing within Vermont, regionally, and across
the country to fully implement the New England Wilderness Act of 2006?
This act established the National Recreation Area and calls for the
Moosalamoo to become a national showcase of integrated forest
management, as well as a nationally significant recreational resource.
Answer. The GMNF has been working hard to implement the New England
Wilderness Act of 2006 as part of the Chief's 10-Year Wilderness
Challenge. For example:
--The GMNF has worked with the Vermont Youth Conservation Corps to
remove culverts by hand and decommission roads within
wilderness designated by the act.
--The forest has plans to remove larger culverts in designated
wilderness that would require mechanized equipment. This work
requires NEPA review before restoration of these roads can be
implemented.
--USFS is working closely with the Moosalamoo Association by
providing Challenge Cost Share Agreements for trail maintenance
projects throughout the National Recreation Area. An American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act project was recently awarded
``Project of the Year'' from the Vermont Trails and Greenways
Council and received recognition from the USFS regional office
for collaboration and partnership success.
--Partnering with the Vermont Youth Conservation Corps and the
Vermont Mountain Bike Association, the GMNF recently completed
major trail work on the Leicester Hollow--Chandler Ridge Loop
Trail in the Moosalamoo National Recreation Area.
--The GMNF continues to inventory and identify the condition of our
campsites within the Moosalamoo National Recreation Area.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
Question. In light of the President's announcement last week of an
Executive order creating an interagency working group ``. . . to
coordinate the efforts of Federal agencies responsible for overseeing
the safe and responsible development of unconventional domestic natural
gas resources'', and the inclusion of the United States Department of
Agriculture in that working group, how are the activities of individual
forests, like those of the George Washington and Wayne National
Forests, being coordinated within the United States Forest Service
(USFS) and with the interagency working group?
Answer. The Executive order, dated April 13, 2012, directs that
Interagency Working Group membership ``. . . shall include deputy-level
representatives or equivalent officials, designated by the head of the
respective agency or office . . .'' and lists the Department of
Agriculture under membership. Individual forest and grassland line
officers will continue to coordinate with appropriate officials within
USFS through the agency Deputy Chiefs. The agency leadership through
the Chief and the Deputy Chiefs will coordinate with Department of
Agriculture officials. Departmental representatives will coordinate
with other agencies on appropriate issues within the interagency
working group.
Question. When do you expect the George Washington National Forest
plan and the Wayne National Forest's study to be finalized?
Answer. We anticipate that the George Washington National Forest
plan will be completed in the late summer of 2012. The Wayne National
Forest's study is projected to be finalized in mid to late June 2012.
Question. Can you please get back to me when you have had a chance
to review this as an agency and inform me of your plans?
Answer. Yes.
______
Questions Submitted to Susan Spear
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. The Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) is one of the
most recreated National Forests in the region--the roughly 80 employees
of the GMNF serve some 3 to 4 million visitors annually, and are within
a day's drive of 70 million people. The GMNF serves as the only
experience that many people from crowded east coast cities may have
with Federal natural resource agencies. The staffs of the GMNF do a
great job of resource management but they do so working out of a leased
facility, some distance from the Forest itself and with very modest and
dated visitor facilities.
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has identified the site for
construction of a new GMNF headquarters building, on National Forest
land, on Route 4, the Gateway to the National Forest. Construction of a
new headquarters will save the Federal Government money, as compared to
ongoing lease payments, and allow for an even better job of resource
management and public education. This is a project that I have
supported for 10 years and am eager to see it built in the near future.
Can you assure me that USFS will allocate the necessary $1 million to
complete the design of the new headquarters building for the GMNF this
year?
Answer. While the design and construction phases of a new Forest
Supervisor's office in Mendon, Vermont, are included in the Eastern
Region's Infrastructure Priority Project List, there are many projects
of higher priority nationally. Therefore, design work for the new GMNF
headquarters has not been initiated this year. Overall agency funding
for facility design/construction in 2012 has been reduced by 56 percent
since 2010. As a result, we are reassessing many competing priorities,
considering less-costly alternatives, and re-evaluating the highest-
priority projects that may be possible to complete with very limited
funding.
For fiscal year 2013 the budget request includes a program increase
of $23,799,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level for facilities
to support the safety and health of all users of existing
infrastructure and to judiciously defer all new construction, including
phased projects that include new construction, when other cost
effective and reasonable options exist.
Question. The GMNF was at the epicenter of the worst damage wrought
by Tropical Storm Irene. USFS staff performed heroically to help local
communities even though many of them had suffered damage to their own
homes. There are 900 miles of trails and roads within the GMNF, 85
percent of which were damaged and a majority of the damaged trails
remain closed as our most active trail season approaches, with repair
needs in excess of $2 million. Will you be able to allocate resources
to repair the damage caused by Tropical Storm Irene to the trails and
roads within the GMNF in a timely manner?
Answer. Yes, we have been and will continue to allocate resources
to the trails and roads within the GMNF. For fiscal year 2012, the
Eastern Region allocated $390,000 for use in trail restoration and
repair directly related to Tropical Storm Irene. USFS was able to apply
appropriated funds to the early recovery stages on the GMNF at the end
of fiscal year 2011 and in early fiscal year 2012. Additional funding
has been secured from the Federal Highway Administration's Emergency
Relief for federally Owned Roads (ERFO) program. The GMNF will be
working with local partners and contractors to prioritize and implement
major repairs in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013.
While much of the road repair work qualifies for ERFO funding,
almost all trail related damage does not. We will continue to work with
established volunteer organizations and other nongovernmental
organizations on creative ways to bring these trails up to safe
standards for public use.
The GMNF completed a comprehensive survey of all roads, trails, and
facilities that were damaged extensively during Tropical Storm Irene.
Many roads and trails require environmental assessment work before work
can be initiated.
The GMNF has been working closely with the public and municipal
leaders on short- and long-term solutions, including establishing
priorities for limited funding and resources to meet specific public
demands. This work includes shifting resource management priorities so
that public and private access is available through damaged GMNF roads.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Reed. And we ask you to respond to any requests for
information or questions as promptly as possible, Chief.
With no further comment, the hearing is concluded. Thank
you very much.
[Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., Wednesday, April 18, the
subcommittee was recessed.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:36 a.m. in Room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed, (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Reed, Tester, Murkowski, Cochran, Blunt,
and Hoeven.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY BARBARA J. BENNETT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Let me call the hearing to order. On behalf
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee, I'd like to welcome everyone to
our hearing on the fiscal year 2013 budget request for the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
I'm very pleased to again welcome Administrator Lisa
Jackson to testify before us. We're also very glad that you and
your Chief Financial Officer, Barbara J. Bennett, are here this
morning to talk about your budget request and related policy
issues.
As you know, Administrator Jackson, this subcommittee has
been ground zero for many of the contentious policy issues that
you face. And so we all know what a challenging job you have.
It's hard to address environmental challenges when our
economy is strong, let alone when our current fiscal situation
is challenging. That's why I particularly appreciate your
message that environmental protection is not only compatible,
but it is, in fact, essential for the economic growth and well-
being of our Nation. That's an important message.
Of course, balancing environmental protection needs against
economic constraints isn't limited to policy choices. Turning
to the budget, we can see the difficult choices that you have
made.
Overall, the administration has requested a total of $8.344
billion for EPA programs. That's a decrease of $105 million or
about 1 percent less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
Within this amount, the budget request includes a 5-percent
increase in EPA's operating programs for a total of $2.8
billion, which includes major investments in enforcement and
compliance and chemical safety programs.
The request also includes a 10-percent increase for grants
to States and tribes to help them run their environmental
permitting and monitoring programs, including a large increase
for State air quality grants.
I also would like to note that the budget request includes
$14 million, an $8 million increase, to expand EPA's current
slate of hydraulic fracturing research to ensure that the
Nation can continue to access its unconventional oil and gas
reserves in a safe and environmentally sustainable way.
I know there is a lot of interest in how EPA plans to use
these funds as well as interest in new EPA regulations that
address the effects on air and water quality associated with
hydraulic fracking. So I expect we'll discuss these issues in
some length this morning.
Now, while I agree that the investments I've just discussed
are very important, I'm very concerned that the water
infrastructure grant program bears the brunt of cuts in this
budget.
Specifically, the budget proposes to cut $359 million or 15
percent from Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
program levels. That would mean a 20-percent cut to the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund program and a 7-percent cut for the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program.
These additional cuts mean that the State Revolving Funds
(SRF)would be cut by more than 40 percent compared to where the
programs were 3 years ago, and would negatively impact our
communities in at least two ways.
First, by EPA's own estimates, our communities face more
than $600 billion in sewer and drinking water project needs
over the next two decades. And these needs are far outpacing
the Federal Government's ability to help communities pay for
them.
My own State of Rhode Island has more than $1.6 billion in
projects waiting for funding on its intended use plan,
including $1.3 billion in clean water needs. Yet, in the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget, we are only slated to
receive about $16 million in SRF grants.
So I'm concerned that further cuts to SRFs will cause us to
fall even further behind.
Second, the SRFs are tremendous job creators, especially
when our Federal grants are combined with the additional funds
that States contribute as a matching requirement, or stretched
even further by leveraging through the bond markets.
Every $1 we invest in these grants creates more than $2 in
total investments in actual projects on the ground.
The bottom line is that cutting these programs means
cutting construction jobs. And despite the fact that many of
EPA's programs we'll discuss here today are controversial,
funding for water infrastructure has bipartisan support.
So I'm very concerned that the administration is proposing
to cut one of the few areas of the EPA budget that both sides
agree is extremely important.
There are some additional reductions to smaller programs in
the EPA budget which also concern me, including a proposal to
cut diesel emission reduction grants by one-half, and to
eliminate Beach Act coastal monitoring grants and the
environmental education program.
As part of our conversation today, I'd like to know why
these programs were selected for reductions, and I hope you'll
work with me, Administrator Jackson, and the subcommittee to
restore these proposed cuts.
Finally, I'd like to turn to an area of the budget that is
very important to my home State, if you would allow me.
For many years, I've worked to protect Rhode Island's
coastal environment since I became chairman. I've been working
closely with the EPA to emphasize the need to restore coastal
watersheds in southern New England like the Narragansett Bay.
Last year, I directed the EPA through the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill to take a
leadership role to coordinate and expand restoration programs
in the region.
I'm happy that EPA's moving forward with these efforts and
thank you very much, Madam Administrator, and your Regional
Administrator Curt Spaulding in Region 1.
And I'm particularly pleased to see your proposed $2
million investment in the region as part of your budget
request. I want to thank you both, Administrator Jackson and
Ms. Bennett, for your personal attention to this issue. Thank
you very much.
And, now, let me turn to my ranking member, Senator
Murkowski. Senator.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator, welcome. Good morning, Ms. Bennett. Thank
you also for being here.
Administrator, as you might expect, many of my questions
today will involve policy issues. But first, I want to
recognize and thank you for maintaining the Alaskan Native
Villages Program at $10 million in your budget request.
The need in rural Alaska for wastewater improvements is
enormous. I truly appreciate that you've maintained this
critical program while keeping the overall budget request below
last year's level. So thank you for that.
Earlier this month, there was an editorial in the
Washington Post entitled ``The EPA is Earning a Reputation for
Abuse''. Not a very complimentary headline there.
And this was in response to statements that came to light
from one of your regional administrators concerning the EPA's
enforcement tactics.
And the editorial states as follows: ``The most reasonable
interpretation is also among the most disturbing, that Mr.
Armendariz preferred to extract harsh punishments on an
arbitrary number of firms to scare others into cooperating.''
This sort of talk isn't merely unjust and threatening to
investors in energy projects, it hurts the EPA. The question
will remain, is an aggressive attitude like the one Mr.
Armendariz described common among EPA officials?'' And that's
the end of that quote.
I raise these issues because I think these statements are
somewhat consistent with some of the fears that have been
expressed by some of my constituents and that I have expressed
about the EPA.
That it can sometimes be arrogant, use arbitrary
enforcement or put in permitting requirements which then in
turn discourage the market from investing in critical projects
that are necessary to get folks back to work, invigorate our
economy.
There's a couple of examples in Alaska that I will cite too
that suggest that this attitude has perhaps affected EPA's work
on issues within my State.
You are very familiar, of course, with Shell Oil and its
effort to gain the necessary permits to pursue exploring
offshore there.
They've spent more than 5 years and $50 million pursuing
air permits from the EPA for no more than two drill ships to
operate in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). At the
same time, these kinds of permits were issued routinely in the
Gulf of Mexico in about a 6-week period in air sheds where
there are many, many more drilling rigs operating year-round,
and with many more communities in close proximity.
As you know, I worked with my colleagues last year to
transfer air permitting authority in the Arctic OCS from the
EPA to the Department of the Interior who already has the
permitting responsibilities within the gulf.
A second case in point is the watershed assessment for
Bristol Bay. This assessment is in response to a petition to
block the proposed Pebble Mine under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act.
I've heard from a lot of Alaskans on this issue. They're
concerned about so many different aspects of it, from the
potential development of a mine affecting our State's
fisheries, to the need for a fair permitting process and the
potential economic benefits of mineral development.
But precisely because this is such a controversial and very
complex issue, I think that the process used by the EPA must be
absolutely fair and transparent. And, I've been somewhat
concerned about the potential for unintended consequences from
such an assessment.
Back in February of last year, and again just last month, I
sent letters to you inquiring what would stop the assessment
from being used by opponents of other nonmining development in
Bristol Bay.
I think that the assessment would be flawed if it doesn't
contain an answer to that question. So that is something that I
have asked and hope to get a firm answer on.
I do want the EPA to do its job in the regular order of
things.
You clearly have the responsibility to protect the public
health. I support that. I respect that, and I respect the
passion for which you exercise your responsibility. But I do
believe that it has to be done in a way that the public
believes is fair and based on objective science.
And I would hope that you would agree with that. Mr.
Chairman, again, I thank you.
Administrator Jackson, I appreciate you being before the
committee today, and I look forward to our discussions later
on. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Before I recognize the Administrator, Senator
Tester, do you have any comments?
Senator Tester. No.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Administrator Jackson,
please.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON
Ms. Jackson. Thank you all, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for inviting me to testify on the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget for the EPA. And, as you noted, thank
you. I'm joined by our Chief Financial Officer, Barbara J.
Bennett.
EPA's budget request is $8.344 billion, and it focuses on
fulfilling EPA's core mission that's protecting human health
and the environment, while making sacrifices and, indeed, tough
choices that Americans across the country are making every day.
EPA's budget request fully reflects the President's
commitment to reducing Government spending. The budget is down
and finding cost savings in a responsible manner, while still
supporting clean air, clean water and the innovative safeguards
that are essential to an America that's built to last.
In some cases, we have, indeed, had to take a step back
from programs. This budget reflects a savings of $50 million
through the elimination of several EPA programs and activities
that have either met their goals or can be achieved at the
State or local level or by other Federal agencies.
I just want to spend a moment discussing a few elements of
EPA's budget request.
The budget request recognizes the importance of our
partners at the State and local and tribal level. As you know,
they are, indeed, at the front lines of implementing our
Nation's environmental laws like the Clean Water Act, and the
Clean Air Act.
And, in fact, the largest portion, fully 40 percent of
EPA's funding request, is directed to State and Tribal
Assistance Grants appropriations. And that's to support their
efforts.
Specifically, the budget proposes that $1.2 billion, nearly
15 percent of EPA's overall budget request, be allocated back
through categorical grants to the States and tribes. This
includes funding for State and Local Air Quality Management
grants, Pollution Control grants, and the Tribal General
Assistance Program.
The budget also proposes that a combined $2 billion, fully
25 percent of EPA's budget request, goes directly to the States
for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
As you noted, Sir, this funding will help support
systemwide investments that are efficient and that develop
water infrastructure in our communities. We are working
collaboratively especially to identify opportunities to fund
green infrastructure, projects that can reduce pollution
efficiently and much less expensively than traditional grey
infrastructure.
Additionally, our budget request would fund the protection
of the Nation's land and water in local communities, including
important water such as the Narragansett Bay.
Reflecting the President's commitment to restoring and
protecting the Great Lakes, the budget requests that the
Congress maintain the current funding level of $300 million for
the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
This support will continue to be used for collaborative
work with partners at the State, local and tribal level, and
also with nonprofit and municipal groups.
The budget also requests support for protection of the
Chesapeake Bay, and several other treasured and economically
significant water bodies.
The budget reflects the importance of cleaning up
contaminated land requesting $755 million for continued support
of the Superfund cleanup programs and maintaining EPA's
emergency preparedness capabilities.
EPA's budget request makes investments in its science and
technology account of $807 million, that's almost 10 percent of
the total request. That includes $576 million for research,
including $81 million in research grants and fellowships to
scientists and universities throughout our country for targeted
research as part of the Science to Achieve Results, or STAR
program, on areas that include issues like children's health,
endocrine disruption, and air monitoring research.
Also, as part of this request, EPA is funding increases in
areas that include green infrastructure and hydraulic
fracturing.
As I've mentioned before, natural gas is an important
resource abundant in our country, but we must make sure that
the way we extract it does not jeopardize our water supplies.
This budget continues EPA's ongoing congressionally
directed fracking study, which we have taken great steps to
ensure is independent, peer reviewed, and based on strong and
scientifically defensible data.
Building on these ongoing efforts, this budget requests $14
million in total to work collaboratively with the USGS, the
Department of Energy (DOE), and other partners to assess
questions regarding hydraulic fracturing.
Strong science means finding the answers to tough
questions, and that's what our budget request is intended to
do.
We are making investments to support standards for clean
energy and energy efficiency in this budget. Specifically, this
budget supports EPA's efforts to introduce cleaner vehicles and
fuels, to expand the use of home-grown renewable fuels.
This includes funding for EPA's Federal Vehicle and Fuel
Standards and Certification program and compliance testing for
emissions standards. This also includes implementation of the
President's historic agreement with the auto industry for
reducing carbon pollution and increasing fuel economy standards
through 2025 for cars and light duty vehicles, including
testing support for NHTSA's fuel economy standards.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Taken together, the administration's standards for cars and
light trucks are projected to result in $1.7 trillion in fuel
savings and 12 billion fewer barrels of oil consumed.
This funding will also help support implementation of the
first ever carbon pollution and fuel economy standards for
heavy duty vehicles.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify.
While my testimony reflects only a few highlights of EPA's
budget request, I look forward to answering all questions of
the subcommittee.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lisa P. Jackson
Thank you for inviting me to testify on the President's fiscal year
2013 budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I'm joined
by EPA's chief financial officer, Barbara J. Bennett.
EPA's budget request of $8.344 billion focuses on fulfilling EPA's
core mission of protecting public health and the environment, while
making the sacrifices and tough decisions that Americans across the
country are making every day.
EPA's budget request fully reflects the President's commitment to
reducing Government spending and finding cost savings in a responsible
manner while supporting clean air, clean water, and the innovative safe
guards that are essential to an America that's built to last. In some
cases we have had to take a step back from programs--this budget
reflects a savings of $50 million through the elimination of several
EPA programs and activities that have either met their goals, or can be
achieved at the State or local level or by other Federal agencies.
Let me spend a moment discussing major elements of EPA's budget
request.
This budget recognizes the importance of our partners at the State,
local, and tribal level. As you know, they are at the front lines of
implementing our environmental laws like the Clean Water Act, and the
Clean Air Act. In fact, the largest portion--40 percent of EPA's
funding request--is directed to the State and Tribal Assistance Grants
appropriation to support their efforts.
Specifically, this budget proposes that $1.2 billion--nearly 15
percent of EPA's overall request--be allocated back to the States and
tribes, through categorical grants. This includes funding for State and
Local Air Quality Management grants, Pollution Control grants and the
tribal general assistance program.
The budget also proposes that a combined $2 billion--another 25
percent of EPA's budget request--also goes directly to the States for
the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. This funding
will help support efficient systemwide investments and development of
water infrastructure in our communities. We are working collaboratively
to identify opportunities to fund green infrastructure--projects that
can reduce pollution efficiently and less expensively than traditional
grey infrastructure.
Additionally, EPA's budget request would fund the protection of the
Nation's land and water in local communities. Reflecting the
President's commitment to restoring and protecting the Great Lakes,
this budget requests that the Congress maintain the current funding
level of $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. This
support will continue to be used for collaborative work with partners
at the State, local and tribal level, and also with nonprofit and
municipal groups. The budget also requests support for protection of
the Chesapeake Bay, and several other treasured and economically
significant water bodies. The budget reflects the importance of
cleaning up contaminated land sites in our communities by requesting
$755 million for continued support of the superfund cleanup programs
and maintains EPA's emergency preparedness and response capabilities.
EPA's budget request makes major investments in its science and
technology account of $807 million, or almost 10 percent of the total
request. This request includes $576 million for research, including $81
million in research grants and fellowships to scientists and
universities throughout the country for targeted research as part of
the Science to Achieve Results--or STAR--program, including children's
health, endocrine disruption, and air monitoring research. Also, as
part of this request, EPA includes funding increases into key areas
that include green infrastructure and hydraulic fracturing.
As I've mentioned before, natural gas is an important resource
which is abundant in the United States, but we must make sure that the
ways we extract it do not risk the safety of public water supplies.
This budget continues EPA's ongoing congressionally directed hydraulic
fracturing study, which we have taken great steps to ensure is
independent, peer reviewed, and based on strong and scientifically
defensible data. Building on these ongoing efforts, this budget
requests $14 million in total to work collaboratively with the United
States Geological Survey, the Department of Energy and other partners
to assess questions regarding hydraulic fracturing. Strong science
means finding the answers to tough questions, and EPA's request does
that.
We are making investments to support standards for clean energy and
efficiency in this budget. Specifically, this budget supports EPA's
efforts to introduce cleaner vehicles and fuels and to expand the use
of home-grown renewable fuels. This includes funding for EPA's Federal
Vehicle and Fuel Standards and Certification program to support
certification, and compliance testing for all emissions standards. This
also includes implementation of the President's historic agreement with
the auto industry for carbon pollution and fuel economy standards
through 2025 for cars and light duty vehicles, including testing
support for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA)
fuel economy standards. Taken together, NHTSA's standards for cars and
light trucks are projected to result in $1.7 trillion of fuel savings,
and 12 billion fewer barrels of oil consumed. This funding will also
help support implementation of the first ever carbon pollution and fuel
economy standards for heavy duty trucks.
Stepping back from EPA's budget request, let me spend a moment
discussing the impact of a sequester. Mr. Chairman, as you know, as
part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), through a sequestration,
spending may be forced to be slashed in an irresponsible manner that
can endanger the public health protections that we rely on and not
invest in an America that's built to last. By design the sequester is
bad policy, bringing about deep cuts in defense and nondefense spending
to act as an incentive for congressional action on deficit reduction.
Even without the sequester, discretionary spending has already been
cut in nominal terms for 2 straight years. Under the BCA, it is on a
path to reach its lowest level as a share of GDP since the Eisenhower
administration.
If the sequester were to happen, it would bring another round of
deep cuts in discretionary spending. Although the administration is
continuing to analyze the impact of the sequester, CBO has said that in
2013, the sequester would result in a 7.8-percent cut in nonsecurity
discretionary accounts that are not exempt from the sequester. It would
be impossible for us to manage cuts of that magnitude and still achieve
our fundamental mission to protect human health and the environment.
The sequester would thus have a devastating effect on our country's
ability to conduct the following activities over the long haul:
--A sequester would result in deep cuts to EPA's operating budget,
which includes funds for the enforcement of public health and
environmental protections.
--It would significantly harm our ability to help State and local
governments finance needed drinking water and wastewater
projects that provide communities clean and safe water.
--A sequester also would slash EPA grants that help States carry out
basic functions that protect human health and the environment
like water quality permitting and air quality monitoring.
--The sequester would impair progress on the country's ability to
clean up the nation's hazardous waste sites over the long haul.
The President has been clear that the Congress needs to avoid a
sequester by passing a balanced deficit reduction--at least as much as
the BCA required of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to
avoid sequestration. The President's budget reflects such a balanced
proposal, and we believe the Congress should enact it and cancel the
sequester.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. While
my testimony reflects only some of the highlights of EPA's budget
request, I look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Administrator.
We'll do 6-minute rounds, and I assume that we'll have a
second round at least and maybe more. But let me begin.
STATE REVOLVING FUNDS
Obviously, with my initial comments about SRFs, I want to
give you a chance to respond about the deep cuts relative to
other programs.
And the two points that I made in my comments, I'll just
reiterate and ask for you to respond. One is, there are
numerous projects at the State level that are available,
billions of dollars and more than 10 years worth of projects
that have to be funded and we're cutting back on it.
And this is a program obviously that creates the kind of
construction jobs and multiplier effect in the local
communities that is so critical at this moment, particularly,
up in Rhode Island, and I think every State in the country.
So, Madam Administrator, I know you had to make tough
choices, but does it make sense to cut this program this much?
Ms. Jackson. Well, thank you for recognizing, Chairman,
that this does represent the kinds of tough choices that we
have to face.
This administration really has strongly supported
investments in drinking water and wastewater infrastructure to
the tune of $18 billion more than the budgets so far. That
includes $6 billion that was in the American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act, of which, 100 percent allocated to States and
tribes has been obligated.
So it's important for us, and I think we would love to work
with you. I understand the concern. There is great need out
there. It is absolutely true that clean water is the basis for
economic growth and development, and it's also a clear
stimulant for jobs and construction.
We'd like to take a look at what's out there, what has been
expended and whether there are still monies that will be
expended over the coming year. Part of this is a recognition
that we may have money that because of the incredible
investment, that $18 billion, we can look to make sure that the
funds are being purposed and put out on the street for jobs.
Senator Reed. Thank you. Obviously, we'll be following up
with you to try to get that information and also to continue to
press the case that this program could, I think, effectively
use additional funding.
NARRAGANSETT BAY
I want to, as I said before, thank you and Ms. Bennett for
your work with the coastal watersheds of Region 1, in
particular, in Narragansett Bay.
Can you give us an idea of your concept? I know there's $2
million within the budget for this, and how do you see this not
only affecting Narragansett Bay, but also being consistent with
and maybe a model for other watersheds throughout the country?
Ms. Jackson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think, as you pointed out, southeast New England faces
environmental challenges, and the region has typical challenges
associated with the legacy of some amount of contamination,
channelized and impounded rivers, and natural systems that have
been altered.
Under your leadership and working together, I think we do
have an opportunity to develop and test and implement best
practices for restoration and renewal that would benefit the
entire bi-State areas, the entire areas along that coastline,
especially Narragansett Bay.
We, of course, have the National Estuary Program, and we
worked on that. We have other estuary programs where there is
some opportunity to work together. But our hope here is to
bring expertise and commitment on water quality together with
an intense focus on the Narragansett Bay, in particular, to
determine what specific levers can be pulled to make the
largest increases in water quality as well as habitat and
coastline improvements along the Bay.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
STATE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY GRANTS
Let me raise a final question in my first round. And that
is, I've received letters from the directors of nine State
environmental agencies, and I think Senator Murkowski and
others have received the letters.
And they are responding to your proposal to change the
formula for State and local air quality grants which would
essentially change the formula to favor the south and the west
from the current arrangement.
And their fear, even though you're increasing funding so
that there's no immediate decrease, their fear is obviously
that this fund is locked in. If funding is not increased over
time consistently, they will begin to receive less and less for
these important functions.
One other point I have, and this is just specific to the
Northeast, one of the ironies of course is that we have to
monitor a lot of air that comes from the Midwest. So that our
air quality efforts are not simply a function of, you know, our
regional or even local output.
And that I think also is another rationale for maintaining
the formula. And there is a second issue too. And that is that
they've raised the point that you are proposing to transfer
authority for particulate monitoring from section 103 to
section 105.
The bottom line is that this transfer requires a State
match, which means, in the worst case, and generally, they
think it's the worst case, they're going to see their funds
decrease. And then another portion of their operations will
require a State match which is virtually impossible to obtain
given the reality of the States, all of our States at the
moment.
Could you comment?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I do think, we have heard some of those concerns and
received copies of those letters. And I think that once we
receive our appropriation amount, there is an opportunity for
us to try to work with States on how the money is allocated
between section 103 and 105 authorities.
There is some difference across the country in need.
Actually, the need is greater than what we can give them. We
are increasing, and we're very, very proud, we'd love to be
able to give you even more money.
But we're increasing because we recognize that States are
so strapped, and that these monitoring systems for air quality
are really the basis of determining whether air is healthy or
not. And, of course, potentially taking action.
So I think there is opportunity to work to make sure that
there are no unintended consequences for States. But the
increase is very real.
Senator Reed. Well, I appreciate that.
But, again, taking the longer view, there's a real fear
that this formula change could significantly disadvantage, as
well as the shifting of authorities.
So we will be working with you and looking very closely for
the justification for these proposals and also to ensure that
if these concerns are justified, we can respond and make
appropriate changes.
With that, let me recognize Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator, as I go around the State meeting with
constituents, more people ask me questions about EPA than any
other Federal agency out there.
And they ask me to intervene. They ask me to do everything
that I can to help just deal with an agency that they're having
some difficulty understanding.
In fact, I had asked my Alaska staff to, as they meet with
various community leaders, to just kind of keep a running list
of some of the issues that are coming out of our communities.
Some of them are what you would certainly expect, concerns
about Boiler MACT, Utility MACT.
Others are pretty local, everything from how we get
different ice melt on airport runways to how animals that are
on the Alaska marine highway system moving from small island
community to small island community, how the waste from those
animals can be dealt with.
So it's really a range all over the board. What I would ask
for you this morning is a commitment to have your senior staff
with operational authority sit down with some of my senior
advisers within the next few weeks or so to discuss where the
EPA is on a range of these issues.
Senator Murkowski. Again, many of them are so very local
that I don't want to take the subcommittee's time to resolve,
but exceptionally important to these more isolated and smaller
communities.
So I'd ask if you'd be willing to appoint some folks to sit
with me.
Ms. Jackson. Of course.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Administrator Jackson committed to have senior staff with
operational authority sit down with some of Senator Murkowski's senior
advisors within the next few weeks to discuss where the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is on a range of issues (ice melt on airport
runways, Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), Utility
MACT, animal waste, etc.).
Senior EPA staff met with staff from Senator Murkowski's office on
May 31, 2012. The meeting resulted in numerous issue-specific, follow-
up meetings, and an ongoing discussion on specific matters.
BRISTOL BAY WATERSHED
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you, just a quick question on
the Bristol Bay watershed. I understand that an announcement on
that is due out shortly. And, of course, my hope is that in
addition to the questions that I had posed in my two letters to
you, that we will not see a pre-emptive veto.
The concern that I have expressed, and just mentioned in my
opening, is how far this assessment can be utilized beyond just
the Pebble project itself.
Can you legally limit the impact to just EPA's
consideration of the mining activity? Or, will it impact or
affect the development decision in the watershed involving
other issues, whether it's dredge or fill material?
Of course, the concern is, is that within this area that's
about the size of the State of West Virginia, if they're not
going to be able to build a road, build a runway, because of
this assessment, this is extraordinarily limiting.
So I'm trying to understand that EPA authority, if you
could address that for me.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Senator. And thank you for your letter.
[The information follows:]
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, April 18, 2012.
Hon. Lisa P. Jackson,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Dear Administrator Jackson: The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) announced over a year ago that it would undertake a ``scientific
assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed'' in Alaska in response to a
petition to preemptively veto development, in that area, under section
404(c) of the Clean Water Act. These actions materialized in response
to the potential development of the so-called Pebble Mine.
Since that project became a possibility, I have encouraged all
stakeholders to withhold judgment until 1) a detailed development plan
is released for review and 2) all relevant analyses of that plan arc
completed. A preemptive veto, just like a preemptive approval, would be
based purely upon speculation and conjecture. It would deprive relevant
government agencies and all stakeholders of the specifics needed to
take an informed position. As I have communicated to you in the past,
this would be an unacceptable outcome to me.
Even as the EPA proceeds with its watershed assessment, I have
continued to hear from many Alaskans about it. They are concerned about
everything from the potential development of a mine and the importance
of our State's fisheries to the need for a fair permitting process and
the potential economic benefits of mineral development. Needless to
say, I remain apprehensive about EPA's handling of this matter
generally, but I write today regarding one particular issue.
Setting aside my opposition to a preemptive veto of a mining
project that has not yet applied for a permit, I am worried about the
unintended consequences for other development should the EPA decide to
take such action. Specifically, I remain concerned that an attempt to
preemptively veto the Pebble mine would have the practical effect of
halting any development in the Bristol Bay area that might generate
dredge or fill material. It remains unclear to me how dredge or fill
material from a mining operation might be substantively different from
dredge or fill material generated from any other form of development.
In my letter to you of February 16, 2011, I raised this issue and
asked a pair of detailed questions. I was disappointed to find that
your response of March 21, 2011 did not definitively answer either of
those questions, both of which appear with the responses that the EPA
provided in the attachment. Since our exchange, and in continuing to
hear from my constituents about the EPA's activities in Alaska, I have
only become more concerned. It was my hope that a recent meeting with
EPA officials would finally alleviate some of these concerns, but I
regret that it failed to accomplish that objective as well.
On March 6th, members of my staff met with EPA's Region Ten
Administrator, Dennis McLerran. Consistent with my past inquiries, they
asked Administrator McLerran about the potential impact of a preemptive
veto of development in the Bristol Bay watershed for not only mining,
but all other development. They were told that the watershed assessment
would be narrowly crafted to look at hypothetical mining activities and
that any preemptive veto would he similarly structured to avoid
impacting other development. I ask that you provide further, written
clarification on this matter.
In particular, I fail to see what grounds the EPA might have for
asserting that dredge or fill generated by a hypothetical mine and the
acceptability of impacts resulting from its disposal--is any different
from dredge or fill material generated by any other hypothetical
development. Given the EPA's apparent comfort with consideration of
hypothetical scenarios, and for purposes of more definitively answering
my previously submitted questions, I ask that you do so again.
Specifically, please assume that EPA goes ahead with a preemptive
veto of mineral development in the Bristol Bay area. Having done so,
please consider the possibility of a subsequent proposal to develop an
airfield--one that would generate, and require disposal of, dredge or
fill material--in the same area. If a third-party litigant sued to
prevent construction of this hypothetical airfield, please describe the
legal grounds upon which that challenge might he reliably defeated and
the airfield development allowed to move forward.
To date, I have not received a satisfactory response to this
question, no matter how it has been phrased. This makes me very
concerned, so I appreciate any assistance you might be able to provide
in clarifying the matter and hope that the more specific example
provided herein will be helpful to that end. In attempting to answer
this question, I ask that you do so no later than--and ideally prior
to--the issuance of the watershed assessment that the EPA has
undertaken. To be clear: I will view as fatally flawed any assessment
that does not include, or is not accompanied by, an official legal
opinion from the administration on this matter. I further ask that your
analysis be performed in conjunction with the Department of Justice and
the EPA's Solicitor.
As the people of my State work to attract investment and create
jobs, regulatory uncertainty is hampering those efforts and they need
answers to questions about actions that the EPA is considering. This is
particularly true when those actions could have a permanent and
detrimental impact on our ability not only to develop Alaska's
resources, but also to undertake any other forms of development in our
State.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Lisa Murkowski,
U.S. Senator.
cc: Administrator Dennis McLerran and Attorney General Eric Holder
______
Attachment
Question:
Should a veto be exercised preemptively within the Bristol Bay
watershed--not in relation to an application to undertake specific
development in the area--could that decision be interpreted by courts
or future administrations to extend more broadly to all future
development proposals (e.g., an airstrip, fish-processing plant,
refinery, hospital, school, museum) that may require a dredge or fill
disposal site?
EPA Response:
EPA's assessment is not a regulatory action. This assessment will
help inform consideration of options for improving protection of the
Bristol Bay watershed. EPA has made no decision at this time to proceed
with a CWA section 404(c) review in Bristol Bay. As a result, we are
not prepared to speculate regarding the scope of any action taken under
this authority.
Question:
It seems that a preemptive veto could set a number of highly-
problematic precedents. For example, the Bureau of Land Management, the
U.S. Forest Service, and other federal agencies have historically been
tasked with land planning decisions on federal acreage. Similarly,
state lands are managed by analogous entities. Should the EPA issue a
preemptive veto of an entire area which, in this case, consists largely
of state lands, those aforementioned agencies would no longer be able
to plan for multiple-use activities, but instead he subjected to
preemptive yes-or-no decisions from the EPA under whatever speculative
assumptions regarding development the EPA may choose to adopt.
Has the EPA considered the precedents that would be set by a
preemptive veto? Has the EPA consulted relevant federal and state
agencies regarding such a course of action? Could third-party litigants
cite the veto as precedent in opposing other projects within the
watershed?
EPA Response:
EPA has not made any decision regarding whether or not to initiate
an advance 404(c) action at this time. As we have emphasized, we have
instead chosen to work with our federal, state, and tribal partners,
and the public, to assess the resources in Bristol Bay and identify
options for improving protections for fisheries in the Bay that depend
so significantly on clean water and a healthy watershed. We look
forward to working with federal agencies, corresponding state agencies,
tribes, and others to take advantage of their experience and
information to support the Bristol Bay assessment. As part of the
assessment process, EPA will collaborate with an extensive list of
federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies and
organizations; the public; private interests such as mining project
proponents; and others with an interest in Bristol Bay. EPA's
assessment process is being conducted in an open and transparent manner
to allow the issues you have raised to be effectively raised and
discussed. This information and public discussion will help inform
decisions following completion of the study.
Ms. Jackson. I'll lay this out more fully in my response to
your letter which will be coming very, very shortly. And,
because your letter was addressed, and copied to the Attorney
General, we have been also consulting on the legal issues here.
[The information follows:]
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, May 17, 2012.
Hon. Lisa A. Murkowski,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: Thank you for your April 18, 2012, letter
requesting additional clarification about the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Bristol Bay watershed assessment. I
appreciate the opportunity to respond to your letter.
As detailed in my letter of March 21, 2012, EPA undertook this
assessment after numerous native villages and other organizations in
Alaska and elsewhere raised concern about potential environmental,
water quality, fisheries and associated economic and subsistence
impacts from proposed large-scale mining development in the Bristol Bay
watershed. Clean Water Act Sections 104(a) and (b) clearly provide the
Agency with the authority to study the resources of the Bristol Bay
watershed, evaluate the effect of pollution from large scale mining
development on those resources, and make such an assessment available
to the public. Although these groups requested that EPA use its
authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, others argued
that any action should be based on submission and review of a
particularized permit application.
EPA decided it was premature to make any decision on the use of
Section 404(c). Instead, the Agency opted to undertake a scientific
assessment to obtain a more informed basis for future decisionmaking.
The EPA is conducting this assessment in coordination with Federal
agencies, tribal organizations, and the public. We have also consulted
with the State of Alaska. We intend to make our draft available for
public comment and are convening a peer review panel to provide us with
independent scientific feedback. Our goal is the finalization of a
robust, technically sound assessment. Only upon its completion will the
Agency examine regulatory options, including application of404(c), if
appropriate. We will be happy to brief you and your staff on the draft
assessment and its implications when it is released.
Your letter raises an important question about the precedential
effect of a hypothetical EPA section 404(c) review of mining in Bristol
Bay on other future development activities in the Bristol Bay
watershed. Before turning to this issue, I want to be clear that the
focus of our assessment is on the environmental and water quality
impacts from discharges of dredged or fill material associated with
large-scale mining in the watershed. The assessment does not address
impacts associated with other development activities, such as
construction of an airfield, which have a wholly different
environmental footprint from large-scale mining Since this assessment
focuses only on the impacts of large-scale mining projects to the
Bristol Bay watershed, use of the assessment in support or in
opposition to other types of wetland fill activities is not
appropriate. Therefore, we would not expect the assessment to play a
significant role should controversy arise about possible regulation of
development activities unrelated to large-scale mining.
While your question is hypothetical, and EPA has no plans to use
404(c) authority unless justified by the full technical assessment, let
me also assure you that we have a broad range of discretion in our use
of the 404(c) authority. A final 404(c) action in Bristol Bay
prohibiting or restricting large scale mining activities would not
affect other development in the watershed. CWA section 404(c)
authorizes the EPA to prohibit or restrict discharges in a defined area
of the waters of the United States when those discharges are determined
to have unacceptable adverse environmental or water quality impacts.
Discharges associated with activities outside the focus of a particular
Section 404(c) decision are not prohibited or restricted by EPA's
action. As a result, if EPA were to prohibit or restrict certain
discharges from large-scale mineral development at Bristol Bay, this
action would not preclude other development or infrastructure such as
airport construction that had less damaging impacts.
Historic application of this authority demonstrates that we have
used it sparingly and only for severe and widespread impacts on
ecological resources that we felt justified protection of these
resources. I am unaware of any case where our decision to use 404(c) in
one situation was interpreted to compel its use in a different set of
factual circumstances.
Impacts from the discharge of dredged or fill material vary
significantly depending on the location, scale, and duration of the
activity associated with the discharge. The impacts from using clean
fill material to build a private boat dock are not the same, for
example, as impacts from placing contaminated fill material to
construct a large solid waste landfill. EPA carefully considers these
distinctions in its review under Section 404 to ensure that our actions
protect against unacceptable adverse impacts to public health and the
environment while assuring that environmentally responsible development
may proceed.
Preparation of this letter was coordinated within the EPA's Office
of General Counsel and with the Department of Justice. I hope it
responds effectively to your questions. Please contact me if you have
any additional questions regarding EPA's Bristol Bay watershed
assessment or your staff may contact Arvin Ganesan, Associate
Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at
202-564-5200.
Sincerely,
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
Ms. Jackson. And I feel confident that I can answer that
the assessment focuses on large-scale mining. And using the
assessment to oppose or support any other type of project will
be inappropriate.
It's a draft assessment. It's going out for public comment
and then it will go for peer review. So it's early on.
Senator Murkowski. How long a public comment do you
anticipate on that?
Ms. Jackson. I believe it's 60 days, Senator. And we're
trying to get it out before commercial fishing and other
successive fishing seasons begin.
So we do believe that it won't apply to nonmining projects,
and that will be laid out more fully in the letter.
Senator Murkowski. Have you requested a legal opinion to
that effect then?
Ms. Jackson. Well, we've coordinated with the Attorney
General's office to ensure that our reading of the law under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is correct and accurate.
Senator Murkowski. Do you have or will you have anything in
writing that you can provide to us on that legal opinion?
Ms. Jackson. Well, I have the letter which will indicate
our having consulted with our counterparts at the Attorney
General's office.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I understand you're going to be
sending me a written response, and I will await that.
But I think it's going to be important that it clearly be
established through legal opinion, or some form of assurance
out there that, in fact, this can be and will be limited to
large-scale mining.
Because again, I think the big unknown here is what this
potential impact may mean to any other kind of development
within this region.
Ms. Jackson. Well, definitely, the letter will reflect the
concurrence of opinion between EPA, but having consulted with
the Attorney General's office, not only our internal attorneys,
but those who would be responsible for interpreting the law.
And so we do believe that it will do that.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I will await that letter. But I
may want to double back with you in just ascertaining where we
really are.
Because this is the big issue that we're dealing with, with
Pebble right now, is how this, the extent of this assessment
might be interpreted.
NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS
One last question before my time has expired here. A lot of
concern about the rush toward additional regulations coming out
of the administration as we come to the end of President
Obama's first term here.
And a concern that we're going to see a rush of major, new
rules and regulations prior to January 20.
Can you give a list to the subcommittee, for the record, on
what major rules and regulations are due to be final, by either
virtue of the statute, or by court order, prior to January 20.
[The information follows:]
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) defines a major rule as one that
``has resulted in or is likely to result in (1) an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or
prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local
government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export
markets.'' (5 U.S.C. 804(2).)
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews rules to ensure
that regulations are consistent with applicable law, the President's
priorities, and the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866, and
that decisions made by one agency do not conflict with the policies or
actions taken or planned by another agency. OMB's Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines whether a rule
is classified as ``major''.
Generally, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rules that
have been determined as ``major'' under the CRA are based on the annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more'' part of the definition.
EPA's Semiannual Regulatory Agenda captures information on rules that
are ``major'' as well as any associated deadlines for the rules in
question. EPA's Semiannual Regulatory Agenda is available at http://
www.epa.gov/lawsregs/regulations/regagenda.html; please note that a
more updated Agenda is scheduled to publish in the very near future.
Executive Order 12866 defines a significant regulatory action as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
--Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments
or communities;
--Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
--Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
--Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates,
the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this
Executive order. (section 3(f).)
EPA rules that have been determined as ``significant'' under
Executive Order 12866 are based on the `` annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more'' and ``raise novel, legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
principles set forth'' parts of the definition.
Accordingly, EPA's Semiannual Regulatory Agenda captures
information on rules that are meet the criteria of ``economically
significant'' or ``other significant.'' EPA's Semiannual Regulatory
Agenda is available at http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/regulations/
regagenda.html; please note that a more updated Agenda is scheduled to
publish in the very near future.
Senator Murkowski. And then again, a list as to those
significant rules that you expect to go final within that same
timeframe, just so that we understand what it is that we're
dealing with.
Ms. Jackson. Most certainly, Senator.
There are two things though I just need to clarify. We have
a regulatory agenda that tends to be somewhat broader than what
actually comes to be in terms of proposed or final regulations.
And we are right now in the middle of several court cases
which may change our agenda. So I can certainly give you a
listing of those things, and they're fairly publicly known
major regulations that we are working on.
For example, finalizing the fuel economy standards and
others. But our regulatory agenda, which we're working on
updating, is probably the best source of that information, and
we'll get that updated as soon as we can.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Reed. We're going to go back and forth on order of
arrival. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
being here, Administrator Jackson.
I want to tag onto your statement earlier that clean air
and clean water is important for economic development. It's
also the basis of life.
And I think that as we, whether it's mining for gold or
drilling for oil, it's critically important we don't sacrifice
one resource for another.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
And along those lines, there is a robust discussion
regarding hydraulic fracking or fracturing. Fracking is what's
taken North Dakota to number two in oil production in this
country.
And DOE's advisory board, shale and gas production
subcommittee of the National Petroleum Council, have released
reports about hydraulic fracturing and domestic production of
oil and gas.
These reports provide suggested steps that the government,
industry and researchers need to take to assure that we have a
balanced regulatory regime to protect development and citizens.
Just last week your agency released draft guidance on Class
2 injection wells and the use of diesel fuel. BLM just released
their draft regulation of hydraulic fracturing on BLM and
Tribal Trust lands.
And from my read, one of the most critical parts of the
recommendation is the standards for casing and constructing
wells.
If there isn't public trust that this technology can be
used safely, that will inhibit its future development. And I
believe that the industry is starting to recognize that.
My question for you is, do you believe that the standards
provided by American Petroleum Institute (API) and used by the
BLM are sufficient to protect groundwater and surface water
contamination both during protection and into the future?
Ms. Jackson. I believe, based on what we know now, Senator,
our staff worked--I can't speak about API, as much as I can say
that our staff at EPA were consulted and reviewed the proposed
regulations that the Department of Interior put out last week.
It's obviously their jurisdiction because it's on public
lands. The only caveat I would offer, Sir, is that we are in
the middle of this 2-year, congressionally directed study on
groundwater, on the effect or potential effect of fracking on
groundwater.
And anything that we learn as a result of that will be
available to the private sector, the public sector, States,
locals, and of course, our colleagues at the Department of the
Interior.
Senator Tester. Another major section of the recommendation
is about disclosure. There are many forms of disclosure.
Do you believe that the Web site, FracFocus, provides
sufficient information to the public?
Ms. Jackson. I believe that the proposal that the
Department of the Interior put out leaned heavily on the
information in FracFocus, and that they are probably best able
to describe how their regulations mesh with the FracFocus
effort.
But I do think it is an important effort that the industry
step forward and recognize that one of the major concerns the
public has is the lack of awareness and transparency around the
chemicals being injected.
Senator Tester. Okay. Thank you very much.
FARM FUEL TANKS
One of the things that I visited with your office before
about is EPA's implementing new regs on farm fuel tanks to
prevent fuel spills into rivers and streams.
My concern is that EPA has not adequately explained the
rules or educated the public about them, particularly, people
in production agriculture.
Look, I don't think farmers have, nor should they, check
the Federal Register or regularly check the EPA's Web site.
Although it might be handy, I don't think it's high on their
list and I don't think it probably should be.
As EPA implements the regulations, and I think it's EPA's
responsibility to make sure that the folks out there know
what's coming. In this particular case, farmers and ranchers,
and how they can work through the process.
Many folks in my neck of the woods continue to have
questions and deadlines. There's good information. There's bad
information about the certification process, and whether they
can certify themselves.
I guess just to cut to the chase, we asked you to hold off.
What progress has EPA made in conducting outreach to the folks
in production agriculture? I'm talking farmers and ranchers.
Ms. Jackson. And I thank you, Senator.
And, yes, you're right. Happy to give you an update on our
progress after we put in place a delay to include additional
outreach. We met with national agricultural groups who have an
interest in the issue.
We've drafted, and it's with their input, new materials
that can be provided to grower groups, States, and cooperative
extensions.
I think just in the last week or so, we had a discussion
with communication directors at the major grower groups to
particularly focus and discuss other outreach efforts to make
sure that the information is clear and useful for farmers.
Senator Tester. Have you got any feedback from farmers on
it yet?
Ms. Jackson. I can certainly check on that, Sir. But I
don't, I think we are--Let me check on it for you.
[The information follows:]
The Environmental Protection Agency has actively engaged in a
significant number of outreach efforts to ensure the farmer community
is fully aware of their responsibilities under the Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure regulations and have the tools needed to
meet those requirements. Our efforts have included developing a flyer
to be used by trade associations and agriculture extension services to
inform and educate their members; holding webinars for the farming
community to educate and provide opportunity to ask questions regarding
their responsibilities; attending fairs and conventions to speak and
distribute information; compiling a list of outside materials (such as
articles, videos, blogs, Web sites, etc.) produced by outside groups
like agriculture centers, universities, trade associations; and
creating and supporting a Web site with pertinent information and tools
for farmers. At this time, we have had no additional formal feedback
from farmers; however, we have received some anecdotal information from
trade associations and farmers that they are finding this information
useful.
Senator Tester. Okay. That's fine.
In Montana, we pride ourselves on self-sufficiency. Many
folks in Montana are trying to use biodiesel on their farms to
help increase energy independence.
Unfortunately, certifying each batch of biodiesel for small
producers is cost prohibitive. A while ago, I asked CPA to
consider an exemption for on-farm/regional biodiesel use.
I don't think any progress has been made on that, but you
can correct me if I'm wrong. So I guess what I'm asking you is
if you can commit to working with me to develop a reasonable
certification process for small, on-farm regional use of
biodiesel, I think this could do a lot of things, Administrator
Jackson.
I think it can help contribute to our energy independence.
I also think it could create some jobs in rural America where
we need a few more.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Senator. I'm not aware of what progress,
if any, we've made. So I'm happy to commit to working with you
on that issue.
[The information follows:]
Fuel and fuel additive registration requirements under 40 CFR part
79 are not required for producers who make biodiesel fuel for off-road
use (e.g., in agricultural equipment).
Senator Tester. All right. Thank you very much for that.
Thank you for being here.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you.
Senator Tester. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Tester. Senator Blunt,
please.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've got a
statement for the record I'll submit and I'm sure that EPA will
want to read it carefully.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Roy Blunt
Thank you Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski for holding
this hearing today. I appreciate the opportunity to examine not only
the budgetary needs, but also some of the recent activities of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I would also like to thank
Administrator Jackson and Chief Financial Officer Barbara J. Bennett
for being here.
Around this time last year, I pointed out that EPA had issued or
planned to issue almost 20 different rules placing mandates on
manufacturing, the power industry, and even our farmers. EPA should not
be using taxpayer dollars to impose costly and burdensome regulations
that could severely impact jobs, our economy and the cost of everything
we do or buy.
Only one regulation from this list was stopped, and that was the
expensive tightening of ozone standards that EPA publically supported
despite the economic toll it would have. Of course this was only
because the White House scrapped it at the last minute, no doubt
realizing the impact in a political year.
There is yet a new medium for EPA regulations, through something
called ``guidance''. Guidance, in EPA's own words is ``frequently used
by federal agencies to explain and clarify their understanding of
existing requirements''. This says to me that guidance can have just as
far reaching consequences as traditional rulemakings can.
Yet guidance technically is not ``final'', so affected parties have
no recourse to appeal the rules. This circumvents the fair procedures
put in place to safeguard against overreaching agency action, like
affected parties' ability to appeal to the courts.
EPA recently came out with guidance that expands the jurisdiction
of the Clean Water Act--meaning that EPA now can control even a stream
that EPA ``determines'' has a close enough connection to the navigable
waters the Clean Water Act traditionally regulates. This could have
devastating effects for our farmers, miners, and even construction
workers. Oddly enough, EPA still accepted comments before issuing the
final guidance document, many of which pleaded with the EPA to use
notice and comment rulemaking. Yet EPA did not undertake a rulemaking,
issuing the final guidance soon after.
This is the most recent example of the dangers of agency overreach.
The cumulative effects of these rules are vast and probably cannot be
determined at this time. Even EPA's own cost-benefit analysis used in
these rules often do not include job losses or what it would mean for
families if their food and energy prices go up.
We all can agree that cleaning up and protecting our environment
are important goals. Yet this must be balanced among economic losses. A
robust economy doesn't just mean businesses are making more money; it
means people are employed, and it means consumer choice thrives and
keeps costs of goods low. Economic and environmental goals must be
balanced.
I hope the EPA can stop and consider the multitude of rules coming
out of the Agency that threaten the economic viability of our country's
energy, manufacturing, and agricultural sectors.
Again thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
testimony.
Senator Blunt. I've got three questions I want to ask about
three areas.
FUEL HARMONIZATION
One is fuel harmonization, a fuel harmonization study. I
sent you a letter in May of last year. The Ranking Member of
this subcommittee--Senator Murkowski--Senator Cochran, a number
of my other colleagues signed that letter as well.
In 2005, in the Energy Policy Act, EPA and DOE were asked
to do a fuel harmonization study. One of the things we did in
the Energy Policy Act was give you the ability to waive fuel
standards under certain difficult situations to where all of
these different boutique fuels wouldn't all have to be
available under specific circumstances.
The most notable time it was used was during Katrina. It
was used effectively and well for about 6 months. But that's a
stop-gap solution to trying to figure out how many different
fuel blends we really need.
So what I'm asking is, why haven't you done the study? The
response to the letter we sent in May of last year was pretty
much nonresponsive. It was basically, we received your letter
response.
The 2005 Act asked the Department to do that. You haven't
been responsible since for all that time. I get that. But can
you do that study as the Congress requested you to do?
Ms. Jackson. Well, Sir, just a couple of points.
I think the reason that there hasn't been a commitment to
do the study is that on the ground we see that these local fuel
requirements. They're put in place by State regulators looking
at smog issues and air pollution issues in their regional
districts.
The use of those special fuels has decreased since 2002.
Senator Blunt. Has decreased?
Ms. Jackson. Decreased. Yes, Sir.
Senator Blunt. Yes.
Ms. Jackson. And that we do know about, the effect on the
price of gasoline: they add very little to the cost of
gasoline.
So we have people using fewer and fewer of these fuels. We
know that they are not adding significantly to the price of
gasoline, and we know that they are used in the places where
there are still remaining summer fuels issues. I know that
certainly from New Jersey that it is important----
Senator Blunt. Well, there was a Kansas City Star, there
was a Kansas City Star article recently that said that their 6-
year study indicates that the average has cost 10 cents more
per gallon because of their boutique fuel.
So, you know, if I'm standing there watching that tank and
every time I fill it up it costs me 10 cents more a gallon and
I live in Kansas City, I would think that was significant.
Ms. Jackson. Well, the----
Senator Blunt. But the question is, can you come up with a
series of fuels that people could choose from rather than this
idea that every community has a perfect fuel that's only right
just for it? That's what the study asked if you could do.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Sir. And I think what I'm trying to
convey is that the market is moving toward fewer and fewer of
that kind of situation happening.
More and more, we see some regions that have regional
blends, but fewer and fewer specialized, local blends. And so,
the market is taking care of the problem itself.
What's remaining are those fuels where State regulators
have determined that there's a need to have a special fuel in
summer to reduce smog levels because of an increased
volatilization of gasoline.
So I understand your concern for the issue. I guess I'm
offering, respectfully, that I think the issue is, the impact
on cost is not that high, and that there aren't as many fuels
that are truly unique in the country.
Senator Blunt. Well, we capped the number of fuels you
could have in that same act, so that does have some impact on
how many more there could be.
All right. That was not quite as nonresponsive as the
letter, so I'll accept that.
CLEAN WATER ACT
The Clean Water Act guidance. A lot of concern about
moving, removing the word ``navigable waters'' from the Clean
Water Act. Give me some thoughts. Why guidance instead of a
rule?
You all have issued some guidance, and I'm not sure anybody
really quite knows how binding guidance is, or what guidance
means, except guidance doesn't go through the rulemaking
process.
So this guidance, it looks like to me, suggests that
anything that eventually gets into, extends the authority to
streams, ponds, or even maybe puddles that the EPA would
determine has a connection to a larger body of water.
Not true?
Ms. Jackson. Not quite, Senator.
First, to your question as to why guidance? In the wake of
the two Supreme Court decisions in both 2003 and then 2008, the
EPA and the Corps of Engineers (COE) jointly issued guidance to
assist in determining what water bodies were jurisdictional
under the Clean Water Act.
That has widely, I think, very widely, been seen as not
being helpful enough. So COE and EPA have set out, and we have
not issued final guidance, but we issued draft guidance, I
believe last year, and took public comment on it.
And are working to finalize guidance that would replace the
2003 and 2008 guidances. So that is why, guidance.
As to your concern about extending jurisdiction. The
guidance is intended to help answer the question of, in a
navigable water body, certainly we know what ``navigable''
should be or can be, although there have been even disputes
about ``navigable''.
But how far up in the watershed do you have to go? Since
certainly, in order to protect navigable waters, you have to
protect the streams that feed into them otherwise, you know,
you don't stand a chance.
So that's what the guidance is intended to do. It has been
out in draft and for public comment, and we're working to
finalize that, Sir.
Senator Blunt. Well, why guidance rather than a rule?
Ms. Jackson. Well, the guidance will replace the guidance
that's currently out there. Certainly, a rulemaking could be
considered, but we believe it's better to start with the
guidance and then we can certainly move towards a rule if
necessary.
PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION
Senator Blunt. Okay. The last question I had is short and
can get a short answer I think.
In mid-April, EPA entered into a proposed settlement
agreement with the Portland Cement Association. And, do you
intend to finalize that agreement?
I think they've accepted the proposed settlement, and are
waiting for you to accept it as well.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Sir. To my knowledge, I don't think
there's any concern with finalizing our agreement.
Senator Blunt. Okay. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Blunt. Senator Hoeven,
please.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to begin by thanking you, Administrator Jackson, for
your help with North Dakota's State Implementation Plan (SIP) ,
in regard to regional haze. We do appreciate that.
We're not quite completed. We've resolved it for a number
of our plants, but there's still some work remaining and I ask
for your continued help as we continue to fully resolve that
issue on regional haze as to continuation of the State's SIP
versus a FIP on some of our plants.
So thank you for your help. And I ask for your continued
help in that regard.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
My questions, at least my initial questions, relate to
hydraulic fracturing. As Senator Tester said, North Dakota is
now in the process of moving into becoming the second-largest
oil producing State in the country behind Texas.
The good Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, of course,
I share her desire to produce much more oil and gas in Alaska.
I know that's going to happen too.
So, long term, we know that you're going to be a real
powerhouse. But the point I want to make is that we can't do it
without hydraulic fracturing. We cannot produce oil and gas
without hydraulic fracturing.
So it's incredibly important to us. And a State-led
approach is the right approach. It's working very well. It will
continue to work very well.
So we're concerned about regulations that you're proposing
in regard to hydraulic fracturing, and also, we're very
concerned about how you conduct the study. We are very
supportive of transparency, good environmental protection, and
we believe we work very hard to do that.
But, at the same time, we believe that the State-led
approach not only provides those things, but also empowers the
industry to produce more energy for this country.
So, specifically, I want to ask you about, and it's
interesting, because Senator Blunt was asking about guidance
versus rules. And I think he made some very important points as
to what is guidance mean, and how do we deal with guidance?
But on May 4 of this year, EPA released a draft permitting
guidance regarding the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic
fracturing. Now, on the one hand, in that draft guidance, you
refer to six chemical abstract service registry numbers. So
you're specific. And we're working with industry to find out if
those specific, defining those specific chemicals as diesel is
a workable situation.
But then you go on in this draft guidance and you use terms
like, in addition to those six chemicals. You talk about
substantially similar. You talk about several others. You talk
about common synonyms.
So we go from specifically defining what you're going to
consider diesel in this guidance. And, as Senator Blunt says,
we've got to understand, with a State-led approach, what does
guidance mean?
In other words, does the State have to follow your guidance
or you'll step in and take over the program? Or, exactly, what
do you mean by guidance?
And, then, second, when you specifically define those
chemicals by registry number, okay, maybe we can work with
that. But then, when you start saying, you know, several
others, substantially similar, common synonyms. Now we get
vague, and creates ambiguity.
So my question to you is, in your final guidance, will you
continue to use language like substantially similar, several
others, and common synonyms? That's my first question.
Ms. Jackson. The guidance is out for public comment, Sir.
And I should note that we worked with industry in the drafting
of it. But the purpose of the public comment is to get
information, and I can't really pre-judge what will happen on
finalization.
Senator Hoeven. Would you comment as to my point regarding
the ambiguity and the vagueness and the problems it creates for
industry if you say, well, it's this chemical. This is diesel,
but, gee, it could be all these other things and we're not
going to say what they are.
Now, industry has to work with that. How would you address
that?
Ms. Jackson. Well, I think we're happy to have discussions
with industry so that there is some clarity. And synonym is
pretty straightforward.
If you call it something different by trade name, or some
other thing, I think, the implication there is clear, that you
shouldn't be able to name it something different, and
therefore, not have it subject to the guidance when it is
finally put in place.
As far as substantially similar, we certainly can have
additional comments on that.
I should just add, Sir, that the reason for that guidance
is because there was something of a loophole in the exemption
from regulation for hydraulic fracturing under the underground
injection control standards.
And the one thing that wasn't exempt was the injection of
diesel. And there was great uncertainty in the regulated
community that whether or not when they injected diesel, they
needed a permit.
And in some States, EPA issues those permits, not the
State. They did not receive delegation or sought it.
Senator Hoeven. If they don't have primacy, that's correct.
Ms. Jackson. That's right, Sir.
So this is not an attempt to change. There are many States
that already deal with this issue.
But there was ambiguity and uncertainty as to how to deal
with those cases where someone was injecting diesel.
And that's what this guidance is attempting to give
additional information on for permit writers, as well as the
regulated community.
Senator Hoeven. Administrator, I'm trying to get to two
points here.
If we're going to empower industry, and if we're going to
empower investment to produce more energy in this country and
do it with good environmental stewardship, they need to know
the rules of the road, and they need consistent enforcement.
If you say, okay, this is diesel and they can understand
that, fine. Then perhaps they can work with that. I mean, I
have to understand what those six chemicals are, and we have to
get some feedback from them. Hence, the reason for the proposed
draft guidance.
So we need to find that out. Maybe that works. We need to
determine that. But then when you say, or it could be all these
other things like that, now we're starting to get ambiguity and
a vagueness that is very hard for industry to work with.
So we need you to work with us through that process.
Ms. Jackson. And I'm happy to do that, Sir.
I mean, we're in public comment, and we will finalize the
guidance. But part of the reason for the comment is to get
information and to try to assure that we do remove ambiguity
from the process.
We have the same goals, Sir.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. And I have more questions, but
I'll come back to them. I see my time has elapsed.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. We will have a
second round.
Let me begin it by continuing the line of questioning that
both Senator Tester and Senator Hoeven opened up with respect
to hydraulic fracturing, but from a slightly different
perspective.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING STUDY
Your budget includes $40 million to deal with this topic--
an increase of $8 million.
And I think we all recognize, and it's explicit in the
comments, that we don't want to trade access to the very
valuable petroleum and carbon resources at the cost of degraded
water supplies and environmental problems.
I think that's our position consistently across the board.
So your research is absolutely necessary and your collaboration
with industry is absolutely necessary.
Your money is part of a larger pool of about $45 million
that the President has directed throughout several different
Departments. One thing though that we did in 2010 is we
directed EPA, specifically, to initiate a multi-year study on
the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water
resources, to be specific.
And I understand the first report for the study is
scheduled for the end of this year, 2012. Is the EPA still on
track to meet this timeline, and can you give us sort of a
preview of what information that might be revealed?
Ms. Jackson. We are still on track, Sir. And I have not
been briefed on any preliminary findings, so I'm not in a
position to give any information at this point.
Senator Reed. Let me again look at sort of the overall
approach to the research with respect to hydraulic fracturing.
On April 13, the President issued an Executive order to
align all current and future research which, again, I think we
all say is absolutely necessary for the protection of the
public, made up of 13 Federal agencies.
On that same day, EPA joined DOE and the United States
Geological Survey in signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
creating a new steering committee. So we've got what appears to
be two steering committees here.
Can you explain these two efforts, does one subsume the
other? Is one parallel, is one complementary? Can you just give
us an idea of the approach you're taking administratively?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, certainly.
The Department of the Interior, DOE, and EPA are currently,
obviously at the order of the President, and under the
direction of the White House, working together to scope out a
series of studies.
You're absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. Of course, EPA
already had an ongoing 2-year study. That goes on about $6
million in EPA's fiscal year 2012 enacted budget is for it.
There's now an $8 million increase, and we would be looking to
expand the scope potentially, but only working together with
the other agencies to other issues, maybe ecosystem impacts or
air quality.
Some amount of that additional $8 million, that's in the
fiscal year 2013 budget, would go to those areas.
Senator Reed. Let me follow up with another related
question. That is, you have this Memorandum of Understanding
with USGS which presumably you would allocate the
responsibilities.
It appears from the budget request that part of the $8
million of additional funds you're going to use is for seismic
risk from hydraulic fracturing practices. And we understand
that USGS is also studying, no surprise, seismic risk, et
cetera.
Can you comment upon this? Is this duplication, or is it
complementary?
Ms. Jackson. I want to go back and check on that, Mr.
Chairman, because in general, my response on seismic issues is,
it's not us. That's USGS.
[The information follows:]
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requested for hydraulic
fracturing (HF) research includes $6.1 million to complete the study
plan on the potential environmental impacts of HF on drinking water;
and an additional $4.3 million to address questions raised by
stakeholders regarding the potential environmental impacts of hydraulic
fracturing on water quality and ecosystems. Of the $4.3 million
request, less than $100,000 was intended to screen for HF induced
seismic risks in association with underground injection control wells.
Subsequent to the submission of the fiscal year 2013 President's
budget, the MOA between the EPA, DOE, and USGS on Multi-Agency
Collaboration on Unconventional Oil and Gas Research was developed.
During the MOA's development, it was determined that the USGS is best
suited to manage research in induced seismicity. As defined in the MOA,
EPA will collaborate as appropriate with USGS regarding seismic issues.
Ms. Jackson. So I don't believe we're doing a lot although
we may be providing some expertise on the groundwater aquifer
regimes down there. But they're pretty much the experts in
USGS.
Senator Reed. Well, you know, that was my presumption too.
So I think if you could clarify that, that would be helpful to
us.
And, you've already mentioned some of the additional
resources, about $3.8 million is going to go to air quality
studies.
Can you give us an idea of the concept of how you're going
to spend that money with respect to the hydraulic fracturing
and air quality?
Ms. Jackson. I think we would probably be best served if we
gave you a briefing update. The scoping meetings that have just
begun to look at the potential ways to scope these research
studies, are just really beginning.
I think they've had a couple of meetings so far. So it's a
little premature. But, obviously, we have the opportunity over
time to update you on those as well.
There have been some. Obviously, we just finalized rules on
air quality issues around oil and gas development. They were
not loved by everyone, but that's usually okay in our world.
They were pretty well received.
And I think one of the things we were doing is trying to
look at additional information to ensure we're not missing
something.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
Senator Reed. Well, let me change the subject for my final
and brief comment, which I think will require a brief response
from you.
That is, we've had an environmental education program
through EPA for many, many years. In fact, my distinguished
predecessor, John Chafee, I think in 1990, through the National
Environmental Education Act put it in place.
And the proposed budget would require severe reductions in
this education program which raises the question, why that
program?
The bottom line is, how do you continue to maintain the
legal requirements under the 1990 legislation?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Sir. Let me limit it to two very quick
things.
First, I want to assure you, we remain committed to the
spirit and goal of environmental education and increasing
environmental literacy.
What we found from an efficiency standpoint in EPA is when
we looked at the program as it was being funded, we believe
there is better opportunity to do more and do it better in the
programs by each of the programs, air, water, waste, or some
amount of it, maybe recycling and waste, or energy and air.
Letting the programs put forth those educations and then
coordinating their efforts. So there will be resources going
towards environmental education. They're going from the
programs.
I also want to say that we're working really hard to have
our national environmental education foundation, which was also
in that law, become more active and vital in helping to promote
some of those opportunities.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
With the concurrence of the Ranking Member, Senator Cochran
has just arrived. We've already had a first round, Senator. If
you would like to take your first round now, if you're
prepared.
Senator Cochran. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do have a question I
was going to ask the Administrator.
Senator Reed. Go ahead, Sir.
DESOTO COUNTY
Senator Cochran. In DeSoto County, Mississippi, which is
our northernmost county in the State, and adjoins the State of
Tennessee, right at the Memphis metropolitan area, is one of
those situations where the metropolitan area of Memphis spills
over into both Arkansas and Mississippi.
Anyway, the point is, that I wanted to bring to the
attention of the Department something that really came to my
attention because the DeSoto County area has been declared by
EPA to be in a state of nonattainment.
One of the new bureaucratic words--``Nonattainment''. What
it means is, you can't build anything or do anything in terms
of urban growth without jumping through a lot of new hoops and
abiding by rules that really are beyond the control of local
elected officials or the population or zoning authorities.
And I just wanted to bring to the attention of the
Administrator that this is really, I think it's discrimination
of the worst kind in terms of rulemaking by the EPA.
And I just hope that the highest authorities at EPA and in
the Department can give their attention to this to see what are
the options for continued growth in that area.
Anyway, I don't know whether this has reached your desk or
not, Madam Administrator, but I wanted to bring it to your
attention. Are you familiar with this? Or has anybody, Ms.
Jackson, brought this to your attention personally?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Sir.
And I know that area staff at the very highest levels have
met with Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality staff.
There was data that was exchanged.
The nonattainment designation is not a no growth
designation, Sir. DeSoto County, that part of the county that's
being designated nonattainment for small growth zone, is really
part of the municipal area around Memphis.
And it has to do with commutation patterns and growth in
terms of primarily automobiles and others within the Memphis
urban boundary. It's a matter of working with the Memphis
Metropolitan Planning Organization of which that portion of
DeSoto County is a part.
And so we have explained to them that as cars become
cleaner and more efficient, we do foresee a time when this
nonattainment issue will, through other Federal rules, become
less of a concern.
But the attainment and the nonattainment designations, are
based on data. And we have to make calls based on what we have
which show that the area is contributing.
That's what the law says, whether it contributes to
nonattainment in the nonattainment area.
So I believe where things were left is that they met
recently with Mississippi, and I'm not sure what happened as a
result, but I can certainly check on that for you.
Senator Cochran. Well, I would hope that you could give
this your personal attention to be sure that the obvious intent
of the rules and the laws are fairly applied particularly in an
area that is a very popular area for job creation activity and
business activity, that is not a very serious polluter in and
of itself.
Working in an office, you're not going to pollute a lot.
But office buildings and the like would be attracted to this
area if it were not for the EPA nonattainment ruling.
So I hope that you can help ensure that fairness is the
result rather than arbitrary rulemaking without a basis in
fact. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Cochran. Senator
Murkowski, please.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING STUDY
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Jackson, I want to follow up with a
discussion about the hydraulic fracturing study. I've got a
copy of the actual statute here from 2010.
And it states, ``The conferees urge the Agency to carry out
a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and
drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the
best available science, as well as independent sources of
information. The conferees expect the study to be conducted
through a transparent, peer-reviewed process that will ensure
the validity and accuracy of the data. The Agency shall consult
with other Federal agencies as well as appropriate State and
interstate regulatory agencies in carrying out the study, which
should be prepared in accordance with the Agency's quality
assurance principles.''
So I guess I'm a little concerned about the scope of the
study that we're seeing come out. You've just mentioned in
response to the Chairman here that you're expanding the scope
of the study to address not only ecosystem but air quality.
It's my understanding that now part of the study includes
collecting data on the environmental justice impacts on
disadvantaged communities.
It seems to me that the language in the legislation was
pretty clear in terms of assessing the relationship between
hydraulic fracturing and contaminated water. And that there has
been a very stepped up increase and expansion of scope.
Can you address that part of it?
Ms. Jackson. I can, Senator.
And if I misspoke before, I shouldn't have. This is not an
expansion of the congressionally directed study.
We have a congressionally directed study. You read the
scope of it. That is the scope we've kept to. It's been
publicly scoped. There's been peer review of the actual scope
of the study.
The study is ongoing, and we, of course, have had to work
with industry in order to get access to some of the sites.
Because if you want to test around hydraulic fracturing sites,
many of them are in private ownership.
There is, on the part of the administration, from the
President, from the White House, a desire to do additional
science around hydraulic fracturing, partially as someone said
earlier, because the public's trust in that technology we
believe is also based on the belief that we are looking to
bring the very best science to bear to ensure that it remains
safe.
I have said over, and over again, that natural gas,
hydraulic fracturing, and fracturing for oil is an incredibly
important part of our energy mix, but we need to assure the
American public that we are stepping up to the challenge in
getting the best science so that it remains as safe as it
possibly can be.
So it is not an expansion of the scope of the study. It's a
proposal in the President's budget to add funding to do studies
in additional areas, and those would be done with the
Department of the Interior and DOE.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. So I would agree with you in terms
of the science there. But it's my understanding that part of
the study now includes collecting data on the environmental
justice impacts of disadvantaged communities.
So it seems to me that you're presuming that there is an
impact. I guess I look at it and say, it would be more
appropriate to look at these impacts only if you do discover
that there is a link between fracking and contaminated water
first.
So I don't disagree with you that we want to be using best
science, not only through the study that EPA is doing, but what
the other agencies are doing as well.
But it would appear to me that there is an added expansion
here in terms of the scope. You've indicated that it will be
peer reviewed as the statute requires, and that industry has
provided input in terms of giving access to data.
Will industry and others be permitted to review the study
before it's released?
Ms. Jackson. The study will be put out for public comment,
but it will also be peer reviewed during the process. We can
get you a briefing on exactly the steps.
[The information follows:]
Later this year, we will update our peer-review plan to describe
the steps we are taking to assure peer review of the specific research
products comprising the study. In addition, we are forming a new
Science Advisory Panel (SAB) panel later this year that will consult
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) periodically on the
progress of the study and ultimately review the conclusions and
findings in the 2014 report.
The public, including members of the oil and gas production and
service companies and industry associations, as well as other Federal
agencies, State and interstate regulatory agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, tribes, the public, and others will have comment
opportunities built into the workings of this SAB panel.
In fiscal year 2013, EPA requested a total of $14.1 million for
hydraulic fracturing. This includes $6.1 million to complete the study
plan on the potential environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing on
drinking water. In response to stakeholders concerns, an additional $8
million was requested.
To address the potential environmental impacts of hydraulic
fracturing water quality and ecosystems, $4.3 million and $3.7 million
to address questions about the potential impact of hydraulic fracturing
on air quality.
Ms. Jackson. I know that original data that comes out will
go out for public comment to everyone after it's been reviewed.
EMISSION CONTROL AREA
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you a question about the
standards that relate to the low sulphur fuel standards rules.
These are on freight carriers and cruise ships bound for
Alaska.
The new standards start this August. It ramps up over a 3-
year period to reduce the sulphur emissions.
We, as you know, are a State that relies on almost all of
our freight, everything that comes into the State pretty much
comes to us by barge, by freight, over the water.
And there's a great concern that this standard could cause
what is anticipated to be a 20-percent rise in freight costs.
If you look at the cost of goods in Alaska already, they're
astonishingly high. So 20 percent is really a great deal of
concern.
We recognize that this is going to increase the cost of
living in Alaska at a time that we can't handle it. We're also
concerned because it could have a very serious impact on the
State's tourism industry.
Our cruise ships carry 80 percent of the State's summer
tourists to Alaska and the concern is that this will, these
standards will increase the cost to those who are coming north.
There is further concern that we simply won't, or the
industry won't, be able to meet the deadline because the
maritime industry won't be able to obtain the 1-percent sulphur
fuel without blending different types of fuel that increase
operational and safety issues.
So there's a real concern about their ability to meet the
standards in the first place. The marine industry's been
working with EPA on this issue trying to determine if there's
an alternative compliance mechanism that could ultimately
result in lower overall air emissions than even what the EPA
rule would actually produce.
There have been efforts. I understand that they have not
yielded a positive result at this point in time. So the
question to you is whether or not the EPA will give serious
consideration to accepting the pending alternative compliance
proposal and do so soon.
The cruise industry basically has to set their schedule
well more than a year out, and the obvious concern is that if
there isn't discussion and action on this in the very, very
short term, we're all going to see and suffer the consequences.
Ms. Jackson. Well, certainly, Senator, EPA will continue to
give serious consideration to any issues of compliance or fuel
availability.
We've been told by fuel suppliers that they expect to make
fuel available for the August 1 date for 10,000 parts per
million fuel. Obviously, we'll continue to work with them and
keep an eye on that.
This standard was adopted by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO). And we've made clear that we support the
use of innovative equivalent methods, but only as long as they
achieve the same results as the standard that they're intended
to replace.
I know that IMO is currently working on guidance to ensure
that equivalent methods that any country tries to approve are
based on a common set of criteria.
And EPA will continue to work with the Coast Guard, we'll
work with IMO, we'll reach out to the suppliers, and, of
course, to the folks who use the fuel in meeting the 10,000
part per million standard in August.
Senator Murkowski. Well, this is something that we need to
have further discussion on.
AMBIENT TESTING
There has been no ambient testing done in either Alaska or
Hawaii. We've been attempting to make that distinction. So far,
it has not been considered which I think is unfortunate.
You indicate that the fuel suppliers can make the fuel
available. Yes, fuel can be made available, but at what cost?
And, truly, and in an effort to deal with these
extraordinarily--You cannot put a 20-percent increase on the
cost of freight that comes into the State of Alaska and expect
people to be able to continue to buy groceries or lumber or
whatever it is that they need.
We've got to have some ability to work with you on this.
This would be one of those issues that I would hope that your
senior folks sitting down with our folks can have a further
discussion on.
Ms. Jackson. To be clear, Senator. I'm not, I'm certainly
not saying, well, we don't want to discuss this further with
you. And I don't know that we necessarily agree with the
outcome of the study that you cite.
But I do think we would agree that it has to be affordable
and it has to be practical.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Blunt.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
Let me ask a couple of other questions on this hydraulic
fracturing issue. You may have answered this already, and I was
trying to listen and I just may have missed the answer.
Report language in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill
asked for a study whether there was a link between the
hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. You're asking for $14
million more to expand that study, is that right?
Ms. Jackson. There is an additional $8 million, I believe,
pulling out my card here. It's a total of $14 million.
But some of the money is to do the study that was
authorized in fiscal year 2010. And there's an additional
request for $8 million to do additional work outside the scope
of that study.
Senator Blunt. And when will you expect to get that study
done, since the fiscal year 2010 study isn't done yet?
Ms. Jackson. Well, we have just begun meetings with the
other Federal agencies that will be involved with the studies.
And so I can't give you details, but we're happy to
continue as I mentioned earlier.
Senator Blunt. And does that study stop us from moving
forward with hydraulic fracturing?
Ms. Jackson. Well, this is science. This is science. This
is intended to ask and answer questions related to hydraulic
fracturing. So it's research, Sir.
Senator Blunt. So it doesn't set any obstacle in the way of
hydraulic fracturing anywhere it's going on, or did we have to
have the drinking water study before certain things could be
done?
Ms. Jackson. No, Sir. Hydraulic fracturing, as you heard,
is continuing apace.
And what I've said about the drinking water study is that
if we learn things that teach us better ways to protect
drinking water, certainly we're going to share that with all
the people who are out there as our partners trying to protect
drinking water.
But we don't have any results yet. The first results will
be toward the end of this year.
Senator Blunt. So you are moving forward with the drinking
water part of the study?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Sir. That's the one that we have funding
for. It was directed by the Congress.
This is a budget request for additional studies coordinated
across EPA and other agencies.
Senator Blunt. And if this budget request isn't met, you
would still do the drinking water study?
Ms. Jackson. Provided that portion of the $14 million, and
I think it's $6 million in fiscal year 2012, that we already
have then.
So, yes, the answer to your question.
Senator Blunt. How much was provided in fiscal year 2010?
Ms. Jackson. Let us grab the number for you while we sit
here, but we believe it was $2 or $4 million.
[The information follows:]
$1.9 million and three full-time equivalents were provided in
fiscal year 2010.
Ms. Jackson. The study on drinking water in fiscal year
2011 was enacted with $4.3 million and $6.1 million in fiscal
year 2012.
And then there's $4.1 million in the present budget for
fiscal year 2013. But the study is----
Senator Blunt. So the drinking water study would cost
around $14 million?
Ms. Jackson. Four plus six, 12, yes, Sir.
Senator Blunt. And you've asked for another $8 million to
start this new series of studies.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, but other agencies are asking for
additional funding as well.
So as the Chairman mentioned, I believe it's $45 million in
total additional research around hydraulic fracturing.
Senator Blunt. And what you would hope to find out is that
even if drinking water wasn't affected, that wastewater
treatment plants were, or other water sources were?
Ms. Jackson. The general areas have been air quality, water
quality, and ecosystems. We have had other issues that States
have dealt with, or are dealing with. Wastewater, certainly,
surface water can raise some concerns.
But the idea is to ask the questions so that the American
people know that their Government is doing the research to
ensure we stay in front of any issues before they develop.
Senator Blunt. And we would expect to see the drinking
water study, when?
Ms. Jackson. The initial results would be at the end of
this calendar year, Sir. But the study goes on an additional
year after that.
Senator Blunt. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hoeven, please.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to follow up on Senator Blunt's question as
well as Senator Murkowski.
You're more than doubling your budget for hydraulic
fracturing.
How can you make the argument that you're not greatly
expanding the scope of the study?
Ms. Jackson. Well, I hope it's not a matter of semantics. I
just want to be clear.
The study that we were directed by the Congress to do, we
are doing. And we're seeking the funding we need, and we
already have the authority to continue and complete it. That
will happen.
But to be, you know, but the President has also said we
need to do additional science to assure the American people
that we're looking at hydraulic fracturing. So there is
additional money proposed in the fiscal year 2013 budget to do
additional studies.
Senator Hoeven. So is that broken out between what is
required to do the study, as defined in scope by the Congress,
and the additional work that you just referenced?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Sir.
The total funding for research in the fiscal year 2013
request is $14.1 million. And I believe, I saw a number
somewhere else, that about $4 million of that is for the study
that is ongoing.
Senator Hoeven. This also relates to the earlier question I
was asking you about guidance.
When you provide guidance then, because whether it's
pursuant to this study or proposed rules that you've already
put out. Like we're talking about, for example, diesel fuel.
Where we have a State primacy program, which we have with
hydraulic fracturing, when you issue guidance, is the State
required to follow that guidance or risk having you take over
their program?
Ms. Jackson. First, EPA is not looking to take over the
State programs.
But if the State is acting as the primacy agent for the
underground injection control program, the guidance is intended
to tell them how to meet the requirements of law under that
program.
Many States have their own laws that either supersede, that
add to, or supersede, or go further than Federal standards.
But for a State who says, listen, my permit that I issue is
also intended to be an underground injection control permit, so
EPA doesn't have to issue a separate one, this is the guidance
the study is intended to say here is how EPA views the
injection of diesel, because diesel is not exempt.
The injection of every other chemical is exempt by law, so
EPA does not permit that injection. Many States do, but EPA
does not.
Senator Hoeven. But it's important to distinguish between a
rule and between guidance and understand that under a State
primacy program, the State has the authority to make its own
determination.
They can take into account your guidance, but that doesn't
give EPA the authority to step in front of the State on a State
primary program.
You would agree with that?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, guidance is intended to give a State,
guidelines to know how EPA believes to meet the requirements of
the regulation. So the regulation tends to be broader. It talks
about the injection of any number of things.
But with respect to diesel and hydraulic fracturing, there
was an omission. There was nothing that told a State, or in
some States, EPA does indeed write those permits. What a
Federal or State permit writer would need to do to assure that
their meeting the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Senator Hoeven. And as you do this study, and again, we've
got to look at the scope of the study as was defined by the
Congress and your funding, it's very important that you are
specific in the guidance so that States understand it and
industry understands it, and can use that as a guidepost.
And you agree with me, it is a guidepost. It is not the
same as a proposed rule.
Ms. Jackson. It does not have the same stature as a
rulemaking, but it is not uncommon for EPA to issue permit
writers guidance on how to meet the requirements of a law.
So the EPA does issue guidance often, and it's for Federal
and State permit writers, but it is not the stature of a
rulemaking, Sir.
Senator Hoeven. And if you'll work with us both in terms of
collaborating with States, with the tribes and with industry, I
think we can help make that guidance more effective in a way
that creates some rules of the road that the industry
understands, again, produce more energy, and have good
environmental stewardship.
So we ask for your consultation.
Ms. Jackson. Absolutely. More than just public comment, our
State partners and tribal partners, have a special role in
implementing and understanding these issues. And we want the
same thing, Senator.
We want certainty, and we want clarity. And that's not what
we had before. We had people threatening to sue because diesel
was being injected, and permits were not issued.
And so that's what this guidance is intended to address.
Senator Hoeven. On some of our reservations, particularly,
Three Affiliated Tribes Reservation in North Dakota doing a
tremendous amount of drilling. The tribes are doing a fantastic
job working with industry to do that.
Their concern is in regard to the Synthetic Miner Source
Rule. Right now we operate under a consent agreement that
expires, or the tribe does, excuse me, they're operating under
a consent agreement, that expires at the end of July.
And it is very important that we get a workable rule in
place. Both the tribes and the industry want to be, consult
with you, in establishing that workable rule. But they need a
rule by the end of July here.
Otherwise, unless the consent decree is extended, they
can't keep drilling wells. So I would strongly encourage you
assisting Region 8, manager Jim Martin, in making sure that we
get a solution there.
Now, I believe there is some dialogue going on. Tex Hall,
the Three Affiliated Tribes chairman, wants consultation here,
but we need a workable rule. We need something in place by the
end of July for both the tribe and the industry.
And I ask for your help to the Regional Administrator to do
that, and again, with good consultation.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Sir.
Senator Hoeven. The other item, well, I see my time has
expired. I have one remaining item.
Senator Reed. Please, go ahead.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CO2 EMISSIONS
You have a new source performance standard for
CO2 emissions on coal-fired plants. This is a
proposed rule that you issued on April 13, 2012. It sets a
CO2 emissions limit of 1,000 pounds per megawatt
hour.
That is essentially a natural gas fired electric plant
standard, which no coal plant in the entire country can meet,
cannot meet it.
Does this new performance standard that you're proposing
apply to new plants, only new plants, or does it also apply to
existing plants?
And, how do you expect, and I see at the same time, you
know, you increase your enforcement budget by 20 percent, from
$27 million to $34 million. And then, you issue this rule which
no coal plant in the entire country can comply with. How do you
expect that to work?
Ms. Jackson. Well, first we can't enforce a rule that isn't
final. It is only a rule for new plants. It does not apply to
existing coal plants.
And, you know, the standard as proposed, creates a path
forward for technology, for those plants that want to use
technology, burn coal, and capture their carbon pollution. It
allows a period during which a plant, if it chooses to, can
operate and then enact a 10-year period where it doesn't have
to have the carbon captured and sequestered.
After 10 years, it has to commit to 50-percent capture of
its carbon emissions. So, in fact, I personally believe the
rule does the opposite. It allows a path forward for investment
in coal-fired power plants that doesn't exist at the current
time.
And it's a proposal, Sir. It is not final.
Senator Hoeven. So your proposal applies to any new plant
construction, not to existing plants.
What about any improvement or major renovations to an
existing plant?
Ms. Jackson. It does not apply to existing plants, Sir.
Only new plants, only new.
Senator Hoeven. All right, thank you.
Then, we are going to need to work through with you both
the technological and the economic viability on that rule
because we need to take a hard look at that.
If we want to continue to develop clean coal technology,
we've got to have a realistic rule.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Sir.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. I have no further questions.
Senator Reed. I have some additional questions which will
be handled in writing.
Senator Reed. Senator Murkowski, do you have additional
questions?
Senator Murkowski. I have just a couple here, if I may.
Senator Reed. Go right ahead.
Senator Murkowski. And I hope that they will be quick.
PM2.5
And both of these involve communities in the, well, energy
impact within the interior.
Fairbanks, Alaska, our second-largest city, pretty cold up
there, dealing with the increased standards, or the tightened
standards on small particulate matter (PM), the
PM2.5.
And, as you know, this has been an issue that they've gone
back and forth with, trying to meet these standards. They're
providing incentives for citizens to change out their older
furnaces and their wood stoves and their boilers for new more
efficient stoves and furnaces.
The biggest problem that Fairbanks has is they have no
other options. They can't turn to natural gas because it's not
available to them. So their options are extraordinarily
limited.
EPA has provided grant aid to other larger communities to
help them meet the PM2.5 issues. Fairbanks has
received just some very, very minimal grants from the agencies.
I know they are looking for assistance. Not much in the total
scheme of things.
They were seeking initially $3 million to help with this
wood stove exchange to cut their emissions, $1 million of it is
still, unfunded.
So what I get when I go to Fairbanks every time, and I was
there this weekend, is, what, if anything, can be done to help?
And we recognize that the budgetary issues are extraordinarily
debilitating and we appreciate that.
But given the very unique climate conditions that the
interior faces, will the Agency look at a possible extension to
give the community more time, additional time, to meet the new
standards before the penalty phase kicks in in 2014?
They are working. They are being aggressive on it. It's not
as if they're putting their head in the sand. But they are
really in a difficult, difficult spot because they have no
other options.
Again, I'd like you to either give me your sense on this,
or consider what options Fairbanks might be able to consider.
Ms. Jackson. How about I promise to look at the options for
you, both in funding and in compliance. Because that's for the
existing PM2.5 standard, right, Senator?
Senator Murkowski. It is the tightened standards that come
into play in 2014. So they are the new PM2.5
standards.
Ms. Jackson. Yes. Well, I'm not sure exactly what you are
referring to. Why don't I look at both.
Senator Murkowski. All right.
HEALY CLEAN COAL PLANT
And then, the other one that I would like to bring to your
attention is the Healy Clean Coal Plant that we have been
trying to get online since 1991 as an option for the residents
in the interior to help them meet their energy needs.
Golden Valley is working with the EPA right now on the
appropriate terms for renewal of their air permit for the
plant. They have been aggressive in trying to resolve, go
through all the hoops, doing what EPA has asked.
I met with some of the folks just this past weekend. I
guess, I need your assurance that this is something that EPA is
going to continue to work with the Golden Valley Electric
Association to find a fair and hopefully final conclusion on
this.
Ms. Jackson. I'm happy to assure that knowing none of the
facts, but that doesn't seem unreasonable to ask, so we'll
continue to----
Senator Murkowski. Okay. We'll put that one on our to-do
list when we meet.
Ms. Jackson. We have a lot to do.
Senator Murkowski. And then, my final question, Mr.
Chairman, and I will conclude.
AVIATION FUEL
And this relates to the new regulations for aviation fuel.
As you know, we have more people that fly in Alaska than
anywhere else in the country, and it's like the family minivan.
You use it to haul the family around.
The concern that we have is the advance notice of
rulemaking that could sharply reduce the lead content in the
aviation fuels. It's impossible for the engines in older
aircraft to run without lead being in their fuels.
It's estimated that up to one-third of all the general
aviation in the State will have to be pulled from service if in
fact EPA proceeds with these rules.
Because, as I understand, it's just not technically
possible to repower, retrofit the planes. Last December, I was
informed by Gina McCarthy, that the EPA would likely consider
changes in the rules over the next one to 2 years.
So the question to you this afternoon is where you are in
this study on the air quality impacts of lead in aviation fuel,
and where does the EPA stand on modifying the proposed rule to
lessen what we know to be a considerable impact on aviation in
Alaska?
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator.
Yes, to my knowledge, we are still on course. We're looking
at the study. This issue I saw personally when I visited
Alaska, the one time I was able to get up to Alaska. Clearly,
that's how everyone gets around. Clearly, it was a concern
everywhere I went.
And so I came back with an understanding that we need to do
something. I don't have a date for you today, but when we meet,
we'll put it on the list and give your staff an update.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. And I hope that your
voice feels better than normal levels.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. But I thank you for your testimony and
your time this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. Thank you,
Administrator, for your testimony. Thank you, Ms. Bennett for
all your work with the Administrator.
I will ask my colleagues to submit any further written
statements or questions by next Wednesday, the 23d of May.
And then ask the Administrator to respond as quickly as
possible with any written questions so we can close the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
STATE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT GRANTS
Question. What are the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
plans regarding the two proposed funding changes to the State and Local
Air Quality Grants, which are:
--changing the formula for allocating the section 105 funds to
States; and
--transitioning funding for particulate monitoring from section 103
authority to section 105 authority?
changing the formula for allocating section 105 funds
Answer. EPA has been working with State and local air pollution
control agencies and State associations since 2006 to revise the
formula to ensure that grant resources are targeted to address current
air quality circumstances, priorities, needs, and concerns while also
protecting gains already achieved. The last comprehensive analysis and
re-allocation of grants occurred from 1991-1993 to implement the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments. The increase in State and Tribal Assistance
Grant funds requested for fiscal year 2013 would ease implementation of
an updated allocation approach that would provide increases for each
region of the country. Increased funding notwithstanding, EPA must
still assure that funds are targeted to the most pressing air-quality
problems and that the integrity of State/local air program operations
is maintained. If funding remains static, shifts will be limited so
that no region will experience a decline any greater than 5 percent of
its prior year funding level. This approach will be phased in over a
multiyear period to minimize any disruptions to State and local program
operations and can be re-evaluated based upon updated data, changes in
air quality, or changes in available funding.
TRANSITIONING PARTICULATE MONITORING FUNDING FROM SECTION 103 TO
SECTION 105 AUTHORITY
EPA intends to transition 10 percent of the particulate monitoring
funding in year 1 (fiscal year 2013); 20 percent in year 2; 40 percent
in year 3; and 60 percent in year 4; and will continue to work closely
with State/local/tribal agencies on implementing an adequate
particulate matter (PM)2.5 monitoring network.
BEACHES PROTECTION CATEGORICAL GRANTS
Question. I am concerned that EPA proposed eliminating the Beach
Grant Program in your fiscal year 2013 budget request. Since 2000,
Rhode Island has received $2.4 million through the program to monitor
water quality at beaches and notified the public when recreational
waters are not safe for swimming. My home State has reported 45 beach
closures over the past 2 years, so we know firsthand how important
funding for monitoring is. I am worried that without continued Federal
funding, States and local governments will not have the capacity to
continue beach monitoring. Administrator Jackson, can you explain why
EPA singled out these grants for elimination?
Answer. To help meet the fiscal challenges of fiscal year 2013, EPA
has reviewed its programs for areas where any potential efficiencies
and streamlining can yield savings. EPA is proposing to eliminate
certain mature program activities that are well-established, well-
understood, and where there is the possibility of maintaining some of
the human health benefits through implementation at the State and local
levels.
EPA's beach program has provided important guidance and significant
funding to support successfully State and local governments in
establishing their own programs. Beach monitoring continues to be
important to protect human health. However, States (including
territories and tribes) and local governments now have the technical
expertise and procedures to continue beach monitoring without Federal
support as a result of the technical guidance and more than $110
million in financial support EPA has provided over the last decade
through the beach program. As a result, EPA is proposing that this
grant program be terminated at the end of fiscal year 2012.
DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT
Question. I would like to talk a little bit about your proposal to
phase out the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) program. As you may
know, I cosponsored the DERA reauthorization in 2010. It is a
successful program and one that has enjoyed bipartisan support.
Last year EPA proposed eliminating the program, but this
subcommittee restored the $30 million funding. You have cut the program
by one-half in your fiscal year 2013 budget request, for a total of $15
million, and identify the program for future elimination. Yet EPA has
estimated that in 2030 there will still be 1.5 million existing diesel
engines polluting the air. Can you explain why the administration
thinks this program should be cut back significantly this year and
eventually phased out given this need?
Answer. The DERA grant program results in tangible emissions
reductions, but it is important to strategically target the available
resources to communities with the greatest need. The funding strategy
EPA proposes for fiscal year 2013 would do just that--it would provide
rebates on the purchase of pollution control technology and grants for
revolving loan programs, and target these funds to communities with the
greatest need, such as those areas with the highest levels of exposure
near ports and transportation hubs.
Second, the DERA program can point to success in retrofitting and
replacing the oldest, most polluting diesel engines, complementing the
stringent emissions standards on new diesel engines that EPA
promulgated in 2007. For example, with the $469 million appropriated by
the Congress in 2008-2010, EPA has funded projects that reduced
approximately 203,900 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
12,500 tons of PM. States and localities have also established programs
to address diesel emissions from older engines not subject to current
regulations, such as the Texas Emissions Reduction Program and the Carl
Moyer Program in California.
Question. In the Office of Management and Budget's budget materials
it says that you will use fiscal year 2013 DERA funding to create
revolving loan programs that will subsidize retrofits and replacements
of older engines ``without the need for additional infusions of Federal
grant dollars.'' I'm not sure how to square this statement with the
enormous demand for the grants. There is such a pressing demand that
EPA received seven times more applications for DERA grants than it can
fund. How does EPA expect to establish a robust revolving loan program
that will not need additional Federal funding with only $15 million?
Answer. The DERA program has shown that retrofits and engine
replacements are effective in reducing emissions and provided valuable
lessons in how to administer clean diesel programs. Going forward, the
fiscal year 2013 budget request recognizes the limited availability of
Federal funding and would transition the program to greater reliance on
State and local efforts to address diesel emissions from legacy fleets.
In fiscal year 2013, EPA will pilot a new approach
That will target specific fleets in high diesel exposure areas such
as near ports and freight distribution hubs and other
disproportionately affected communities. The Federal monies spent under
the $15 million request would be split into two categories. The first
category would allocate funds to a new rebate program established under
DERA's reauthorization. The second component would allocate funds
toward low-cost revolving loans or other financing programs that help
fleets reduce diesel emissions. We believe the rebate and loan programs
may allow greater precision in scrapping certain model years of
vehicles and equipment and assisting public and private fleet owners
with retrofitting or replacing those engines. This pilot would also
test financial mechanisms to continue accelerating diesel retrofits
without ongoing Federal funding. By using grant funds to establish
revolving loan programs administered by non-Federal parties, EPA would
be able to have that funding revolve back into the programs (as the
loans are repaid) to make more loans available on an ongoing basis. For
the revolving loan mechanism to be successful, it would need to be
coupled with State or local requirements to phase out the dirtiest
engines, thereby creating the incentive for fleet managers to seek a
lower-cost loan to make the necessary upgrades.
Question. DERA requires that 30 percent of funding be made
available to support grant and loan programs administered by States.
What is going to happen to the State formula grants in your proposed
budget?
Answer. Under the proposed budget, the State program would not be
funded in fiscal year 2013.
Question. You are also starting a new DERA rebate program. Setting
up a rebate program is an area where EPA doesn't have a lot of
experience. What is your timeline for setting up this program? Why is a
rebate program better or more efficient than a grant program? How do
you plan to operate both a rebate program and a revolving loan fund
given the cuts in your budget request?
Answer. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010, which modified
and reauthorized EPA's Diesel Emission Reduction Program through fiscal
year 2016, added rebates to the grants and loans already authorized
under the initial authorization of DERA. EPA will utilize rebates and
grants to establish revolving loan programs under the reauthorized DERA
language, and match those mechanisms to the needs of fleets and
communities in their quest to reduce emissions from the legacy diesel
engines. This will expand the number of options for targeting certain
types of engines, model years and fleets for retrofit or replacement.
Use of the rebate option would make DERA funding available directly to
private fleet owners for retrofit or replacement of older, high-
pollution engines. Similar to how a rebate works in a retail situation,
EPA would use rebates as an efficient incentive mechanism to turn over
parts of the existing fleet sooner than through natural attrition. The
program could specify the most cost-effective and beneficial type of
engines and technology solutions, in locations of greatest need. EPA
continues to believe that grants should be used to establish revolving
loan programs; at the same time rebates offer a specificity and
simplicity which would be welcomed by stakeholders and policy leaders
alike.
EPA plans to initiate the rebate program in the fall of 2013.
GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE
Question. Administrator Jackson, as you know the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative (GLRI) has been a huge investment that affects
the States of a number of members of this subcommittee. I am very
interested in hearing about the results that have been achieved. Since
2010, GLRI has received more than $1 billion of funding and you propose
another $300 million in your fiscal year 2013 budget request. Can you
tell us what results you have achieved thus far?
Answer. The investments made under the GLRI are showing promising
results in addressing the most critical environmental challenges facing
the Great Lakes. Some of the notable achievements from GLRI include:
--The Presque Isle, Pennsylvania Area of Concern (AOC) will be
delisted this year, now that all necessary management actions
are complete. Eighteen Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) at 10
different AOCs have been removed since GLRI's inception.
--One million cubic yards of contaminated sediments have been
remediated in the basin.
--GLRI has been central to keeping self-sustaining Asian carp
populations out of the Great Lakes. No new invasive species
populations have been detected in the Great Lakes.
--GLRI-funded projects contributed to the delisting of the Lake Erie
watersnake under the Endangered Species Act.
--GLRI-funded projects have contributed to a 5-year low in swimming
bans and advisories at Chicago's beaches.
Additional achievements include:
--More than 13,000 acres are being managed in order to keep
populations of invasive species controlled to a target level.
--GLRI funding has helped increase the number of acres within the
Great Lakes basin subject to the Department of Agriculture
conservation practices to approximately 270,000, an increase of
more than 50 percent. GLRI funding is now being targeted at
three priority subwatersheds to reduce phosphorus contributions
from agricultural and urban lands that contribute to harmful
algal blooms and other water quality impairments.
--Hundreds of river-miles have been cleared for fish passage by
removing or bypassing barriers. More than 20,000 acres of
wetland, coastal, upland, and island habitat have been
protected, restored, or enhanced.
--Rapid response capabilities have been improved:
--six rapid response actions were performed in the fight against
Asian carp; and
--four States have now updated their Aquatic Nuisance Species
Management Plans to include rapid response capabilities.
Question. GLRI funds--$353 million--have been directed toward toxic
substances and AOCs to remedy huge underwater sites where contamination
is especially dangerous. Specifically, what progress has been made
toward delisting AOCs?
Answer. Because EPA and its partners have prioritized and
accelerated AOC work, we expect to meet or exceed our goals to remove a
cumulative total of 41 BUIs by the end of fiscal year 2013 and to
complete management actions at a cumulative total of four AOCs. A few
examples of delisting progress are as follows:
--As noted above, the Presque Isle, Pennsylvania AOC will be delisted
by the end of this year. This will be the first U.S. delisting
of an AOC since Oswego River was delisted in 2006.
--All the management actions necessary for delisting at four
additional AOCs (Ashtabula, Ohio; River Raisin, Michigan; White
Lake, Michigan; and Sheboygan, Wisconsin) are expected to be
completed this year and all the management actions necessary
for delisting at an additional AOC (Deer Lake, Michigan) are
expected to be completed in 2013.
--EPA and its partners have started 88 projects to address BUIs at
AOCs and we remain on track to start an additional 22 projects
to address BUIs at AOCs in fiscal year 2012.
--Work done at AOCs includes completion of Great Lakes Legacy Act
projects at sites in five AOCs. This work has removed
contaminated sediments and is reviving waterfronts in the
Kinnikinnick River, Wisconsin; Grand Calumet River, Indiana;
Ashtabula River, Ohio; Detroit River, Michigan; and Muskegon
Lake, Michigan.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
PERCHLORATE
Question. In February 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) announced its intention to regulate perchlorate under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Given the nearly 300 public drinking water wells
impacted by perchlorate contamination in California, this was certainly
welcome news. Can you tell me what is the status of EPA's effort to
develop perchlorate regulations and when do expect they will be
finalized?
Answer. EPA is moving forward with the process to develop a
national primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate. EPA is
evaluating the science on perchlorate health effects and exposure to
develop a proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG). The MCLG is a
nonenforceable level in drinking water at which no known or anticipated
adverse effects on the health of persons occur and which allows an
adequate margin of safety. EPA also is evaluating treatment
technologies, analytical methods, and costs and benefits of potential
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). The MCL is the enforceable standard
that is set as close as feasible to the MCLG, taking cost into
consideration. EPA has a statutory deadline of February 2013 to issue
the proposed perchlorate rule. EPA is working to develop the proposed
regulation for public review and comment expeditiously and expects to
promulgate a final regulation within 18 months of the proposal.
Question. Will the new perchlorate standard consider pregnant women
and children as well as potential perchlorate exposure from food
products?
Answer. Yes. As EPA works to develop the MCLG, the Agency is
closely reviewing data on the effects of perchlorate on pregnant women
and children because these lifestages may be at greater risk of adverse
effects due to exposure to perchlorate in drinking water. EPA is also
considering perchlorate exposure from food products in developing the
MCLG. EPA is currently seeking input from the Science Advisory Board on
key issues related to the scientific basis for the MCLG. One of the
questions EPA has asked the SAB for input on is how life stage
differences should be considered in developing the MCLG.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
MERCURY IN AMBIENT AIR
Question. Administrator Jackson, throughout your fiscal year 2013
budget justification, I repeatedly see references to the importance of
having a strong air monitoring network for our Nation's air quality. I
steadfastly believe in having air monitoring tools to measure and track
pollutants, to identify pollutant sources, and to inform us how and
where Americans could be exposed to air pollutants. These are critical
resources that serve the Nation and should be fully supported by the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) work.
I understand that EPA is partnering with utilities to collect
mercury emission data directly from utilities and that you believe that
this partnership will allow you to assess the effectiveness of existing
technologies in meeting current mercury reduction requirements. I am
curious, though, as to how this partnering will serve those citizens
who live at a considerable distance from utilities with mercury
emissions but are nevertheless subject to the regional transport of
out-of-State sources of mercury. In my home State of Vermont, we have
collected a continuous sampling of particulate and gaseous mercury air
levels at the Underhill Air Quality site (VT99), where research
measurements have been made since 2004. This long-term record is
necessary for detecting trends, and since 1993 we have established an
unbroken record of mercury measurements in precipitation. Through this
monitoring, we have learned many important lessons and have also found
that the current Community Multi-scale Air Quality model estimates for
mercury deposition have proven too low for northern Vermont and New
England. This is the longest continuous mercury deposition record in
the United States.
I find it extremely troubling and perplexing that the EPA has made
cuts in funding to the Atmospheric Mercury Network (AMNet) and VT99,
which coincides with your December 2011 announcement of new mercury and
air toxics standards for coal and oil-fired power plants. Can you
please explain to me your rational for ending this research and long-
term air monitoring program at the exact moment when the need for
continued monitoring for human health risk and tracking of emission
levels is most essential?
Do you agree that measurements of mercury in ambient air are
necessary to verify the anticipated deposition reductions as a result
of your newly mandated emissions reductions? If so, we must continue
the work at VT99 so we can measure progress toward restoration of
environmental quality.
Answer. Mercury is a complex and multi-faceted issue that
necessitates monitoring in all media, including air, water, sediments,
fish, and wildlife. EPA recognizes the need for comprehensive, long-
term mercury monitoring. EPA has collaborated with Federal, State, and
tribal agencies, and academic partners to provide a comprehensive
understanding of mercury in the environment using existing data,
monitoring capabilities, and resources. In particular, advances have
been made in developing a national atmospheric mercury monitoring
program by building, where possible, upon the existing long-term
monitoring infrastructure which has successfully tracked the
effectiveness of programs to control emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). Since 2007, EPA
has worked through the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)
to develop AMNet--a North American network that monitors atmospheric
concentrations of mercury at 20 sites throughout the United States and
Canada. NADP/AMNet is sponsored by a multi-organizational cooperative
of Federal, State, and tribal agencies, universities, and private
companies.
Many of the AMNet mercury sites were established by different
organizations to support an array of diverse research and monitoring
objectives. The Underhill VT99 site is an example of an existing
atmospheric mercury monitoring site that joined AMNet. Historically,
these sites operated in an uncoordinated manner, using disparate
protocols for measurement, data management, and quality assurance. In
other words, they did not comprise a coordinated network of atmospheric
mercury monitoring sites providing comparable data to assess
implementation of a national mercury control program. With the
development of AMNet, NADP and its partners, including EPA, took an
opportunity to coordinate existing monitoring sites and collaborate
with the scientists operating those sites to create a cohesive network
of standardized measurements complemented by an organized scientific
community.
As part of the initial catalyst to establish AMNet, EPA provided a
small amount of funds, through competitively awarded time-limited
contracts, to six monitoring groups to operate atmospheric mercury
sites. With a core set of AMNet sites established, EPA's focus turned
to facilitating the development and implementation of a centralized
NADP data management program to assure high quality and comparable
mercury measurement data across the United States. Toward that end, EPA
uses its resources to continue supporting AMNet by funding NADP's AMNet
quality assurance and data management activities.
EPA served as a catalyst in launching the AMNet collaborative
mercury monitoring effort. We remain committed to working with NADP and
our partners in the scientific community to track progress of mercury
emissions reductions under our air rules. We hope that the atmospheric
mercury monitoring sites and experts participating in AMNet will
continue to improve our understanding of mercury in the environment.
CHEMICAL SAFETY
Question. As a cosponsor of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 I am
acutely aware of the need to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act
of 1976 (TSCA). It is clear that the EPA desperately needs new tools to
regulate the health and safety testing of toxic chemicals. Your fiscal
year 2013 budget justification requests a funding increase of $11
million for enhancing chemical safety and assessing chemical risks.
Please tell me what resources EPA proposes to put toward work on
carbon nanotubes with this requested increase in funding.
Answer. EPA's fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests a total
of $67.6 million to support the Chemical Risk Review and Reduction
(CRRR) program, which includes an $11.1 million increase more than the
fiscal year 2012 amount appropriated for the CRRR Program account
($56.5 million). As detailed in the Congressional Budget Justification,
the fiscal year 2013 CRRR request is divided into four areas of
activity:
--$13.9 million to support Existing Chemicals--Obtaining/Managing
Data efforts;
--$14.9 million to support Existing Chemicals--Chemical Assessment
efforts;
--$24.6 million to support Existing Chemicals--Risk Management
efforts; and
--$14.2 million to support the New Chemicals Program.
Resources supporting EPA's work on carbon nanotubes are housed in
all four of these activity areas. We should note that EPA does not
estimate resources on a chemical-by-chemical basis, as would be
required in order to further specify the amount of funding budgeted for
carbon nanotube work.
Question. Does EPA have sufficient resources to truly address and
assess the risk level from carbon nanotubes and efficiently approve
nanomaterials that manufacturers have proven minimize or eliminate the
associated adverse impacts on human health?
Answer. EPA's fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests the
resources necessary to continue to gather environmental health and
safety data, assess risk levels and, as necessary, undertake risk
management action to address identified risks associated with some of
the carbon nanotubes already in commerce and to continue to review new
nanomaterials submitted to EPA through the new chemicals program prior
to their entry into commerce. As the science of nanomaterials evolves,
EPA will continue to enhance its approach to obtaining and using
information to inform both risk assessment and risk management to
inform decisionmaking. For example, EPA is considering the development
of categories of nanomaterials, based on shared chemical and
toxicological properties, which may enable the Agency to make use of
accumulated data common to each category (such as data on chemical
hazard, structure, and properties) as well as a history of past
decisions that may be relevant. In most cases, sufficient history would
have been accumulated so that testing recommendations would vary little
among the chemicals within a category.
Question. What progress can you assure me will occur in EPA's work
on nanoscale materials? In addition, do you expect that EPA will be
able to make advances in its work in determining when nanoscale
materials may require further assessment and when there has been
sufficient testing without requiring undue additional expenses for
manufacturers?
Answer. EPA will continue to pursue a comprehensive regulatory
approach under TSCA to ensure that both new and existing nanoscale
materials are manufactured and used in a manner that protects against
unreasonable risks to human health and the environment. EPA's approach
includes pre-manufacture notifications; Significant New Use Rules;
information gathering rules; and test rules. For example, EPA has
played a leading role in guiding the development of test data and
harmonized approaches to the testing, assessment, and management of
nanomaterials with other Federal agencies for several years. EPA will
continue to work in fiscal year 2013 with other Federal agencies
through the National Nanotechnology Initiative and internationally with
other governments to identify and develop these sources of data, with
an emphasis on providing guidance for applying internationally
harmonized chemical test guidelines to nanomaterials. EPA is already
assessing and addressing the potential risk from carbon nanotubes and
other nanomaterials. As new data are developed for nanomaterials, EPA
will refine its approach to both risk assessment and risk management.
EPA will identify those nanomaterials or categories of nanomaterials
that require additional data development or risk management as well as
the nanomaterials that do not warrant further testing or other actions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
CAMELINA BIODIESEL AND THE RENEWABLE FUELS STANDARD
Question. Just over 2 years ago, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) released a final rule setting up the Renewable Fuels Standard
(RFS2). Every year since then, EPA has had to drastically revise its
advanced biofuel quotas down, due to the fact that there was no chance
the biofuel industry could meet them.
Part of the RFS2 rule was the establishment of a process to approve
new feedstocks for production of biofuel. However, since the RFS2 was
established, Canola is the only feedstock that has been approved
through that process.
At the same time, I know that Montana producers have been working
toward approval of biodiesel from camelina and ethanol from barley
almost since the day the RFS2 was established.
I have watched with growing concern the lack of newly approved fuel
pathways eligible for Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs),
particularly given the backlog of petitions that the EPA is
considering. EPA did approve a handful of pathways in January, only to
withdraw that approval shortly thereafter, resulting in yet another
crop year without recognition of these innovative fuels.
I am concerned that unless EPA enhances the diversity of fuel
pathways eligible for RINs, the renewable fuels standard will continue
to act as a barrier to entry for new and promising feedstocks by
supporting incumbents that frankly don't need the help.
To what extent is EPA's inability to approve new fuel pathways
contributing to the lack of advanced biofuel? What is EPA doing to get
the petition program for new fuel pathways working as intended?
Answer. As a clarification, in the past 2 years, EPA has not had to
reduce the advanced biofuel mandate, only the cellulosic volume
mandate. Therefore, we do not believe that the new fuel pathway
approval process is contributing to a shortage of advanced biofuels.
Since the RFS2 volume standards are nested (with cellulosic fuels being
a subset of advanced fuels), the total advanced biofuel mandate can
remain unchanged even if cellulosic volumes are reduced. To date, EPA
has not reduced the overall advanced volume mandates since our analysis
has shown that there is a sufficient supply of advanced biofuels. What
this means is that refiners and blenders have still been obligated to
acquire sufficient advanced biofuel to fulfill the statutory mandate,
even though the EPA Administrator lowered the required volume for
cellulosic biofuel. Biodiesel from camelina and ethanol from barley
could potentially qualify as advanced biodiesel, if the fuel pathways
satisfy certain criteria.
In the final RFS2 rule, EPA developed a petition process to allow
for new potential pathways to be reviewed and incorporated into the RFS
program. In the last 2 years, EPA has made significant progress in
evaluating new feedstocks and fuels under the RFS program. For example,
EPA has approved canola as a new feedstock and six other new fuel
pathways through the petition process. In addition, EPA released for
public comment analysis on six other feedstocks (arundo donax,
camelina, energy cane, napiergrass, palm oil, and sorghum). EPA
recognizes the need to review and include new advanced biofuel
feedstocks to help further the goals of the Energy Independence and
Security Act. To this end, EPA tried to expedite the approval of arundo
donax, camelina, energy cane, and napiergrass through a direct final
rulemaking process. However, EPA received relevant adverse comments as
part of the public review process and was legally required to withdraw
the direct final rule and proceed instead with a proposed rule. EPA is
working to respond to these comments and finalize the analysis of these
pathways as quickly as possible.
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY
Question. Administrator Jackson, I understand that your agency is
in the process of developing guidance for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
projects. I am a strong supporter of enhanced oil recovery and believe
it is a win-win for the storage of CO2 as well as getting
more oil out of existing fields. EOR helps to localize the impact of
oil field development, while increasing our energy security with
domestic production.
I have heard some concern from some in industry that this proposed
guidance makes could hinder EOR use and expansion.
Question. Are you supportive of developing EOR?
Answer. EPA remains committed to the safe implementation of
enhanced oil and gas recovery technologies. Since the 1980s, EPA has
worked with State co-regulators to ensure that injection of
CO2 (and other fluids) for enhanced oil and gas recovery is
conducted in an environmentally sound manner that enables increased
energy security through domestic hydrocarbon production.
Question. Can you assure me that EPA will continue to work with
stakeholders to assure that guidance on this program is workable and
encourage the use of EOR?
Answer. EPA will continue to work with stakeholders, including
State co-regulators and industry representatives, to develop this
guidance and intends to implement it in a manner that is consistent
with existing EOR regulations and Underground Injection Control program
authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
OIL SPILL RESPONSE AND TRIBES
Question. Administrator Jackson, last year on the Blackfoot
Reservation in Montana there was a small oil spill from an oil
distribution pipeline. This occurred about the same time we had the
larger spill on the Yellowstone River. Unfortunately the small spill
wasn't found for nearly 1 month because it was in a distribution line.
In Montana a number of tribes, including the Blackfeet are actively
developing their traditional energy resources, in particular oil and
natural gas. Unfortunately, many tribes lack a full staff of people to
regularly monitor well and develop safeguards for the development of
energy resources.
Question. What is EPA doing to provide technical assistance to
tribes who have expanding energy development to develop safeguards are
in place to prevent incidents like what happened on Browning?
Answer. EPA conducts numerous workshops and inspections to provide
technical assistance to tribes who have expanding energy development
regarding oil spill prevention and response. EPA routinely includes
inspections of production facilities on tribal lands with tribal
environmental personnel to train the tribe on the requirements of the
SPCC regulation and address facilities the tribe may have concerns
about. EPA also routinely answers technical questions from the tribal
environmental office to provide assistance on the requirements of the
spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) regulation, respond
to spills and complaints, and address noncompliance.
The following examples are representative of the types of
assistance EPA provides to tribes that are developing their traditional
energy resources:
--In 2010 and 2011, EPA worked with Fort Berthold officials on spill
response capabilities and conducted workshops to improve
compliance with SPCC regulations. In previous years, EPA
similarly conducted SPCC workshops on the Uintah & Ouray,
Southern Ute, and Wind River Reservations.
--In August 2011, EPA provided technical assistance to the Blackfeet
Tribe by conducting interactive SPCC training for nine
participants from tribal environmental staff, emergency
response staff, and a representative from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). This training focused on how to identify
facilities that could pose a high risk for a spill or that may
not be in compliance. EPA also discussed with the tribe
concerns they had regarding facilities or spills that had
occurred.
--In June 2011, EPA inspectors were accompanied by tribal personnel
during the SPCC inspections conducted on the Fort Berthold
reservation. In August 2011, EPA inspectors were accompanied by
Blackfeet Tribal environmental and emergency staff, as well as
a BIA representative, on SPCC inspections.
--During Tribal Region Operation Committee meetings held at the
Region 8 office, the prevention and preparedness program
presented and distributed outreach materials. The region also
distributed materials on oil spill prevention during the Denver
March Pow Wow.
--In September 2011, EPA held a 4-day oil response training course
for members of the Three Affiliated Tribes. This course is
designed for EPA Federal On-Scene-Coordinators (FOSCs), U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG) FOSCs, and tribal, State, and local
responders who are involved in inland oil spill prevention and
cleanup. The course was focused around a hands-on practical oil
spill response scenario on fast water usually found in rivers
in the western regions of the United States. Course
participants learned physical and chemical properties;
statutory and regulatory framework; factors affecting response
and cleanup decisions; how to read rivers; determine oil
recovery locations; determine various methods of boom
deployment; and deploy oil recovery methods on fast water
rivers.
--In addition to oil spill prevention and response training, EPA
initiated meetings with all 27 tribal governments to create a
foundation for open communication and to understand the
priorities, risks and vulnerabilities of the Region 8 tribes.
The region plans to meet with the tribes in order to conduct an
assessment of tribal emergency planning and preparedness
capabilities in order to tailor an appropriate technical
assistance and training regimen specific to the tribal needs.
--With oil and gas production being one of the top priorities for the
tribes, on June 13, 2012, EPA conducted a workshop to help
tribal communities understand potential issues and resources
available to prepare for and address environmental accidents,
spills, and releases due to oil and gas drilling and production
processes. Information included an overview of the production
process itself, a summary of the various EPA laws and
regulations that cover oil and gas production, and information
from other guest speakers including, but not limited to,
private industry, the Department of Transportation, and the
Bureau of Land Management.
As with EPA's activities in previous years, there are also plans to
continue one-on-one outreach, SPCC technical assistance, and joint
inspections with certain tribes in 2012.
EPA has a goal to update and create new Area Contingency Plans that
would include Browning, Montana. As part of this effort, EPA Region 8
has held meetings with representatives from the tribes, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, BIA, Army Corps of Engineers, Departments of
Agriculture and State, and local agencies to discuss subarea
contingency planning for the Missouri River-Lake Sakakawea area.
LIBBY, MONTANA SUPERFUND SITE
Question. Montana also has some big challenges with Superfund. In
Montana we have the dubious honor of having 11 Superfund sites on the
National Priorities List. These are some of the largest and most
complex in the United States. And Administrator Jackson, as I've said
each year as you come before this subcommittee it needs your personal
attention.
Let me take a moment to talk about Libby, Montana. It has been more
than 10 years since EPA's work in Libby commenced, and there are still
a number of unanswered questions and actions with questions. Currently
the toxicological review of Libby Amphibole Asbestos has a draft form
and is being circulated.
Question. When do you believe you will be able to finalize that
study? And when can you start using the Science Advisory Board's (SAB)
information to make decisions about if homes are safe or clean for the
citizens of Libby?
Answer. EPA currently anticipates completing and posting the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Toxicological Review of Libby
Amphibole Asbestos in fall 2013. EPA's SAB has indicated that they
expect their peer review advice will be published by November 2012. As
per the IRIS process, EPA will then conduct any further analyses needed
to respond to the peer review and revise the draft assessment to
respond to comments. After internal and interagency reviews, a final
Toxicological Review of Libby Amphibole Asbestos will be posted on
IRIS.
To date, risks from exposure to Libby Amphibole have been
substantially reduced through cleanup actions at 1,670 properties in
Libby, including homes, commercial buildings, parks, and other
recreational spaces. Once the Toxicological Review of Libby Amphibole
Asbestos is posted on IRIS, the toxicity values can be used for human
health risk assessments. EPA will evaluate the remaining properties in
Libby and reassess the properties that have undergone cleanup actions
to determine whether additional cleanup is required. Region 8 will be
able to publish a draft cumulative human health risk assessment for the
Libby Superfund Site approximately 6 months after the IRIS posting of
the Libby Amphibole toxicity values. The results of the human health
risk assessment, as well as community opinions and concerns, will be
considered by EPA as it evaluates alternatives and selects an
appropriate response to address site risks.
CLARK FORK CLEAN UP SITE
Question. Currently in the State of Montana has great work going on
the Clark Fork River restoring a watershed. This work will restore
clean water, fish, and aquatic species habitat and revitalize a
corridor home to many of Montana's farms and ranches.
This site, listed in 1985, has waited a long time for clean up.
The State and EPA have entered into a consent agreement with the
State as lead agency, a position well deserved after their good work in
Silver-Bow County and on Milltown Dam.
There is more than $100 million ready to put people to work in the
restoration economy in Montana. Unfortunately, as of my last update,
this work has is still stalled for while lawyers bicker over small
technicalities and details.
Question. Can I have your commitment that you will work the lead
agency, the State of Montana, to get any issues resolved and make sure
this project commences in a timely fashion so that by this summer we
can be putting people back to work cleaning up the banks of the Clark
Fork?
Answer. EPA remains committed to working with the lead agency, the
Montana Department of Environmental Quality (Montana DEQ), to help the
Montana DEQ implement the remedy in an efficient and effective manner.
Under a 2008 consent decree, the Montana DEQ received $123 million from
Atlantic Richfield to perform State-lead Superfund remedial design,
remedial action, and natural resource damage restoration for the Clark
Fork River Operable Unit (Clark Fork Site) of the Milltown Reservoir
Sediments/Clark Fork River Superfund Site. EPA has consistently met
review times requested by the Montana DEQ for deliverables and has
worked expeditiously to resolve issues to help the Montana DEQ complete
design and construction on the Clark Fork River.
The Montana DEQ began construction in 2010 by removing arsenic and
lead contaminated soil from eight residential properties located on
East Side Road in Deer Lodge. The Montana DEQ also cleaned up six
residential properties adjacent to the Clark Fork River in Deer Lodge
in 2011. Cleanup construction was completed at the Trestle Area Bridge
in Deer Lodge in fall 2011. Construction firms out of Butte, Missoula,
and Lincoln, Montana were able to bid successfully on these
construction projects.
In addition, engineering firms from Helena and Butte, under
contract to the Montana DEQ, collected design level data in 2011 at the
Grant Kohrs Ranch National Historic Park and the Clark Fork Coalition
Ranch. The Montana DEQ has already incorporated data collected during
these investigations into Design Summary Reports. Draft preliminary
designs are anticipated in fall 2012, with final design packages going
out for construction bids in 2013.
Finally, the Montana DEQ is currently incorporating design review
team comments into its final design for cleanup of the first 1.6 miles
of the Clark Fork River directly below the Warm Springs Ponds (Reach A,
Phase 1). Montana DEQ will solicit bids later this summer for a multi-
year construction project that will begin in fall 2012.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
DESIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM
Question. Administrator Jackson, I would like to bring to your
attention some concerns I have with the Design for the Environment
(DfE) program. This program is intended to identify chemicals for which
increased margins of safety may be needed and to make suggestions on
alternative chemicals that would provide increased margins of safety.
As I understand it, Congress did not explicitly fund or create this
program, nor did the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issue
regulations outlining any criteria on which to select products for
which substitutes are sought. Furthermore, there is no criteria that
exists to define the improved safety of the alternatives. While the
program may be deemed voluntary, the process will lead to manufacturers
substituting alternatives, none of which have been approved by a
government agency as safe for use or by industry as technically or
commercially viable. Therefore the DfE program can effectively drive
major structural changes in the chemical industry while avoiding the
rigor of the regulatory process.
I am very concerned with the lack of transparency in the
decisionmaking process and the lack of defined criteria upon which DfE
chemical evaluations are based.
Are the chemical evaluations under the DfE program done consistent
with other EPA chemical evaluations or assessments such as under the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)?
Answer. Yes, DfE chemical evaluations are consistent with other EPA
evaluations, including IRIS, and use similar criteria. For example, the
IRIS assessment process includes obtaining information through a
comprehensive literature search and data call in. The IRIS assessment
process also includes professional EPA science experts evaluating
research studies on health effects and providing judgments regarding
issues such as appropriate study choice, characterization of effects,
and uncertainty factors, among others. Data sources for DfE evaluations
include the following:
--Publicly available data obtained from a literature review;
--Data contained in confidential business information received by
EPA;
--Structure-Activity-Relationship based estimations from EPA's
Pollution Prevention Framework and Sustainable Futures
predictive methods; and
--Professional judgment of EPA science experts with decades of
chemical review experience.
When IRIS assessments are available, they are a primary
consideration for DfE chemical evaluations.
Question. If chemical evaluations for DfE are not conducted in a
similar fashion, what is the evaluation process and where is it
documented?
Answer. The DfE approach for conducting chemical evaluations is
similar to evaluations in other EPA programs.
WASTEWATER OPERATIONS--UNDERGROUND PIPE INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. Efforts are currently being made by innovative companies
to assist small- and medium-sized cities to maximize cost savings and
asset management for their underground pipe infrastructure. Efforts
involve aggregating data and leveraging information to the benefit of
municipalities' wastewater operations and financial planning. What is
EPA currently doing to aggressively compliment or incentivize
municipalities to embrace this proven, comprehensive, cost savings
practice?
Answer. EPA has been in the forefront, especially in the area of
Asset Management practices, with a whole series of initiatives to
assist communities in making more efficient and effective long-term,
life-cycle based decisions regarding water and wastewater
infrastructure. The key elements in the EPA strategy are based on
providing training and knowledge transfer and supporting the
development of new tools and techniques to foster better municipal
system outcomes. Over the past decade, approximately 60, 2-day ``hands-
on'' workshops have been held with more than 4,500 local water and
wastewater personnel attending these training sessions. In addition,
EPA has worked closely with the Water Environment Research Foundation
to establish a focused research program to address some of the key
knowledge questions associated with the aging of our water and
wastewater infrastructure. Much of this work is focused on underground
pipe infrastructure, where the issues associated with the aging of the
networks are most prominent. Finally, a number of State SRF programs
have adopted Asset Management related incentives associated with their
funding decisions and a few States have started integrating Asset
Management requirements into their National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit process.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
INTEGRATED RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM
Question. In testimony before the Congress in July, 2011,
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Science Advisor stated that the
EPA did not intend to implement the reforms identified in chapter 7 of
the National Academy of Science (NAS) peer review report on the
formaldehyde Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment for
draft assessments that had then been released for peer review but not
finalized. Since that time, EPA has also chosen not to implement those
reforms to certain draft assessments subsequently released for peer
review. EPA's stated rationale for that decision was that NAS did not
intend to delay IRIS assessments pending development of program-wide
reforms. However, a review of the specific NAS recommendations for
improving the formaldehyde assessment demonstrates that they parallel
the NAS recommendations for longer-term IRIS reform. Clearly, then, NAS
wanted and expected EPA to implement on a chemical-specific basis going
forward recommendations comparable to those NAS was recommending that
EPA develop over a longer-term for the program as a whole.
Given NAS' conclusion that its recommendations are ``critical for
the development of a scientifically sound IRIS assessment'' and EPA's
conclusion that all the NAS' recommendations are warranted, what is
EPA's justification for implementing those reforms for some chemicals,
like formaldehyde, but not others in like or earlier stages of
development than formaldehyde at the time of the NAS report?
In its recent progress report to the Congress on the status of its
IRIS reform efforts and elsewhere, EPA has stated that it agrees that
all the NAS recommendations are scientifically sound and should and
will be implemented by EPA. However, EPA is applying only a few of
those reforms to some of the assessments in the pipeline and none of
them to others now under development.
Answer. EPA agrees with and is implementing the NAS
recommendations. Consistent with the advice of the NAS in their
``Roadmap for Revision'' in chapter 7 of the formaldehyde review
report, EPA is implementing the recommendations using a phased
approach. Specifically, the NAS stated that ``the committee recognizes
that the changes suggested would involve a multiyear process and
extensive effort by the staff of the National Center for Environmental
Assessment and input and review by the EPA Science Advisory Board and
others.'' In implementing the recommendations in a phased approach, EPA
is making the most extensive changes to documents that are in the
earlier steps of the assessment development process.
For assessments that are in the later stages of development, EPA is
implementing the recommendations without taking the assessments
backwards to earlier steps of the process. Phase 1 of implementing the
NAS recommendations has focused on editing and streamlining documents
and using more tables, figures, and appendices. However, for some
assessments, EPA went beyond the changes that were slated for Phase 1
to incorporate changes slated for Phase 2. For example, the final
dioxin reanalysis (released as part of the Phase 1 batch of
assessments) included:
--Evaluation tables for epidemiology study summaries;
--Health effects study descriptions in an appendix to streamline the
main text;
--Graphical and tabular displays of potential points of departure and
oral reference dose candidate values; and
--Links to the Health and Environmental Research Online (HERO)
database for all citations.
EPA is now in Phase 2 of implementing the NAS recommendations, as
evidenced by the recent release of the draft IRIS assessment of
ammonia. This assessment represents a major advancement in implementing
the NAS recommendations. EPA is using a new document structure,
including an executive summary presenting major conclusions, a preamble
describing methods used to develop the assessment, distinct sections on
Hazard Identification and Dose-Response Analysis, and more tables and
figures to clearly present data. Additionally, as part of Phase 2, EPA
is addressing all of the short-term recommendations provided by the
NAS, including:
--Eliminating redundancy in format to substantially reduce the volume
of text;
--Adding a preamble to describe the methods of the assessment;
--Providing detailed information about the literature search and
describing how studies were selected for evaluation;
--Using the HERO database to allow public access to all studies
considered and cited in the assessment;
--Using standardized evidence tables instead of long text
descriptions;
--Conducting a more thorough and standardized evaluation of studies,
including strengths and weaknesses;
--Developing a more integrated synthesis of health information
organized by toxicological effect, including a discussion of
weight of evidence;
--Clearly describing all decision points;
--Presenting candidate reference values for multiple endpoints, where
appropriate; and
--Considering the possibility of combining multiple studies or
effects for deriving toxicity values, instead of choosing the
most sensitive effect.
Phase 3 of implementation, which will begin when EPA convenes a
workshop on weight of evidence, will incorporate the longer-term
scientific recommendations made by the NAS, including:
--Incorporating a systematic identification of the relevant evidence;
--Developing and utilizing criteria for evaluating the strength of
the evidence; and
--Developing language for describing the strength of the evidence of
causation so that a standardized approach is used that is
comparable among different agents and outcomes.
Question. Given EPA's concurrence with NAS' conclusion that all
these reforms are critical to scientifically sound assessments, upon
what basis has EPA concluded that some assessments now being prepared
are more deserving of these reforms than others?
Answer. As discussed in the response to question 1, EPA has used a
systematic approach to implementing the NAS recommendations in a phased
manner based on stage of assessment development.
Question. The recommendations are being applied based on the stage
of development of the assessment. Thus, those in the earliest stage of
development are in Phase 3, while those in the later stages are in
Phases 1 and 2. We did this so as not to unduly delay the release of
final assessments and to ensure that the effort placed in drafting the
document was not lost. This is consistent with the advice of the NAS.
If EPA's basis is that it is important to finalize quickly
assessments now in the later stages of development, has EPA concluded
that it is more important to get these assessments prepared quickly
than it is to get them prepared correctly, that is, in a manner that
both EPA and NAS have concluded is critical to scientifically sound
assessments?
Answer. EPA is working as quickly as possible to finalize
assessments. However, quality and correctness of assessments are not
being sacrificed for speed.
Question. Sound science and independent, open-to-the public,
scientific peer review are the cornerstones of the IRIS program and the
foundation upon which IRIS is built. Every IRIS assessment that has
been finalized has been through rigorous independent external peer
review and has been revised to address the peer review comments,
ensuring that EPA is using the best-available sound science.
The Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of NAS recently
informed the Senate and House Appropriations Committees that it had
unanimously concluded that in lieu of the two discretionary NAS IRIS
assessment peer reviews called for by the conference report language
for EPA's appropriation in title II of Public Law 112-74, it would be
more productive and valuable for the IRIS program if NAS undertook a
comprehensive in-depth review of EPA's IRIS report development process
and the changes in that process contemplated by EPA. Do you concur with
that conclusion?
Answer. Yes, EPA agrees that it would be more productive and
valuable for the IRIS Program if the NAS undertook a comprehensive in-
depth review of the IRIS assessment development process in lieu of peer
reviewing two draft IRIS assessments. It is most appropriate for the
NAS to address broad scientific issues rather than conducting reviews
of individual IRIS assessments.
Question. EPA is committed to a strong and robust IRIS program. The
EPA welcomes NAS' review of the IRIS assessment development process and
looks forward to working with the NAS to continue to strengthen the
IRIS program.
We have received several reports of newly developed IRIS toxicity
values that are well below naturally occurring background levels of the
chemicals involved to which the public is routinely exposed. If these
values were scientifically valid, wouldn't one expect to find evidence
of adverse health effects that to date are not apparent?
Answer. By definition, a reference dose (RfD) is an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral
exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that
is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects
during a lifetime. That is, the RfD is the level of exposure that a
person could experience every day over their entire lifetime without an
appreciable risk of harmful effects. The derivation of an RfD generally
includes the use of uncertainty factors that account for limitations in
scientific information. Therefore, it is designed to be public health
protective. It is expected that a person's exposure to a certain
chemical might vary throughout their lifetime, increasing at some
points and decreasing at others. Exceeding the RfD for one day, or a
week or more does not necessarily mean that an individual has a greater
risk of a health effect. As exposure increases above the RfD for
prolonged periods, then the potential risk for health effects
increases. It is generally not possible to determine an exact exposure
level at which the risk of adverse effects will start to increase. Nor
is it generally possible to determine exactly how many days of exposure
above the RfD it would take to increase the risk of health effects.
In addition, the term ``background'' may mean different things,
such as the production of endogenous compounds or naturally occurring
substance. Just because something occurs naturally in the environment
does not mean it is without harm. In some cases, naturally occurring
substances may lead to adverse health effects in humans. For example,
people in certain locations outside the U.S. are exposed to high levels
of naturally occurring arsenic in their drinking water. Health effects,
such as skin pigmentation and cancer, have been identified in these
populations. In most cases, however, well-conducted epidemiological
studies have not been performed to evaluate whether adverse effects are
occurring at background levels of exposure.
Finally, the human body does not discern between naturally
occurring and manmade substances. The toxicity of a chemical is the
same regardless of the source, and understanding the toxicity of a
chemical, natural or not, makes for better informed decisions.
Question. Moreover, in as much as the principal purpose of IRIS
assessments is to educate the public and risk managers as to
concentrations of chemicals above which unacceptable risks may exist,
how useful are these values when they are at levels that risk managers
and the public cannot rectify?
Answer. IRIS assessments are useful to risk managers and the
public. IRIS assessments provide information on the toxicity of
chemicals. Risk managers use IRIS values, along with information about
exposure, to characterize the public health risk of chemicals. When
making decisions, they also take into consideration other factors, such
as statutory and legal considerations, risk management options, public
health considerations, cost/benefit considerations, and economic and
social factors.
It should also be noted that just because something occurs
naturally in the environment does not mean it is without harm. The
human body does not discern between naturally occurring and manmade
substances. The toxicity of a chemical is the same regardless of the
source, and understanding the toxicity of a chemical, natural or not,
makes for better informed decisions. It is important that risk managers
and the American public have the most up-to-date information on the
health effects of chemicals in their environment.
Question. When EPA develops a toxicity value that is lower than
background levels in such public spaces as urban areas and schools, or
at people's homes, does it evaluate the implications of such a value on
public perception of safe levels of chemicals and on use of societal
resources to address such exceedingly low values?
Answer. IRIS assessments provide information on the toxicity of
chemicals. When this information is combined with specific exposure
information, government and private entities can use IRIS to help
characterize the public health risks of chemical substances. When risk
managers make decisions, they consider additional information, such as
the use of societal resources, statutory and legal considerations, risk
management options, public health considerations, cost/benefit
considerations, and economic and social factors.
Question. The IRIS program is very important to establishing
credible cleanup standards that touch many people and organizations.
It's very important that these standards be credible and be based on
the best-available science. The Congress has asked EPA to implement the
NAS recommendations with regard to the IRIS program to restore its
credibility. Yet implementation is slow and reports are still moving
through the approval process without the benefit of being subjected to
the rigor recommended by the NAS. Could you explain why you are pushing
through new standards for individual substances absent the sound
science approach recommended by NAS?
Again, our goal is to have the best-possible science guide this
standard setting.
Answer. EPA is using a systematic approach to implementing the NAS
recommendations in a phased manner, based on stage of assessment
development. Every IRIS assessment that has been finalized has been
through rigorous independent external peer review and has been revised
to address the peer review comments, ensuring that EPA is using the
best-available sound science.
Question. IRIS assessments and IRIS toxicity values are not
standards. An IRIS human health assessment is a scientific and
technical report that provides information on hazard identification and
dose response. When information from an IRIS assessment is combined
with specific exposure information, government and private entities can
use IRIS to help characterize the public health risks of chemical
substances. It is during the risk management part of the risk
assessment/risk management paradigm that standards are developed. In
making risk management decisions, EPA considers the supporting science,
as well as statutory and legal considerations, risk management options,
public health considerations, cost/benefit considerations, and economic
and social factors.
Could you explain why you are willing to have the IRIS program
subjected to wide criticism by rushing through standards absent the
rigor of an NAS type review?
Many of us on the subcommittee have already heard from constituents
that have problems with some of the proposals in the works.
EPA has stated that it does not want its reforms in response to the
NAS report to delay issuing of IRIS reports.
Answer. IRIS assessments and IRIS toxicity values are not
standards. An IRIS human health assessment is a scientific and
technical report that provides information on hazard identification and
dose response. When information from an IRIS assessment is combined
with specific exposure information, government and private entities can
use IRIS to help characterize the public health risks of chemical
substances. It is during the risk management part of the risk
assessment/risk management paradigm that standards are developed. In
making risk management decisions, EPA considers the supporting science,
as well as statutory and legal considerations, risk management options,
public health considerations, cost/benefit considerations, and economic
and social factors.
EPA is using a systematic approach to implementing the NAS
recommendations in a phased manner based on stage of assessment
development. This is consistent with the advice of the NAS in their
``Roadmap for Revision'' in chapter 7 of the formaldehyde review
report. The NAS did not intend for their recommendations to slow down
or delay issuing IRIS assessments, but rather noted that ``the changes
suggested would involve a multiyear process and extensive effort by the
staff of the National Center for Environmental Assessment and input and
review by the EPA Science Advisory Board and others.''
Independent, open-to-the public, scientific peer review is a
cornerstone of the IRIS Program. Every draft IRIS assessment is subject
to independent, external scientific peer review. Every IRIS assessment
that has been finalized has been through rigorous independent external
peer review and has been revised to address the peer review comments,
ensuring that EPA is using the best-available sound science.
Question. Given EPA's statement that IRIS documents do not have
regulatory effect and given EPA's existing statutory authority at
cleanup sites and for regulatory standards and permitting, are there
any specific EPA program needs for IRIS values that cannot be met
through EPA's other existing authorities? If so, please explain these
needs. If not, please explain why it is sound public policy not to
carry out the NAS recommendations before issuing IRIS values?
Answer. IRIS was designed to develop assessment values for use
throughout EPA, and this remains the case. The IRIS program develops
health assessments and toxicity values in concert with scientists from
across EPA's programs and regions. The toxicity values are then added
to the IRIS database for use by EPA's program and regional offices and
others. Time and again, EPA's program and regional office have
indicated their need and strong support for the IRIS program.
The IRIS program is responsible for developing IRIS health
assessments and providing the associated toxicity values in the IRIS
database. EPA's program and regional offices determine which toxicity
values to use in their work. While we know that IRIS values are widely
used, the IRIS program does not track what toxicity values the program
offices use in every aspect of their work. The rigorous assessment
development process, which includes opportunity for public comment and
independent external peer review, ensures that EPA decisions will be
based on the best-available science.
REGIONAL HAZE REGULATIONS
Question. What steps has EPA taken to coordinate more effectively
with States on regional haze issues in response to the congressional
directive included in the conference report accompanying the fiscal
year 2012 Appropriations Act?
Why is EPA rejecting State Implementation Plans that reduce
visibility impairment consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the
congressional directive to work with the States?
Answer. Since 1999, EPA has been collaborating with the States and
with their regional planning organizations on the development of
regional haze plans. Our preference has always been to allow States
that are moving forward to complete their work, and then to give due
deference to the emission controls decisions that they reach based on
accurate technical information. In fact, we have fully approved the
plans for the District of Columbia and the following 12 States:
--California;
--Delaware;
--Illinois;
--Kansas;
--Maine;
--Maryland;
--New Hampshire;
--New Jersey;
--Rhode Island;
--South Dakota;
--Vermont; and
--Wisconsin.
All have proposed to fully approve the Alaska, Colorado,
Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, and Oregon plans.
In addition, for the following 10 States, we have fully approved
the regional haze plans with the single exception that we have adopted
a simple ``housekeeping'' Federal plan to substitute reliance on the
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for these States' earlier
decision to rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule, an approach that
will not result in any additional control requirement for any
powerplants in these States solely for regional haze purposes:
--Georgia;
--Indiana;
--Iowa;
--Kentucky;
--Missouri;
--Ohio;
--Pennsylvania;
--South Carolina;
--Virginia; and
--West Virginia.
We collaborated with these States on this approach of adopting the
CSAPR-based Federal plan. These States do not need to take any further
action to meet the current regional haze planning requirements. We
fully expect to add Tennessee to this group once the State submits and
we approve a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for a
particular source (Eastman Tennessee) so that this source can pursue
its preferred approach to the regional haze requirements. We have also
relied on a CSAPR-based Federal plan element in the case of Nebraska,
such that Nebraska also does not need to make any changes in its SIP.
North Carolina and Alabama need to amend their SIPs to substitute
reliance on CSAPR for their original reliance on CAIR, but otherwise we
have fully approved their plans.
We have also been collaborating very closely with Florida on staged
revisions to its plan to address the fact that Florida cannot rely on
CSAPR to meet all of its regional haze requirements for powerplants. We
have proposed approval of the revisions submitted to date and
anticipate proposing approval of the remaining revisions as they are
submitted. Mississippi also could not rely on CSAPR to meet all of its
regional haze requirements and therefore we had to disapprove its plan,
but we were not required to issue a Federal plan so we did not do so.
We are working with Mississippi to help it address this issue within
the next 2 years so that a Federal plan can be avoided.
In Arkansas and Louisiana, we could not fully approve the SIP and
we were required to take final disapproval action on some portions
already, but we were not required to issue a Federal plan so we did not
do so. We are working with these States to help them address the
disapproval issues within the next 2 years so that a Federal plan can
be avoided. The same situation will apply for Utah if we finalize our
proposed disapproval of portions of its SIP.
In Hawaii, Montana, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, by mutual
agreement we have developed and proposed complete Regional Haze Federal
plans because those governments did not have the resources to develop
SIPs.
Of the 11 States not mentioned above, final actions remain to be
taken on 10 States. For these 10 States, if we do not fully approve the
SIP we are required by a consent decree to adopt a Federal plan.\1\
Because of this requirement, we have already adopted final partial
Federal plans for New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. We have
proposed to disapprove portions of the SIPs for Arizona, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nevada, New York, and Wyoming, and there is not sufficient
time remaining for the State to submit new plan revisions. However, we
are duly considering the comments received from these States on our
proposed disapprovals. Also, we will collaborate with these States if
they wish to replace the final Federal plan with a State plan. We have
negotiated significant consent decree extensions for portions of the
SIPs from Arizona, Washington, and Oklahoma, and for the entire SIP
from Texas, and we will take advantage of this time to collaborate with
these States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This distinction in consent decree terms across States stemmed
from the interaction of the provisions of the Clean Air Act and the
timing of the actions taken by the States to submit their plans, not
from any choice on the part of the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The stringent pollution control equipment being selected
by EPA as BART under the Regional Haze Rule is that which would
typically be classified as best-available control technology (BACT) or
maximum achievable control technology (MACT), which is more stringent
than typically would be classified as BART.
What is the basis for this change?
Answer. EPA assesses all regional haze SIPs in accordance with the
Regional Haze Rule BART Guidelines, which were issued in 2005. With
respect to BART determinations, EPA reviews the State's assessment of
each individual source considering five statutory factors. These five
factors are:
--the costs of compliance;
--the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance;
--any existing pollution control technology in use at the source;
--the remaining useful life of the source; and
--the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be
anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
As determinations are made on a source-specific basis considering
all of the five factors, there is no promotion of one control
technology over another. Similarly, there is no ``bright line'' as to
what the EPA considers to be cost-effective technology nor is there any
presupposition that BART is more or less stringent than BACT or MACT
would be for affected sources. The magnitude of the visibility
improvement expected may warrant greater emission reductions at a
higher cost, for example when the visibility improvement is very large.
Alternatively, a BART determination may require fewer emission
reductions at a lower cost when the visibility improvement is not as
significant.
Question. EPA's regional haze SIP requirements are found in the
Regional Haze Rules (40 CFR 51.300), Appendix Y to Part 51 (Guidelines
for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule), and the preamble
discussion in the Federal Register (70 FR 39104) concerning Appendix Y.
Appendix Y indicates that NOX control costs more than $1,500
per ton are not cost effective for BART purposes.
Is EPA no longer relying on Appendix Y presumptive limits, despite
being part of the BART guidance relied on by States and companies? If
so, what is the justification for this disregard for Appendix Y?
Answer. EPA is still using its guidance on presumptive limits.
Appendix Y does not indicate that NOX control costs more
than $1,500 per ton are not cost effective for BART. In Appendix Y, EPA
states that most sources can meet the presumptive limits for less than
$1,500 per ton, but the guidelines do not establish that value as a
threshold for cost effectiveness. States must conduct a proper
evaluation of the five statutory factors, as required by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) and section 169A(g) of the CAA, before determining
whether the presumptive emission limits are the ``best available
retrofit controls'' for affected units. Because the five factors are
evaluated separately and weighted accordingly, there are no ``bright
line'' thresholds for cost effectiveness or visibility improvement.
Question. When a State has determined that alternatives (Selective
Non-Catalytic Reduction technology or combustion controls, such as Low
NOX Burners) could achieve visibility improvements at much
lower cost with visibility benefits that are on a reasonable path to
the 2064 goal, what is EPA's legal justification for requiring
different, more expensive retrofit controls and more stringent
emissions limits?
Answer. The overarching goal of section 169A of the CAA is for
States to submit SIPs that ensure reasonable progress toward remedying
visibility impairment in Class I areas. Each SIP must include the
measures necessary to make reasonable progress, including BART limits
(or alternatives that achieve greater reasonable progress than BART).
Section 169A of the CAA defines the BART requirements as ``an emission
limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the
application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for
each pollutant which is emitted'' by a BART eligible facility, and
requires that States consider five factors when assessing a control
determination for BART:
--the costs of compliance;
--the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance;
--any existing pollution control technology in use at the source;
--the remaining useful life of the source; and
--the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be
anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
In considering these five factors, States must use technically
sound approaches in estimating costs and visibility improvements.
Assuming that a State does this, the BART requirement is satisfied by
putting in place emission reduction measures that are reasonable in
light of the costs and visibility benefits associated with a control
technology, not by any presumed path between current conditions and
natural conditions.
Question. The EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition,
was published in 2002 and has been used by EPA in estimating costs in
its BART determinations.
Given that it was published in 2002, is it out-of-date? What steps
are being taken by EPA to update it?
Answer. The current version of the Control Cost Manual is the sixth
edition. Revisions of the Control Cost Manual usually include either
publication of new chapters or substantial revisions to existing ones.
Given the size of the Control Cost Manual (18 chapters) and the
reliance by many parties on its contents, EPA limits completion and
publication of new editions to avoid confusion on the State of the
contents.
The current version of the Control Cost Manual includes a well-
recognized control cost methodology that provides consistency for
States and local agencies in reviewing cost estimates prepared for BART
and other programs, and offers a foundation for the comparison of cost
estimates prepared by different sources in different locales. This
methodology is still well-recognized and valuable today. It should be
noted that a major reason for EPA disapproval of cost estimates
included in Regional Haze SIPs has been the failure to follow the
methodology for cost estimation provided in the Control Cost Manual by
either including items that are not part of this methodology or not
including all cost items. EPA has no reason to believe that the
methodology for cost estimation is out-of-date.
Question. How does EPA, a State, or a company integrate current
cost information for purposes of regional haze compliance planning with
the methodology prescribed by EPA's 2002 cost manual?
Answer. The Control Cost Manual has considerable cost and other
information (design and installation, to name two) to serve as a basis
for the preparation of BART analyses. However, we want to be clear that
the Control Cost Manual is not the only source of cost information for
a BART analysis. For instance, the reference to the Control Cost Manual
in the BART Guidelines, which is an important basis for cost analyses
to be done for Regional Haze SIPs, clearly recognizes the potential
limitations of the Manual and the need to consider additional
information sources.
A source can use data supplied by an equipment vendor or firm (i.e.
quotes, bids, or budget estimates) as cost information for a BART
analysis. The basis for using these data should be clearly documented,
either by the equipment vendor or firm or by a referenced source (e.g.,
the Control Cost Manual or other recognized source of cost
information). Thus, where the Control Cost Manual's information is
valuable and up to date for use in BART analyses, then it should be
used; where additional equipment cost data is needed to overcome any
limitations with the Control Cost Manual's data, such information
should be clearly documented as previously expressed, and should be
provided to support analyses using the Control Cost Manual's
methodology.
Question. Given that the Regional Haze program is a program to
protect the aesthetics of national parks and national wilderness areas,
and not human health, should the required visibility improvement be
discernible?
Answer. Failing to consider less-than-perceptible improvement in
visibility impairment would ignore the CAA's intent to have BART
requirements apply to sources that contribute to, as well as cause,
such impairment (70 FR 39104; RH Regulations and Guidelines for Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, July 6, 2005). A
perceptible visibility improvement is not a requirement of the BART
determination as a visibility improvement that is not perceptible may
still be determined to be significant. The importance of visibility
impacts below the thresholds of perceptibility from each of a number of
individual sources cannot be ignored given that regional haze is a
problem that is produced by a multitude of sources and emissions that
are distributed across a broad geographic area.
Question. EPA has used CALPUFF Version 5.8 to conduct visibility
modeling to analyze the impacts on visibility impairment from proposed
NOX retrofit technologies.
How does EPA respond to scholarly, peer-reviewed studies asserting
that CALPUFF Version 5.8 overestimates visibility improvements?
Answer. While the studies mentioned are stated to be peer-reviewed,
they are largely papers included as part of general proceedings at
conferences, as opposed to a formal peer review associated with
submission to scientific journals. Therefore, we do not consider these
references suitable for establishing the validity of a model or
demonstrating that a model has undergone independent scientific peer
review in accordance with EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models
(published as Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51). These guidelines, which
oversee the EPA's approach to updating air quality models, require that
studies supporting the air quality model's validity be appropriately
peer-reviewed through publication in a professional journal, a panel
review by subject experts, or other formal and well-documented process.
That said, in promulgating the BART guidelines, the EPA made the
decision to recommend the use of the CALPUFF model to estimate the 98th
percentile visibility impairment rather than the highest daily impact
value as proposed. This decision acknowledged that the regulatory
version of the CALPUFF model could lead to modeled over predictions
and, therefore, provide conservative (higher) results for peak
impacts.\2\ The decision to use the 98th percentile rather than the
highest daily value is EPA's adjustment to account for potential
overestimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Most important, the simplified chemistry in the model tends
to magnify the actual visibility effects of that source. Because of
these features and the uncertainties associated with the model, we
believe it is appropriate to use the 98th percentile--a more robust
approach that does not give undue weight to the extreme tail of the
distribution.'' 70 FR 39104, 39121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What does EPA need to do to update CALPUFF Version 5.8?
Is this underway?
Answer. In coordination with the Federal Land Mangers (FLMs), EPA
is currently pursuing updates to the current regulatory version of
CALPUFF (Version 5.8) to address known ``bugs'' and expects to complete
these updates later this year. EPA and FLM representatives met with
WEST Associates and the model developer, TRC, in February 2011 and
discussed the current status of the regulatory version of CALPUFF and
the updates implemented by TRC related to underlying model formulation
and to account for atmospheric chemistry. The information provided to
EPA at that meeting indicated that the planned updates account for new
science related to complex chemistry reactions in the atmosphere.
Because this is a regulatory application for which this model was never
approved under Appendix W, these changes would necessitate a notice and
comment rulemaking and not a simple update as previously done to
address bug-fixes.
At this time, EPA and the FLM representatives are planning to
review all available models to determine their suitability for these
analyses, including updated versions of the CALPUFF modeling system.
After review of public comment from EPA's 10th Modeling Conference, EPA
will provide more concrete plans on the process and plans for updating
Appendix W to address chemistry for individual source impacts on ozone,
secondary PM2.5 and regional haze/visibility impairment.
Question. Why is EPA not allowing the use of more recent versions
of CALPUFF, such as Version 6.4?
Answer. The newer version(s) of CALPUFF have not received the level
of review required for use in a regulatory context. Based on EPA's
review of the available evidence, the models have not been shown to be
sufficiently documented, technically valid, and reliable for use in a
BART decisionmaking process. Because of documented concern with the
science updates in the new CALPUFF versions, which affect air quality
related values, EPA has not approved these new versions of the CALPUFF
model as a ``preferred'' model. The use of the regulatory version is
approved for increment and NAAQS analysis of primary pollutants only.
Currently, CALPUFF Versions 6.112 and 6.4 have not been approved by EPA
for even this limited purpose.
Under the BART guidelines, CALPUFF should be used as a screening
tool and appropriate consultation with the reviewing authority is
required to use CALPUFF in a BART determination as part of a SIP or
FIP. Moreover, Appendix W does not identify a particular modeling
system as ``preferred'' for modeling conducted in support of State
implementation plans under 40 CFR 51.308(b) nor for supporting
secondary particulate matter or visibility assessments. Under this
general framework, EPA followed the general recommendation in Appendix
Y to use CALPUFF as a screening technique only subject to Appendix W
requirements, which include an approved protocol for using the current
5.8 version.
Furthermore, it should be noted, that the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) and EPA review of CALPUFF (Version 6.4) results for a limited
set of BART applications clearly indicates that the lower results are
driven by two input assumptions and not associated with the ``improved
chemistry.'' Use of the ``full'' ammonia limiting method and finer
horizontal grid resolution are the primary drivers in reducing modeled
visibility impacts in CALPUFF (Version 6.4). These input assumptions
have been previously reviewed by EPA and the FLMs and have been
rejected based on lack of documentation, adequate peer-review, and
technical justification and validation.
Question. In its cost estimates, it appears that EPA is
substituting the judgment of its experts, the National Park Service,
and USFS for the cost judgments of the States, utilities and most
notably expert engineering firms. For example, EPA's cost estimates are
significantly lower than the cost estimates prepared by Black and
Veatch, Sargent and Lundy, and Burns and McDonnell--each of whom is
actively engaged in the business of designing and retrofitting
Selective Catalytic Reductions (SCR) and other pollution control
equipment on existing powerplants.
What is the legal authority for EPA's lower cost estimates?
What is the legal authority for rejecting cost estimates based on
actual construction experience and market-supported bid documents?
Answer. When reviewing State plans, EPA must consider all the cost
information in the record. However, it would be arbitrary and
capricious for EPA to accept submitted cost information without any
analysis of its accuracy or consideration of significant issues raised
in comments. It would also be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to
simply reject cost estimation studies submitted by a State or source,
and we have not done so to date. Where EPA has itself estimated the
cost of control, this is because of specific flaws in the cost estimate
submitted by a State, and both our finding that there were flaws and
our own cost estimates have then been subject to public notice and
comment.
Question. How is EPA taking into account the impact of higher
elevations present in the Western United States over those in the
Eastern United States in its regional haze retrofit technology
decisions, and what is the effect of higher elevations on the operation
of SCRs?
Answer. A retrofit SCR at high elevation could require a somewhat
larger unit than what might be required at lower elevations. Any
differences in costs necessary for larger units would be part of the
factors considered in making the BART determination. For example, in
the case of the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico, which is at
a particularly high altitude compared to other powerplants, we modified
our original cost estimates to increase SCR costs in response to
comments from the owners of the station on this particular point. Cost
estimates submitted by other Western States, often prepared by the
affected sources, have not always included an explicit cost adjustment
for this possibility.
Question. How is EPA taking into account retrofit challenges
associated with congested site and equipment layouts of individual
facilities in its cost estimates of SCRs?
How is EPA taking into account the need for an affected utility
company to move and relocate previously installed pollution control
equipment in order to accommodate SCRs?
Answer. Where the State has provided reasoned cost estimates of
equipment staging and other operational or logistical concerns in
installing retrofits, EPA adopts and approves the State's figures when
evaluating a SIP for approval. In cases where EPA must estimate these
costs independently, EPA relies on its engineering judgement and
experience to make reasoned cost estimates. In some instances, EPA has
conducted site visits and revised its estimates to accommodate spacing
concerns and in another case, has invited public comment to better
estimate costs and compliance timing concerns for a source that was
faced with several SCR retrofits.
Question. In computing the cost per ton of emission reductions
expected to result from adding new controls on a unit, what is the
legal justification for EPA lowering its cost effectiveness
determinations by including reductions already achieved by emission
controls that already exist on that unit?
For example, if Low NOX Burners already exist on a unit,
why does EPA assume that emission reductions resulting from those Low
NOX Burners should instead be attributed to new SCR controls
and thus result in lower dollars per ton removed amount for the SCR
controls?
Answer. These questions address the distinction between what is
commonly referred to as average versus incremental cost effectiveness
when evaluating the cost factor for the BART determination. Average
cost effectiveness is the overall cost per ton of implementing a given
control option compared to the control (if any) that is in place now or
was in place as of some historical baseline date. Incremental cost
effectiveness is the marginal cost per ton of implementing each
succeeding and more stringent control option. Usually, incremental
cost/ton will be higher than average cost/ton. The BART Guidelines
recommend consideration of both types of cost effectiveness metrics
when making a BART determination. It is a misperception that EPA
considers only the average cost effectiveness when reviewing regional
haze SIPs, i.e., that we give credit to SCR for emission reductions
that could be achieved by Low NOX burners. The records of
our actions on regional haze SIPs document that EPA has considered both
metrics when reviewing whether a State has made a technically correct
and reasoned BART determination, or when EPA makes a BART
determination. When we use BART outcomes that have been decided in
other States or for other sources in the same State as benchmarks for
what costs are reasonable, we logically compare incremental cost/ton
values to incremental cost/ton values, and average cost/ton values to
average cost/ton values. EPA does not use a bright line test for either
the average or the incremental cost/ton.
Question. CAA requires reasonable progress toward the goal of
reducing regional haze at national parks and wilderness areas for 2064.
If EPA requires the most stringent pollution reduction equipment on
nearby coal plants today, what steps will be left to take in the future
to achieve this goal?
Answer. In the regional haze rule, EPA recognized the relatively
long time horizon necessary to achieve the aggressive statutory goal of
the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in Class I areas. CAA, however, neither
requires States to achieve that goal by 2064 nor does it excuse States
from adopting reasonable measures that would achieve the goal more
quickly. EPA adopted an analytical requirement in the regional haze
rule requiring States to consider the measures necessary to achieve the
national goal by 2064. The adoption of this analytical requirement does
not mean that States should delay the adoption of reasonable measures
such that the national goal is not achieved until 2064.
States must adopt, in their SIPs, the measures necessary to make
reasonable progress, which is defined as the emission reduction
measures that are reasonable to put in place in a given planning period
in light of costs and visibility benefits, not by any presumed path
between current conditions and natural conditions. Given the
significant impact on visibility from many coal plants and the highly
cost effective control measures, in many cases the installation of
controls on coal plants is appropriate to ensuring reasonable progress.
Even with such measures, much additional work will still be necessary
in future planning periods to meet the national goal.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT--EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514
Question. Executive Order 13514 requires the Federal Government to
purchase energy-efficient computer equipment that has been approved by
Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). EPEAT is a
proprietary list owned by the Green Electronics Council (GEC), which
certifies information technology equipment to the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 1680 standard. GEC charges
six-figure fees to manufacturers to certify that their equipment is
compliant with IEEE 1680 and eligible for government purchase. Other
testing labs have indicated that they are capable of certifying
products to IEEE 1680 at a much lower price.
Is EPA taking any steps to allow for competition, which will reduce
the prices that the Government pays for computer equipment?
Answer. EPA is not responsible for the management of EPEAT or GEC,
but EPA has a representative on the EPEAT Advisory Council who, in that
capacity, has opportunities to provide suggestions to the GEC on ways
to improve this green purchasing tool.
Through its role on the EPEAT Advisory Council, EPA has
communicated, and the GEC has recognized, the value of increasing
competition for verification services under the EPEAT Program. In May
2012, the GEC entered into a formal partnership with four third-party
certification organizations to expand the breadth and depth of
verification options available to manufacturers under the EPEAT
program. These organizations--UL Environment, Intertek, VDE, and DEKRA
SE--just took part in an extensive training GEC organized on the EPEAT
system in preparation for their verification of products on the EPEAT
Registry. For further information, please see http://www.epeat.net/pre-
network.
By way of clarification, the GEC utilizes a sliding scale under
which the annual fees that manufacturing companies pay for verification
services are calibrated according to their sales volume. Thus, smaller
firms with lower sales volume pay significantly less in annual fees
than do firms with higher sales. For further information about fees,
please see http://www.epeat.net/documents/subscriber-resources/epeat-
mse-1680.1-fee-schedule.2011-12.pdf.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
FORT BERTHOLD RESERVATION
Question. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Synthetic
Minor Source rule has the potential to shut down oil and gas drilling
on the Fort Berthold Reservation if a workable rule is not finalized by
August 30, 2012. Will EPA have a rule finalized by August 30 to ensure
the economic activity continues on the Fort Berthold Reservation? If a
plan is not finalized by August 30, how will EPA provide a pathway to
compliance for operators to ensure drilling will continue on the
Reservation?
Answer. In responding to the question, EPA assumes that the
``Synthetic Minor Source rule'' refers to the Review of New Sources and
Modifications in Indian Country Rule (also known as the Tribal Minor
New Source Review Program) published July 1, 2011 (76 FR 38748). EPA
does not believe there is the potential to shut down oil and gas
drilling on the Fort Berthold Reservation. In fact, just the opposite
is true. For projects in Indian country that exceed major source
thresholds, EPA has now made ``synthetic minor'' permits available.
This streamlined permitting mechanism has previously been available in
States, but only became available in Indian country with the
publication of the Tribal Minor New Source Review (NSR) Program.
Without this streamlining mechanism, oil and gas drilling projects on
Fort Berthold that exceed major source thresholds would be subject to
permitting under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Program.
Ten companies operating on the Fort Berthold Reservation are
currently subject to consensual enforcement agreements for drilling
operations that may have been conducted without first obtaining the
appropriate permits. EPA is actively working with these companies to
amend their agreements to allow construction of new wells during July
and August of 2012 without first obtaining synthetic minor permits from
EPA. This action will effectively protect the companies through the end
of August 2012, when the agreements expire.
We recognize that additional measures are necessary to maintain the
continued pace of development of oil and gas resources on the Fort
Berthold Reservation. To accomplish that goal, EPA, in consultation
with the tribes and the Fort Berthold Reservation operators, is
developing a targeted rule for the Fort Berthold Reservation that would
provide enforceable controls on specific oil and gas production
equipment. For the large majority of oil production sources, these
controls are likely to be sufficient to limit emissions to below the
major source PSD thresholds. EPA also proposed synthetic minor permits
for several of these sources. These proposed permits and the comments
received regarding them have informed the rule development.
EPA has committed to develop the Tribal Minor NSR rule in a timely
manner. Management in both the regional and headquarters offices fully
support this effort and have already committed substantial technical
and legal staff resources to the rule. To date, there have been no
permit-related delays in the development of new oil wells on the
Reservation. If Fort Berthold operators desire an added layer of
insurance against operating delays or interruption of activities they
are encouraged to file synthetic minor permit applications for
equipment they intend to operate in the near term after August 30,
2012. EPA does not believe this added insurance is necessary, but will
process quickly any permits that it receives.
PERMITTING GUIDANCE--DIESEL FUEL AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Question. May 4, 2012, EPA released draft permitting guidance for
using diesel fuel in oil and gas hydraulic fracturing.
How is EPA going to enforce this guidance with States that have
primacy?
Question. In a State with Underground Injection Control primacy,
will EPA have the ability to over-file against a company that does not
permit a well that uses diesel?
Answer. EPA's draft permitting guidance for diesel fuels hydraulic
fracturing was directed at EPA permit writers where EPA is the
enforcement authority. As indicated in the draft guidance, it also sets
forth EPA's best current interpretation of the existing statutory and
regulatory requirements with respect to diesel fuels hydraulic
fracturing, and, therefore, may be useful to States. States with
primacy for the Class II Underground Injection Control program have
some latitude in designing a permitting program for diesel fuels
hydraulic fracturing. While in some cases the EPA may have the
authority to bring an enforcement action in a primacy State, it is not
the EPA's intention to assume the role of State primacy agencies.
PERMITTING GUIDANCE--DIESEL FUEL AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Question. Please identify what is the source of dollars EPA is
using to complete the study identified by the Congress in EPA's fiscal
year 2010 budget?
Answer. EPA is using the funds that the Congress appropriated
through the Science and Technology (S&T) appropriation in fiscal years
2010, 2011, and 2012 to continue to study the relationship between
hydraulic fracturing and drinking water as specified in the 2010 Senate
Appropriations Committee conference report.
Question. Please identify the source of dollars the EPA is using
for any other study of hydraulic fracturing the EPA is a party.
Answer. Currently, we are not doing any hydraulic fracturing
research outside of the fiscal year 2010 ``Plan to Study the Potential
Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources''. EPA will
continue to use the drinking water research S&T appropriated funds to
complete this study.
Question. Please identify the source of funds for each individual
study.
Answer. The only hydraulic fracturing study EPA is conducting is
the fiscal year 2010 congressionally requested, ``Plan to Study the
Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water
Resources.'' All current hydraulic fracturing research falls under the
purview of this study plan. EPA will continue to use the drinking water
research S&T appropriated funds to complete this study.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Reed. If there are no further questions, I will
conclude the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., Wednesday, May 16, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and
letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
Prepared Statement of Americans for the Arts
Americans for the Arts is pleased to submit written testimony to
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies supporting fiscal year 2013 funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a level of $155 million, which
aligns closely with President Obama's fiscal 2013 budget request.
I would first like to thank Chairman Jack Reed and Ranking Member
Lisa Murkowski for your efforts last year to appropriate $155 million
to the National Endowment for the Arts. Your leadership helped to
prevent a large cut that was being proposed in the House of
Representatives. The arts community owes you and your colleagues a debt
of gratitude for your public stance in support of NEA's critical
Federal leveraging dollars. Those dollars help support creative sector
jobs, improve community access to high quality artistic programming,
spur innovation, and strengthen the country's nonprofit arts
infrastructure. Thank you again for your support.
I want to take this opportunity to describe an improving nonprofit
arts landscape and the role NEA plays in that improvement. This is not
to say there are no challenges. According to our new 2012 National Arts
Index, nonprofit arts organizations are still struggling to maintain
their bottom lines as Government and private-sector support for the
arts decreases due to the economic downturn. Even as the country
continues to move out of the worst of the recession, nonprofit arts
organizations are not immune to the prevailing economic realities. 45
percent of them ended the year with a deficit in 2009--an increase from
36 percent in 2007. Our research shows that this closely mirrors the
recession's impact on other types of nonprofit organizations.
But upon closer inspection of the nonprofit arts, a resilient
industry built upon a solid foundation for future growth is revealed.
Despite the current harsh economic landscape, the creative sector has
maintained its well-earned reputation as one of the country's premier
economic drivers. I am pleased to say that the nonprofit arts are
playing a true leadership role in restoring our economy. The arts are
about jobs. The arts are about the revitalization of communities. NEA
is the signature Federal resource that enables nonprofit arts
organizations and institutions to leverage relatively modest Federal
seed money and maximize their influence.
You have heard me cite the numbers from our studies before, but
they bear repeating. Especially as our elected officials are tasked
with assessing what priorities to fund while the Nation struggles to
balance its books and still provide essential services. Our Arts &
Economic Prosperity III study shows that the nonprofit arts industry
generates $166 billion in economic activity every year, supporting 5.7
million jobs in the United States and generates nearly $30 billion in
Government revenue.
Since its creation in 1965, NEA has grown the arts and culture
sector significantly. The year of its founding, there were fewer than
7,000 nonprofit arts organizations; today there are 113,000. Five State
arts agencies have blossomed to 50 and some 200 local arts agencies to
5,000. NEA's one-to-one matching grant requirement has created a
positive economic domino effect that promotes communities, businesses,
and local government working in unison to deliver quality arts
programming. And this creates jobs. Also since that time, the number of
artists in the United States has grown from 560,000 to 2.2 million--now
accounting for 1.5 percent of the total workforce.
And that is just the nonprofit side of the ledger. Our analysis of
Dun & Bradstreet data shows that there are an additional 800,000 for-
profit arts businesses such as film, design, and architecture firms
with 3.3 million people on the payroll. Our 2012 Creative Industries
study provides a research-based approach to understanding the scope and
importance of the arts to the Nation's economy. Arts-centric businesses
from nonprofit museums, symphonies, and theaters to for-profit film,
architecture, and advertising companies represent 4.25 percent of all
businesses and 2.15 percent of all employees nationwide.
As of January 2012, Rhode Island is home to 3,248 arts-related
businesses that employ 13,445 people. Alaska is home to 2,229 arts-
related businesses that employ 6,522 people. Nationally, there are
904,581 businesses in the United States involved in the creation or
distribution of the arts. Arts are the cornerstone of tourism. Arts
travelers are ideal tourists--they stay longer and spend more. The U.S.
Department of Commerce reports that the percentage of international
travelers who include arts and culture events during their stay has
increased annually for the last 6 years. The arts industry generates
$150 billion annually in consumer spending domestically and the U.S.
export of goods has increased to the point where is it running a $41
billion trade surplus.
As you can see, the arts are big business. NEA is helping lead the
way for the nonprofit aspects of this business to continue aiding in
our Nation's recovery.
The creative community's rate of return to Federal and State
coffers would be the envy of any industry. Whether it is through
supporting State arts agencies, Blue Star Museums, Art Works grants,
the tried and true Mayors Institute on City Design (MICD), or the
innovative Our Town initiative, NEA is the Nation's most recognized
partnership between the Government and culture and plays a crucial role
in fostering a highly developed creative sector.
NEA, under the leadership of Chairman Rocco Landesman, has fully
grasped the challenges of its primary role of ensuring access to the
arts to all Americans through their signature grants but also by
providing a range of programming and research that addresses and
measures changing audiences and artistic delivery. The cornerstone
grant programs like Art Works, Challenge America Fast Track Grants, and
Our Town continue to advance distinctive cultural art forms, promote
artistic access across the country, and help revitalize communities.
NEA continues to be pivotal for investments in local cultural
programming. Chairman Landesman continues to build upon the proven
successes of NEA grants models with inventive agency initiatives that
recognize the changing landscape and their unique position to help
strengthen communities through partnerships with local and State
governments, the business sector, and the nonprofit arts.
With these guiding principles in mind, the creative placemaking
concept of Our Town was born. According to NEA, ``Communities across
our Nation are engaging design and leveraging the arts to create
livable, sustainable neighborhoods with enhanced quality of life,
increased creative activity, distinct identities, a sense of place, and
vibrant local economies that capitalize on existing local assets.'' A
limited amount of grants ranging from $25,000 to $125,000 are made to
improve quality of life, sustainability, and livability of communities
with the arts as an anchor toward those goals.
Artists, designers, community organizations, and Government
agencies work to together to systematically ``Improve their quality of
life; Encourage creative activity; Create community identity and a
sense of place and Revitalize local economies.''
I want to acknowledge the work that Chairman Landesman and the
agency have done to address the ever-changing arts landscape. Today,
audiences are absorbing and participating in the arts in many different
ways. NEA is constantly evolving with the times while still ensuring
quality arts programming reaches all our communities. We are excited
that the administration has proposed doubling Our Town funding to $10
million in grant funds.
In conclusion, I respectfully request that the subcommittee fund
NEA at $155 million, as you did last year. Recent decreases in funding
have led to fewer grants and less leveraging support that impact jobs
in every State. Recent efforts by the agency to streamline the grants
process and trim administrative costs have led to incremental boosts
for all grant categories across the board. It is my profound hope that
the subcommittee can do even more for citizen participation in the arts
by continuing to demonstrate leadership, believing in the nonprofit
arts sector and by supporting NEA.
The cultural community stands ready to assist you in supporting
these fundamentally important programs and initiatives. Thank you for
the honor of testifying before the subcommittee today.
______
Prepared Statement of American Forests
Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: American Forests
appreciates the opportunity to submit written public testimony
regarding our fiscal year 2013 appropriation recommendations. We
understand the economic realities facing the Nation and the need for
fiscal responsibility, and we thank this subcommittee for its support
of key Federal conservation programs in the fiscal year 2012
Consolidated Appropriations Act. The return on investing in our
Nation's forests is great, whether those forests are public or private,
urban, or rural. The economic, social, and environmental benefits
healthy forests provide are clear incentives for Federal investment.
American Forests funding requests are generally consistent with the
President's proposals, with the exception of an increase for Forest
Health Management to $128 million.
American Forests is a national nonprofit 501(c)(3) conservation
organization that restores and protects urban and rural forests.
Founded in 1875, American Forests is the oldest national nonprofit
conservation organization in the country. Throughout history, American
Forests has served as a catalyst for many of the most important
milestones in the conservation movement, including the founding of the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (USFS),
the national forest and national park system. Today, American Forests'
primary objectives are:
--ensuring healthy forests and expanding forest cover throughout the
United States;
--restoring and protecting threatened forest ecosystems;
--assuring that public and private forests are managed in ways that
give high priority to ecosystem services; and
--assessing and managing threats such as climate change, invasive
species, insects and disease, wildfire, and conversion of land
to nonforest uses to limit their impacts on healthy forests.
The economic benefits of our Nation's forests highlight the
importance of American Forests' priorities. For example, combined
spending on hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching associated with
National Forest System lands totals $9.5 billion in annual retail
sales, supports 189,400 jobs and provides $1.01 billion in annual
Federal tax revenues.\1\ Protecting and restoring our forests will
ensure economic and environmental viability for communities that rely
on them for clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat, increased health
and well-being, and recreational opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Southwick Associates, ``The Economics Associated with Outdoor
Recreation, Natural Resources Conservation and Historic Preservation in
the United States'', October 10, 2011, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring Healthy Forests and Expanding Cover
USDA Secretary Vilsack's vision for an ``all-lands'' approach to
managing forests at the landscape and watershed scale fits with
American Forests' objectives of ensuring healthy forests in urban and
rural settings whether privately owned or publicly managed. American
Forests supports the following programs within the USDA to assist
communities and private land owners with efforts to protect, restore,
and sustainably manage their forests.
United States Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry.--Urban
forests are integral to any community striving to reinvest in itself,
to encourage an active and healthy citizenry, and to create a more
sustainable environment and economy through green infrastructure.
American Forests works to better understand the environmental, social,
and economic benefits of urban forests and to encourage greater
investment in the protection and restoration of urban forests. We
support the administration's request of $28.04 million. While this is a
reduction from the fiscal year 2012 funding level, we believe that
urban forestry activities will fare well in the new Landscape Scale
Restoration Program which the agency proposes as a next step in its
redesign effort for State and Private Forestry. We support funding the
new Landscape Scale Restoration Program at $18 million and believe that
it will provide opportunity for innovative urban forestry projects at a
landscape or watershed scale.
United States Forest Service Forest Legacy.--The Forest Legacy
Program has become a key tool for USFS working in partnership with
State governments and nonprofit conservation organizations to protect
environmentally important private forests threatened by conversion to
nonforest uses. American Forests supports the administration's request
for an increase more than fiscal year 2012 enacted to $60 million.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service and United States Forest Service Farm Bill
Conservation Programs.--The Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) and USFS partner with private landowners, providing technical
and financial assistance to help protect farm and ranch lands and
private forestlands. USFS provides key assistance for management plans
on private lands through the Forest Stewardship Program. The NRCS has
the responsibility for implementing most of the landowner assistance
programs in the conservation title of the 2008 farm bill. In fiscal
year 2013, NRCS programs will support conservation practices on an
additional 27 million acres at a total cost of approximately $3.9
billion, and achieve a record total cumulative enrollment of nearly 329
million acres in conservation programs such as the Conservation Reserve
Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation
Security Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. American
Forests supports full funding for these conservation programs.
Restoring and Protecting Threatened Forests
Specific forested landscapes need to be prioritized due to their
level of degradation, ecological importance, or cultural significance.
American Forests is encouraged by USFS's initiative to increase the
pace of restoration of the national forests, to prioritize those most
in peril, and to address restoration needs through an integrated
landscape-level approach
United States Forest Service Integrated Resource Restoration.--The
consolidated budget line item for restoration with specific performance
measures has the potential to increase the rate of restoration in a
much more focused manner. This focus is evident in USFS's recent report
``Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on Our National
Forests''. The 3-region test pilot created in fiscal year 2012 was an
important first step to fully understand how this integrated effort
would work. American Forests' supports the concept and believes that
better outcomes and greater efficiencies can be achieved through more
widespread use of the Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR),
particularly in combination with the agency's new Watershed Condition
Framework. USFS used this framework in 2011 and 2012 to complete its
first national assessment of watershed health across the entire
National Forest System, to identify priority watersheds and to prepare
Watershed Restoration Action Plans. While there is currently no
dedicated funding for this activity, the agency can make progress on
implementing these plans through greater use of the IRR.
United States Forest Service Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration.--American Forests truly appreciates the full funding
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration received in fiscal year
2012. The addition of 10 more projects to the program will enhance the
collaborative and science-based ecosystem restoration of priority
forest landscapes while benefiting local communities. In the first 2
years of the program, fiscal years 2010 and 2011, the cumulative
outputs generated by the projects included:
--228 million board feet of timber;
--2,100 jobs created or maintained;
--$80 million in labor income;
--167,000 acres of hazardous fuels reduction to protect communities;
--110,000 acres of fire-prone forest restoration; and
--198 miles of road conditions improved to reduce sediment in
streams.
American Forests supports the full funding of this program at $40
million.
United States Forest Service Federal Land Assistance, Management
and Enhancement Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund.--As part of a broad
coalition supporting Federal Land Assistance, Management and
Enhancement (FLAME), we believe it is critical to fund FLAME at $315
million. The intent of FLAME was to eliminate the need to transfer
funds from other USFS programs in order to fund emergency wildfire
suppression--a practice that undermined the agency's ability to
implement other critical programs. Failure to adequately fund FLAME
this year could force the agency to revert to the old practice and have
disastrous effects on those programs.
Prioritizing Ecosystem Services
American Forests is dedicated to promoting all the ecological and
societal benefits that forests provide us. Prioritizing protection of
these forests that provide the ecosystem services saves municipalities
money in wastewater treatment and stormwater management. They provide
recreational opportunities and protect wildlife. The USFS is not the
only steward of our Nation's forests, as the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, and
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), as well as the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have numerous programs dedicated to the health
and restoration of forested lands. American Forests encourages funding
these programs at the administration's requested levels.
Bureau of Land Management National Landscape Conservation System.--
The System comprises 27 million acres of protected public land managed
to maintain and enhance conservation values and allow for multiple,
sustainable uses. The System's goal is to conserve, protect, and
restore these important landscapes for their outstanding cultural,
ecological, and scientific values. Of the 59 million visitors to BLM
lands in 2010, approximately 20 million visited these units and
recreation activities on NLCS units created approximately 20,000 jobs.
American Forests believes the administration's request for $69.55
million is needed to prevent critical damage to these resources, ensure
proper management and provide for quality visitor experiences.
Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System.--The
Refuge System, with 556 refuges on more than 150 million acres across
the country is vital to protecting America's wildlife and ensuring that
these habitats are a priority. Visited by approximately 45 million
people each year generating nearly $4 billion and more than 32,500 jobs
to regional economies,\2\ investment in the Refuge system is
imperative. While it is well documented that an annual operations and
maintenance budget should total at least $900 million,\3\ American
Forests supports the administration's request for $494.8 million, an
$8.8 million increase more than fiscal year 2012 enacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Department of the Interior's Economic Contributions, 2011.
\3\ Restoring America's Wildlife Refuges 2011: Assets for All
Americans, Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Program.--For nearly
40 years, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has helped prevent the
extinction of our Nation's treasured wildlife and plant species, many
of which thrive in forested habitat. While the ESA has made significant
strides in protecting our most imperiled species--99 percent of species
protected under the ESA have been rescued from extinction and 20
species have been restored to the point of no longer needing
protection--there are still major shortfalls. Numerous species in need
of protection, including the whitebark pine, are precluded from the
list due to lack of adequate resources. American Forests supports the
administration's request for an additional $3.74 million more than
fiscal year 2012 to a total of $179.69 million.
National Park Service.--American Forests was instrumental nearly
100 years ago in the creation of the national parks and continues to
this day supporting the service that is the steward of the Nation's
most cherished natural and cultural resources--397 park units, 23
national scenic and historic trails, and 58 wild and scenic rivers.
However, many of these forested parks are threatened by a series of
stresses. Invasive species and uncontrolled outbreaks of pests have
left these forested treasures vulnerable. American Forests is dedicated
to restoring these parks, especially those in the intermountain west
affected by the mountain pine bark beetle. As such, we support the
administration's request for funding the National Park System at $2.986
billion.
Environmental Protection Agency Urban Waters Program.--No
ecological boundaries separate urban, community, and rural forests--and
all forests play vital roles in delivering clean water to communities
of every size. EPA's Urban Waters Partnership brings together multiple
Federal agencies (including USFS) to support stewardship and local
restoration efforts to improve urban watersheds and accelerate water
quality improvements by promoting green infrastructure, volunteer
monitoring, and outreach to communities. American Forests supports the
request of $4.7 million.
Managing Under a Multitude of Pressures
With all that forests provide, we need to better understand the
multitude of pressures they face and manage them in a sustainable
manner. Forests can be managed in ways that mitigate the impacts of a
changing climate, invasive species, insect infestation, disease, large
wildfires, and conversion to nonforest uses.
United States Forest Service Forest Health Management.--This
program provides insect, disease, and invasive plant survey and
monitoring information on forest health conditions on Federal and non-
Federal lands and provides technical and financial assistance to
prevent, suppress, and control outbreaks threatening forest resources
and watershed conditions. The number of acres affected by only the
highest-priority pests is astronomical and the prevention and
suppression needs are many. Since 1997, 41.7 million acres of conifer
forests from the west coast to the Rocky Mountains have been affected
by mountain pine bark beetles. From 2000-2009, bark beetle caused
mortality over an estimated 21.7 million acres in the intermountain
west. American Forests proposes funding this critical program at $128
million in fiscal year 2013, a level higher than the administration's
request. Our recommendation reflects the need to restore funding to a
level more consistent with its funding prior to fiscal year 2012, when
it was cut by $25 million.
United States Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Research.--USFS
research and development provides scientific information and new
technologies to support sustainable management of the Nation's forests
and rangelands. The priority research areas of forest disturbances,
forest inventory and analysis, watershed management and restoration,
urban natural resource stewardship, and localized needs are all
integral to better understanding our forests. American Forests supports
the USFS Forest and Rangeland Research at the administration's request
for $292.79 million.
______
Prepared Statement of the African Wildlife Foundation; American
Veterinary Medical Association; Association of Zoos & Aquariums; Bonobo
Conservation Initiative; Born Free USA; The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund
International; Fauna & Flora International; Humane Society
International; The Humane Society of the United States; International
Crane Foundation; International Elephant Foundation; International Fund
for Animal Welfare; the Jane Goodall Institute; The Nature Conservancy;
Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Center for Elephant Conservation;
Rare Species Fund; International Rhino Foundation; Safari Club
International; Sea Turtle Conservancy; Wildlife Conservation Society;
and World Wildlife Fund
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
subcommittee, the undersigned groups submit this testimony on the
importance of the international conservation programs within the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Office of International Affairs,
specifically the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, the Wildlife
Without Borders (WWB) and International Wildlife Trade programs. These
programs enjoy the support of a broad-based coalition comprised of 33
organizations representing sportsmen, conservationists, zoos,
aquariums, circuses, veterinarians, animal welfare groups, and their
more than 20 million members. We thank you for your past and consistent
support for these programs. In fiscal year 2013, we respectfully
request your support for continued funding of the Multinational Species
Conservation Fund at the administration's requested level of $9.98
million. We also request continued support for the Office of
International Affairs at $13 million, as requested by the
administration in the fiscal year 2013.
Wildlife conservation programs are a modest, but essential piece of
the United States' engagement with the developing world. Efforts to
conserve our planet's wildlife and habitat are of the highest urgency.
Extinctions are irreversible and increasing at an unprecedented rate.
Because wildlife recognizes no political borders, an effective response
requires nations to work together cooperatively, and because these
animals often reside in relatively impoverished developing countries,
support from interested countries such as the United States is crucial.
The U.S. Government has been a consistent leader in this respect, and
the modest funding for these programs goes a very long way, reaping
significant returns and making them an excellent investment.
MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND
Through the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF), the
United States supplements the efforts of developing countries
struggling to balance the needs of their human populations and endemic
wildlife. These modest Federal programs, administered by the FWS, make
targeted investments in conservation of several global priority
species. In 1989, the Congress passed the African Elephant Conservation
Act authorizing a dedicated fund in response to the threat posed to
that species by rampant ivory poaching. Four more funds have since been
authorized to support the conservation of Asian elephants, great apes,
marine turtles, and tigers and rhinos. Each of the funds is authorized
at $5 million, with the exception of the Rhino-Tiger Conservation Fund,
which was intended as a double fund to address both sets of species,
and is therefore authorized at $10 million. Appropriated funds for the
programs have remained roughly 30 percent or less of the authorized
level.
MSCF programs have played a critical role in saving wild
populations of these species by controlling poaching, reducing human-
wildlife conflict and protecting essential habitat. They have generated
enormous constituent interest and strong bipartisan support in the
Congress. The MSCF has awarded more than 1,800 grants to more than 265
organizations for conservation projects in more than 75 countries.
These small grants consistently leverage between 2 to 3 times as much
in matching funds from public and private partners. From 1990 to 2011,
the Congress appropriated a total of $88 million for MSCF grant
programs, which generated more than $200 million in matching and in-
kind contributions. Administrative costs for the program are low, and
97 percent of the appropriated funds are distributed through grants. By
conserving iconic species, these programs help sustain large areas of
habitat home to a rich diversity of flora and fauna. By working with
local communities and improving livelihoods, they build capacity and
support for conservation in the developing world, contribute to
economic growth and stability, and support U.S. interests in
strategically important regions of the globe. Following are success
stories for each of the five funds.
Rhino-Tiger Conservation Fund.--In both Africa and Asia, rhinos are
suffering a poaching crisis. Fewer than 50 Javan rhinos now remain in
the wild in Indonesia, with none in captivity. Last year saw the
extinction of rhinos in Vietnam when the last individual in that
country was found killed by poachers. South Africa, which is home to 80
percent of the planet's remaining black rhinos, is experiencing a
shocking rise in rhino poaching driven by Asian demand for rhino horn,
which is worth up to $30,000/lb on the black market. Earlier in the
decade, perhaps a dozen animals were killed in South Africa annually.
Since 2007, there has been an exponential increase. In 2011 a total of
448 rhinos were killed--nearly four times as many as in 2009. Other
African countries fear the poaching will spread to their rhino
populations. Through the RTCF, FWS is working to respond. RTCF support
to World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and local partners for anti-poaching,
habitat restoration and rhino monitoring in Nepal helped to ensure that
no rhinos were poached in that country in 2011. In Namibia, support for
camel patrols have reduced illegal wildlife trade, providing security
and regular monitoring of Namibia's black rhinos, which have rebounded
to become the world's largest free-roaming population. This ongoing
recovery is contributing to the exponential growth in local economic
benefits for rural Namibians due to wildlife-based tourism, thanks in
large part to U.S.-supported conservation efforts over the past two
decades, including through the RTCF.
As few as 3,200 wild tigers remain throughout all of Asia--down
from 5,000-7,000 a decade ago. Tiger body parts continue to be in high
demand on the global black market, including organs and bones, which
are used in Asian tonics and medicines purchased by wealthy buyers
believing they convey strength, virility or status. RTCF funding is
supporting the creation and expansion of tiger reserves and protected
areas in Malaysia, India and Thailand, anti-poaching and enforcement
efforts in Sumatra, and research, monitoring and capacity building in
countries such as Nepal, where WWF helped conduct the first ever
nationwide assessment of tiger populations, distribution and prey base
in 2009. Last July, the Government of Thailand arrested tiger poachers
operating in the Western Forest Complex, one of the country's most
important protected areas and a critical landscape for tigers and other
wildlife. The arrest, which yielded an abundance of evidence about
poaching activities in the region, was an achievement of the SMART
patrol, a systematic, evidence-based adaptive management program
designed to increase monitoring and enforcement. With RTCF support,
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) is helping to train rangers in
countries such as Thailand on SMART patrol methods. In November 2010, a
Global Tiger Summit was held in St. Petersburg, Russia at which tiger
range states and supportive countries, including the United States,
pledged to ramp up coordinated efforts to save tigers, with a goal of
doubling wild tiger populations by 2022. To address critical needs for
both rhinos and tigers, we recommend at least $2.697 million for the
RTCF in fiscal year 2013, the same as in the administration's fiscal
year 2013 budget request.
African Elephant Conservation Fund.--Despite much success in
elephant conservation over the past two decades, ivory remains a
lucrative commodity, and rising demand in China along with ongoing
instability and porous borders in many areas of Central Africa provide
opportunities for well-organized gangs of poachers to decimate that
region's remaining elephant populations. This winter, heavily armed
northern Sudanese and Chadian poachers crossed into Cameroon's Bouba
N'Djida National Park and slaughtered an estimated 300-400 elephants--
more than one-half of the park's remaining population. The scale of the
ongoing slaughter is unprecedented, and the cross-border incursion has
prompted an intervention by the Cameroonian military to defend the
country's sovereignty and save its remaining elephants, with lives lost
on both sides. The poachers have suspected connections to the Jangaweed
militia, and profits from illicit ivory sales are believed to help fund
their purchases of guns and other armaments. The African Elephant
Conservation Fund (AfECF) is supporting improved protected area
enforcement in several African countries, including hiring and training
of local ``ecoguards''. Ecoguards in Chad's Zakouma National Park
prevented organized gangs from poaching one of the last and largest
herds of elephants in the Sahel. In Cameroon's Campo Ma'an National
Park, the AfECF supported a large-scale anti-poaching operation
involving village and forest patrols, soldiers and game guards that
flushed out four suspected poachers, including two notorious elephant
poachers, and resulted in the seizure of 450 lbs of bushmeat. The AfECF
is also helping address elephant-human conflict. In Malawi, it has
helped to resolve a growing conflict between an elephant herd and local
villagers that included human deaths and retaliation killings against
elephants. AfECF support helped the Government of Malawi and the
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) to move the herd--83
elephants in all--to Majete Wildlife Reserve in Southern Malawi,
protecting both the elephants and local livelihoods. We recommend at
least $1.697 million for the AfECF in fiscal year 2013, the same as in
the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
Asian Elephant Conservation Fund.--In Thailand, Asian Elephant
Conservation Fund (AsECF) support has improved wildlife law
enforcement, established a population monitoring system, and reduced
conflicts between humans and elephants in Kaeng Krachan National Park
by working with local communities to deter elephants from raiding
crops. In Sumatra, it has also supported Flying Squads--teams of
rangers equipped with noise and light-making devices and trained
elephants that drive wild elephants back into the forest whenever they
threaten to enter villages. The Squads have reduced losses suffered by
local communities, prevented retaliatory killings and helped reduce
elephant mortality in Riau by 27 percent in 2009 compared to the
previous 4 years. The AsECF has also supported efforts of the
International Elephant Fund (IEF) and partners to establish
Conservation Response Units (CRUs) in Sumatra to mitigate human-
elephant conflict, reduce wildlife crime in elephant habitat through
forest patrol and monitoring, and raise local conservation awareness.
CRU teams have recorded more than 500 cases of illegal logging, and 190
cases were reported to government law enforcement agencies, resulting
in the closure of three illegal saw mills and seizure of more than
300m\3\ of illegal timber, 26 vehicles, 17 chainsaws, and 2 industrial
saws. More than 150 arrests have taken place and two dozen individuals
have received prison sentences ranging from 4 months to 4.5 years. We
recommend at least $1.697 million for the AsECF in fiscal year 2013,
the same as in the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
Great Ape Conservation Fund.--In 2008, a Great Ape Conservation
Fund (GACF)-supported survey discovered more than 125,000 western
lowland gorillas in the Republic of Congo. The program is now
supporting Ebola surveillance in that country, helping hire more than
60 eco-guards and training 20 researchers in carcass sampling and 30
field team leaders in health and biological sampling techniques. More
than 900 hunters in 71 villages have participated in educational
programs on Ebola to help prevent its spread. Two separate GACF grants
are also supporting efforts in the Central African Republic to secure
long-term protection of the country's gorillas, beef up trans-boundary
anti-poaching patrols and create economic opportunities around
sustainable gorilla tourism. MSCF grants made it possible for the Dian
Fossey Gorilla Fund's Karisoke Research Center to continue protecting
the mountain gorillas that live in the Virunga Volcanoes located on the
border between Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and
Uganda. Karisoke staff follow daily almost one-fourth of the 480
remaining Virunga mountain gorillas. A 2010 census found that this
highly endangered subspecies has achieved a remarkable increase of 26
percent since the previous count in 2003, with an astounding annual
growth rate of 3.7 percent. This is the only great ape population to
have increased in recent decades. The GACF has also supported programs
in both Rwanda and the DRC to improve the health of communities near
gorilla habitat by upgrading rural clinics, increasing access to clean
water, reducing intestinal parasite infestations, and supporting small
animal husbandry. This reduces the likelihood of people transmitting
parasites and other diseases to the gorillas and reduces people's need
to seek water and game in the forest. We recommend at least $2.194
million for the GACF in fiscal year 2013, the same as in the
administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
Marine Turtle Conservation Fund.--Nicaragua's Pacific coast
provides nesting beaches to four highly threatened species of marine
turtles. The Marine Turtle Conservation Fund (MTCF ) has provided major
support to the efforts of Fauna and Fauna International (FFI) to
protect these turtles, especially hawksbill and leatherback
populations. Before the FFI program began, nearly 100 percent of the
area's turtle nests were being poached. As a result of beach monitoring
and protection programs, construction of egg hatcheries and awareness
efforts, between 80-100 percent of the nests are now successfully
protected each year and hatching success is increasing annually. During
the 2010-2011 nesting season, 90 leatherback nests were recorded and 73
were protected, a 300-percent increase more than the previous season.
MTCF support has helped achieve similar successes at nesting sites in
Costa Rica (WWF) and Gabon (WCS). We recommend at least $1.697 million
for the MTCF in fiscal year 2013, the same as in the administration's
fiscal year 2013 budget request.
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Within the FWS Office of International Affairs, the Wildlife
Without Borders (WWB) and International Wildlife Trade (IWT) programs
provide critical support to the on-the-ground species conservation
programs of the MSCF. The WWB Regional program supports species and
habitat conservation in priority regions, including Africa, Latin
America and the Caribbean, India, and Mexico, through capacity
building, outreach, education, and training. This includes training
African wildlife professionals to combat the bushmeat trade and working
to bolster wildlife laws and increase enforcement capacity in African
countries. The WWB Global program targets cross-cutting, global threats
to wildlife; supports signature initiatives to maximize long-term
impact; and addresses declines of critically endangered species, such
as amphibians. It also fulfills FWS mandates to support U.S. leadership
through wildlife statutes and international treaties, such as NAFTA,
the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, and the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). From
2006 to 2010, WWB programs awarded more than $14 million, leveraging
nearly $25 million in matching funds for conservation actions, regional
capacity building, wetlands and migratory species protection and
efforts to combat disease and illegal trade. IWT works to prevent
illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products, calculated as the
third-largest illegal trade after drugs and arms, worth more than $10
billion annually with strong links to organized crime and the illegal
trade in arms and drugs. Illegal wildlife trade also transmits disease
and invasive species, negatively impacting public health and economic
productivity in the United States, which is one of the largest
importers and exporters of wildlife products. IWT ensures this trade is
legal and does not harm species in the wild and implements scientific
and management requirements of laws and treaties for traded species,
issuing 15,000-20,000 permits per year. We recommend $13.054 million
for the Office of International Affairs, as requested in the
administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
We hope you will consider the important issues these programs are
working to address alongside their proven success, their modest cost
and the broad-based support they enjoy. We urge the subcommittee to
fund these programs at the levels outlined above. Thank you for your
consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ala Kahakai Trail Association
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2013
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial public benefits
including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural, historical, and recreation heritage. As LWCF is funded from
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these
funds should go to their intended and authorized use as a conservation
offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
The Ala Kahakai Trail Association is a partner to the Ala Kahakai
National Historic Trail (NHT) and an active member of the Partnership
for the National Trail System. The Board is made up of individuals who
have genealogical ties to the trail and have been and continue to work
toward the preservation and protection of the approximate 175 miles of
coastal trail. Many portions of the trail are in immediate danger of
encroaching development which would significantly compromise the
integrity and historical value of the trial.
An analogy one member of our Board used was to liken the national
trails as the string holding a lei together. Without the string, the
flowers would remain separate. However, by stringing the flowers
together a beautiful lei is created. This is the same for the national
parks. The trails serve as a string to link national parks together. In
the case of the Ala Kahakai NHT, the trail links four national parks:
--Puu Kohola National Historic Preservation (NHP);
--Koloko-Honokahau NHP;
--Pu`uhonua O Honaunau NHP; and
--the Volcanoes NP.
Portions of the Ala Kahakai NHT are already in eminent danger. In
recent past, a new subdivision road was paved within feet of the trail
leading to potential damage by vehicular traffic, all-terrain vehicles
and unmonitored use of the fragile trail system. One preventative
action is to acquire lands bordering the trail to secure protection
against irreversible damage. The Ala Kahakai Trail Association is ever
vigilant in seeking opportunities to acquire properties or to create
wider buffers for the entire length of the trail. Our association has
established partnerships with county, State and Federal agencies as
well as with communities along the trail to fulfill this mission and to
optimize efforts in protecting the trail.
The Ala Kahakai Trail Association is writing in support for the
acquisition in fiscal year 2013 by the National Park Service (NPS) of a
59-acre property located on the Ala Kahakai NHT and immediately
adjacent to the southern boundary of Pu`uhonua O Honaunau NHP.
Acquisition of the Pace property in the Kauleoli ahupua`a of South
Kona, with its more than half-mile of shoreline, will complement recent
protection efforts at the national historic park and provide additional
recreational opportunities for users of the Ala Kahakai Trail.
The Kauleoli property represents an opportunity to protect land of
historic and ecological significance, and its acquisition will further
the missions of two National Park Service units. It lies within the
priority area identified in the management plan of the trail, and its
addition will provide further protection to the outstanding resources
for which Pu`uhonua O Honaunau NHP is renowned. The landowners are
currently willing to make this stunning landscape available for public
ownership. There is real danger, however, that the land could be sold
for development if sufficient funding is not forthcoming in a timely
fashion.
To protect these 59 acres with their historical, cultural, and
ecological resources, the NPS needs $4.5 million from the LWCF for the
Ala Kahakai NHT. This acquisition is eligible for funding under the
National Trails program requested in the President's budget for fiscal
year 2013.
In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the LWCF of $450
million, as proposed in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget,
including critical funding for the Ala Kahakai NHT. I want to thank the
chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to
submit testimony on behalf of this nationally important protection
effort in Hawaii, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding
request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
My name is Andy Teuber, I am the chairman and president of the
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC). For the fiscal year
2013 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget we are requesting full funding
for contract support costs (CSC), currently estimated to be $571
million for fiscal year 2013.
ANTHC is a statewide tribal health organization that serves all 229
tribes and more than 140,000 American Indian and Alaska Natives (AI/AN)
in Alaska. ANTHC and Southcentral Foundation co-manage the Alaska
Native Medical Center (ANMC), the tertiary care hospital for all AI/ANs
in Alaska. ANTHC also carries out virtually all nonresidual Area Office
functions of the IHS that were not already being carried out by tribal
health programs as of 1997.
FULL FUNDING FOR CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS
Indian tribes and tribal organizations are the only Federal
contractors that do not receive full CSC. There is a clear obligation
on the part of the Federal Government to fully fund CSC. But more
importantly, lack of full funding for CSC has a very real and
detrimental impact on our programs that are already substantially
underfunded.
CSC is used to reimburse our fixed costs for items that we are
required to have but are not otherwise covered by the IHS budget,
either because another governmental department is responsible or
because the IHS is not subject to that particular requirement. Examples
include federally required annual audits and telecommunication systems.
We cannot operate without these things, so when CSC reimbursements are
underfunded we have to use other program funds to make up the
shortfall, which means fewer providers that we can hire and fewer
health services that we can provide to our patients.
We are very thankful for the increases in CSC that this
subcommittee has been able to provide, beginning with fiscal year 2010,
particularly the large increase that tribes and tribal organizations
received last year thanks to the efforts of this subcommittee. Although
these increases have gone a long way toward helping to diminish the CSC
shortfall, a significant CSC shortfall remains.
The best projections available show that the CSC shortfall for
fiscal year 2012 will be approximately $60 million, and that the
shortfall in fiscal year 2013 will be nearly $99 million. Given these
significant shortfalls, IHS's request for only a $5 million increase in
CSC for fiscal year 2013 is extremely disappointing. Our disappointment
is particularly acute when we consider that the BIA has requested full
CSC for its programs.
The inadequate IHS request could return us to a situation similar
to the one we endured from 2002 to 2009, when there were virtually no
increases for IHS CSC appropriations and the CSC shortfall increased by
more than $130 million. During that period, as our fixed costs
increased every year, all major tribal health programs in Alaska were
forced to lay off staff due to lack of funds.
The opposite is also true: when CSC reimbursement increases occur,
vacant positions are filled. If ANTHC had full funding of our CSC
requirements, we would be able to fill scores of provider and support
positions, including enrollment technicians, financial analysts,
medical billing staff, professional recruiters, maintenance
technicians, security officers, information technology support, and
professional support staff.
ANTHC respectfully requests that the Federal Government honor its
legal obligations to tribes and tribal organizations and fully fund CSC
reimbursements by providing $571 million for IHS CSC reimbursements in
fiscal year 2013.
I appreciate your consideration of our recommendation for
additional CSC funding to improve the level, quality and accessibility
of desperately needed health services for AI/ANs whose healthcare
status continues to lag far behind other populations in Alaska and in
this Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association;
Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation; Maniilaq Association; and the
Norton Sound Health Corporation
We submit this joint testimony on behalf of four co-signers to the
Alaska Tribal Health Compact, which is a self-governance agreement with
the Indian Health Service (IHS) under title V of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act. Our organizations are
responsible for providing and promoting healthcare and overseeing a
variety of health programs in our various regions of Alaska, including
remote villages. Our request is that the Congress direct the IHS to
utilize existing fiscal year 2013 appropriations to fully fund the
Village Built Clinics leases in accordance with section 804 of the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act. We estimate an additional $6.6
million more than current IHS resources should be allocated to Village
Built Clinic (VBC) leases.
We submit this testimony because we have great concern about the
IHS's continued choice to underfund VBCs in Alaska. This IHS decision
has jeopardized the provision of basic health services to Alaska
Natives in their villages through the Community Health Aide Program
(CHAP), because CHAP services are provided in the VBCs. The CHAP
program is mandated by the Congress as the instrument for providing
basic health services in remote Alaska Native villages. The Community
Health Aides and Practitioners cannot function as medical, behavioral
health and dental providers in the villages without well maintained and
suitable clinic facilities with teleconferencing capability, which the
IHS has the statutory duty to provide under the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act (IHCIA).
Rather than allocate sufficient resources for the VBCs, the IHS has
shifted its statutory responsibilities onto the villages and tribal
health corporations themselves, which do not have the financial
resources to maintain and upgrade the clinics for use by the CHAPs.
This has caused many of the VBCs, often the only healthcare facilities
in rural Alaska communities, to be unsafe or closed; others are
unsuitable for use by the CHAPs. This is a longstanding problem which
has become worse as the years go by. In 2007, the Alaska Native Health
Board prepared a White Paper entitled ``The Village Built Clinic
Programs; Village Clinics in Crisis.'' That Paper described this
problem in great detail. The ANHB estimated that $5.7 million was
needed to maintain and improve the VBCs for use by the CHAPs. However,
no additional funding was provided.
The Village Built Clinic Lease Program.--VBCs are critical to
maintaining health services for rural Alaska Natives. The IHS Community
Health Aide Program was developed years ago to respond to disparities
in healthcare access and to help facilitate improved health status in
rural Alaska. CHAP now involves a network of health aides/practitioners
who provide primary healthcare services and coordinate patient care
through referral relationships with midlevel providers, physicians, and
regional hospitals.
The CHAP cannot operate in most of rural Alaska without clinics in
which to provide the services. In the 1970s, the IHS established the
VBC leasing program to provide funds for leasing health clinics from
Alaska Native Villages for the provision of CHAP services. By 1972 the
IHS was able to lease 142 clinics for a total cost of $842,000
appropriated by the Congress, and by 1989 the funding for the VBC
leasing program was approximately $3 million, which came through the
IHS Hospitals and Clinics sub-activity of the IHS appropriation.
Indian Health Service Is Legally Responsible to Fully Fund Village
Built Clinic Leases.--IHS is required to keep the VBCs in good repair.
Under the IHCIA amendments of the 1992 Congress required the IHS to
``maintain'' the CHAP, and in the recent reauthorization of the Act,
the Congress requires the IHS to ``develop and operate'' the CHAP for
Alaska healthcare, health promotion, and disease prevention for Alaska
Natives living in rural Alaska (25 U.S.C. 1616l(a)(2)). The act also
requires the IHS to ensure that the VBCs are upgraded to establish a
teleconferencing capability (25 U.S.C. 1616l(a)(3)). IHS cannot fulfill
these statutory responsibilities without keeping the VBCs maintained
and in good repair.
The IHS has traditionally used ``full-service'' leases (presumably
under the leasing authority in the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949) as the basis for shifting the cost of operation
and maintenance of the VBCs to the villages. This was apparently done
as an agency initiative. We have been unable to find any specific
language added to the IHS appropriation statute for 1970 authorizing
the VBC leasing program; nor do the appropriation committee reports for
that year specifically mention adding funds for this purpose. The
``full-service'' leases require the Villages to pay for heat, cleaning,
utilities, maintenance, and replacement. But the rental amounts--which
in most cases have not been raised since 1994--are woefully inadequate
to cover all of these expenses. As a result, we (and other Alaska
regional health organizations) are forced to subsidize the VBCs,
draining resources that could otherwise be devoted to healthcare
services.
IHS has had direct leasing authority under the IHCIA, since it was
originally enacted in 1976, to enter into leases that cover a full
range of costs, such as rent, depreciation, and operation and
maintenance expenses. Such authority also includes reconstruction or
renovation by IHS of the leased property. This authority was part of
the original IHCIA, Public Law 94-437, section 704. Now renumbered as
section 804 of the act, 25 U.S.C. 1674, it authorizes the Secretary,
``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' to enter into leases
with Indian tribes for periods not in excess of 20 years. It provides
that leased property may be ``reconstructed or renovated'' by the
Secretary and that lease costs ``include rent, depreciation based on
the useful life of the building, principal and interest paid or
accrued, operation and maintenance expenses, and other expenses
determined by regulation to be allowable.'' The House Report for the
1976 legislation specifically mentions leasing village facilities in
rural Alaska to help the IHS meet its responsibilities to provide
health services in remote villages in Alaska.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H. Rept. 94-1026 (Apr. 9, 1976), 122-123, reprinted in 1976
U.S.C.C.A.N. 2760-2761.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to congressional intent, the IHS has continued to shift
its responsibilities to the villages and to the Alaska Tribal Health
Compact co-signers, without regard for the health of the people who
need the VBCs for services. It has become impossible to keep up with
the costs of operating and maintaining the VBCs, and thus continuing to
provide needed CHAP services to rural Alaska Natives. In many
situations, the CHAP has to be operated in unsafe facilities and, in
some villages, the VBCs have to be closed and CHAP services suspended
because of safety hazards to the employees and patients.
In order to establish proper standards of care, compliance
accreditation by the Joint Commission has been established as one of
the terms included in the tribal health corporations annual funding
agreements. Compliance with several of the Joint Commission's
environments of care standards are simply not possible due to lack of
funding made available by the IHS to maintain these facilities.
Additionally, IHS's failure to maintain the VBCs and upgrade them
directly hampers the ability of the co-signers to the Compact to meet
the ``meaningful use'' standards set by the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services in order to be eligible for incentive payments for
Electronic Health Records (EHR) technology. IHS should ensure that VBCs
are brought up to the appropriate technological capability for the co-
signers to be able to qualify for needed incentive payments to
implement EHR, which will improve patient health and is an important
congressional initiative.
Leases Are Underfunded and Indian Health Service Refuses To Use
Available Appropriations.--The majority of VBC lease rentals have not
increased since 1989 and the current funding is not sufficient to cover
inflationary increases and, in particular, the cost of repair and
renovation of the facilities needed to keep them in a safe condition.
Funds in the IHS's hospitals and clinics subactivity allocated by IHS
to the VBC leasing program increased very slowly over the years. For
example, from 1997 to 2007, funding for the VBC system increased from
$3,718,268 to $3,903,434, an increase of less than 5 percent over the
entire 10-year period and well less than the actual costs to operate
and maintain the VBCs in the same period. As a result, by the end of
fiscal year 2006 the lease rentals paid to the villages covered only 55
percent of the village-built clinics' operating costs.\2\ The
shortfalls have only grown in the 6 years since then, as fuel costs
(among others) have skyrocketed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, Village Built Clinic Programs: Village Clinics in Crisis,
Alaska Native Health Board, May 2007 at 9. Pay act increases during
this period were not provided to the VBC leasing program. But even if
they had been, the additional increase would be minimal and would have
no material impact on the current shortfall for VBC operating costs.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the IHS leases allow costs for rent, loan amortization, fuel
for heat, electricity, water and waste disposal, janitorial services
and supplies, insurance, and costs associated with minor maintenance,
none of these allowable costs are currently covered by the existing VBC
lease payments. In 2007, the operation and maintenance shortfall for
the average VBC was $28,692 per year. Furthermore, major maintenance
and improvement costs are not provided by the IHS.
In the past, when this matter has been brought to the IHS's
attention, IHS has responded that it provides for VBC leases all of the
funding that the Congress has appropriated for the program. The IHS
excludes clinics leased under the VBC lease program from maintenance
and improvement funding because it asserts that the leases are full
service leases and the leases do not include a reserve fund for
building improvements and replacement. IHS has told co-signers to the
Alaska Tribal Health Compact that they cannot use maintenance and
improvement funding--provided to them under their self-governance
agreements--for the VBCs. We just don't accept IHS's statements as
legally correct, and the agency has provided no legal analysis to
convince us otherwise.
Based on our review, the amounts historically traceable to the VBC
lease program are not capped by statute and are not the only funds
available for that program. The Indian Health Facilities appropriation
is a lump-sum appropriation that can be used for construction, repair,
maintenance, improvement and equipment, and includes a subactivity for
maintenance and improvement of IHS facilities. The VBCs are IHS
facilities acquired by lease in lieu of construction and should thus be
eligible for maintenance and improvement funding. The IHS also has the
ability to access other IHS discretionary funds to fully fund its VBC
responsibilities.
We believe there is no question that the IHS has had sufficient
funds in its unrestricted appropriations to fully fund the VBCs' needs.
According to a report issued by the Alaska Native Health Board in 2007,
the operation and maintenance shortfall for the average VBC was $28,692
per year. The Board estimated that $5.8 million should have been added
in fiscal year 2008 to the fiscal year 2007 VBC lease program base in
order to sustain the program. More than 4 years have gone by since then
and the funding crisis for the VBCs has continued to get worse.
Assuming a modest inflationary rate of 3 percent since the Board's
analysis in 2007, we estimate at least $6.6 million should be added in
fiscal year 2013 to the VBC lease program base funding.
We Need Your Help To Ensure That Indian Health Service Fully Funds
Village Built Clinic Leases.--Despite repeated requests from the Alaska
Tribal Health Compact Co-Signers, the IHS continues to fund VBC leases
at less than 60 percent of costs, while adopting standards for VBC
operation and maintenance and requiring evaluations and inspections
without supplying maintenance and improvement or other funding to
assure compliance. Our VBCs are falling apart, cannot keep pace with
technological advances in health, and hamper our efforts to qualify for
``meaningful use'' incentive payments to implement the Electronic
Health Record in the VBCs. We thus request that the Appropriations
Committee direct the IHS in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations to
utilize existing, available appropriations to fully fund the VBC leases
in accordance with section 804 of the IHCIA.
The VBC program is a unique and critical component of the CHAP.
Without VBCs that are suitable for their purposes, the CHAP cannot work
as intended by the Congress and our people cannot get the healthcare
they need. Please help ensure that the United States' trust
responsibility to Alaska Native people for healthcare is fully
realized. For more information, contact:
--Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association: Carolyn Crowder,
[email protected];
--Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation: Robert Clark,
[email protected];
--Maniilaq Association: Ian Erlich [email protected]; and/or
--Norton Sound Health Corporation: Deven [email protected].
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Museums
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to submit this testimony. My
name is Ford Bell and I serve as president of the American Association
of Museums (AAM). We urge your support for at least $154.3 million each
for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National
Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)--the amounts requested in the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal. We also urge your support
for Historic Preservation efforts funded by the subcommittee.
AAM is proud to represent the full range of our Nation's museums--
including aquariums, art museums, botanic gardens, children's museums,
culturally specific museums, historic sites, history museums, maritime
museums, military museums, natural history museums, planetariums,
Presidential libraries, science and technology centers, and zoos, among
others--along with the professional staff and volunteers who work for
and with museums.
AAM is proud to work on behalf of the 17,500 museums that employ
400,000 people, spend more than $2 billion annually on K-12 educational
programming, receive more than 90 million visits each year from primary
and secondary school students, and contribute more than $20 billion to
local economies.
Museums are essential in our communities for many reasons:
--Museums are key education providers. Museums already offer
educational programs in math, science, art, literacy, language
arts, history, civics and government, economics and financial
literacy, geography, and social studies, in coordination with
State and local curriculum standards. Museums also provide
experiential learning opportunities, science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education, youth training, job
preparedness, and teacher training.
--Museums create jobs and support local economies. Museums serve as
economic engines, bolster local infrastructure, and spur
tourism. Both the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National
Governors Association agree that cultural assets such as
museums are essential to attracting businesses, a skilled
workforce, and local and international tourism. Museums pump
more than $20 billion into the American economy, creating many
jobs.
--Museums address community challenges. Many museums offer programs
tailored to seniors, veterans, children with special needs,
persons with disabilities, and more, greatly expanding their
reach and impact. For example, some have programs designed
specifically for children on the autism spectrum, some are
teaching English as a Second Language, and some are serving as
locations for supervised family visits through the family court
system.
--Digitization and traveling exhibitions bring museum collections to
underserved populations. Teachers, students, and researchers
benefit when cultural institutions are able to increase access
to trustworthy information through online collections and
traveling exhibits. Most museums, however, need more help in
digitizing collections.
Support from the NEH, NEA, and the Historic Preservation Fund plays
a critical role in helping museums provide all of these essential
community services.
NEH is an independent Federal agency created by the Congress in
1965. Grants are awarded to nonprofit educational institutions--
including museums, colleges, universities, archives, and libraries--for
educational programming and the care of collections. NEH provides
annual grants to State humanities councils located in every State and
U.S. territory. NEH supports museums as institutions of learning and
exploration, and keepers of our cultural, historical, and scientific
heritages.
Due to the impact of the economic downturn, many institutions and
nonprofits around the country, including museums, are struggling to
maintain continued access to high-quality programming and educational
opportunities in the humanities.
In 2011, through Preservation & Access, one of NEH's national
program divisions, more than 90 peer-reviewed, competitive grants
totaling more than $4.1 million were awarded to museums, historical
societies and historic sites for a variety of projects to preserve and
provide access to our Nation's rich cultural heritage. Across all NEH
divisions (including Preservation, Research, Education, Public
Programs, Challenge Grants and Digital Humanities), these institutions
received more than 160 awards totaling $12.4 million in 2011.
Demand for humanities project support, as demonstrated by NEH grant
application rates, far exceeds available funding. In fiscal year 2009,
NEH received 4,366 competitive grant applications representing more
than $402 million in requested funds, but was only able to fund 16.9
percent of these peer-reviewed project proposals.
Here are just two examples of how NEH funding is used to support
museums' work in your communities:
--The Rhode Island Historical Society in Providence is using its
$300,000 fiscal year 2011 Sustaining Cultural Heritage
Collections grant to install a sustainable environmental
control system and make building improvements and security
upgrades to preserve collections documenting the history of
Rhode Island from pre-European contact to the present.
--The Sheldon Museum and Cultural Center in Haines, Alaska, is using
its $6,000 fiscal year 2010 Preservation Assistant grant to
support a general preservation assessment and the purchase of
preservation supplies and environmental monitoring equipment.
The collection consists of 2,515 historical artifacts, 885
pieces of art, more than 6,000 photographs, 1,677 bound
volumes, and 1,296 archival items dealing with the history of
the Chilkat Valley and the town of Haines.
NEA provides direct Federal funding to State arts agencies and to
nonprofit arts institutions including museums. Its mission is to make
art accessible to all and to provide leadership in arts education.
Established in 1965, NEA brings great art to every congressional
district. Its grants to museums help them exhibit, preserve, and
interpret visual material through exhibitions, residencies,
publications, commissions, public art works, conservation,
documentation, and public programs. Grants are awarded for specific
projects and require at least a one-to-one match from the recipient.
Most recently, a partnership between the NEA and Blue Star Families has
created the Blue Star Museums program, in which more than 1,500 museums
of all types across the Nation provide free admission to military
families from Memorial Day through Labor Day.
In 2011, NEA made 148 awards to museums, totaling more than $6
million. Many museums have reduced staff and budgets as a result of the
recession, which has hit nonprofit arts particularly hard. Despite the
economic downturn, attendance is up, causing increased pressure to
serve more people with fewer staff and smaller budgets.
Receiving a grant from the NEA confers prestige on supported
projects, strengthening museums' ability to attract matching funds from
other public and private funders. On average, each $1 awarded by the
NEA leverages $7 from other sources. Forty percent of NEA's grant funds
is distributed to State arts agencies for re-granting.
Here are two examples of how NEA funding is used to support
museums' work in your communities:
--The Rhode Island School of Design (on behalf of Museum of Art) in
Providence is using its $20,000 fiscal year 2011 Access to
Artistic Excellence grant to support the exhibition ``Ahead of
the Curve: Richard Brown and Contemporary British Art'', with
accompanying catalogue and educational programs. The exhibition
will feature more than 100 paintings, sculptures, and drawings
by late 20th-century British artists such as David Hockney,
Anthony Caro, Bridget Riley, Fionna Banner, Yinka Shonibare,
Anish Kapoor, and Damian Hirst.
--The Seward Association for the Advancement of Marine Science (aka
Alaska SeaLife Center) in Seward, Alaska is using its $39,000
fiscal year 2012 Art Works I grant to support an expedition and
planning of the exhibition, GYRE, that will engage artists and
scientists in the global problem of marine debris. In
partnership with the Anchorage Museum, a group of artists
including Pam Longobardi, Mark Dion, Alexis Rockman, Andrew
Hughes, and Sonya Kelliher-Combs will accompany a team of
scientists aboard the ship R/V Norseman in a research
expedition to expose artists to the impact of marine debris on
various ecosystems.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
In addition to the NEH and NEA, we urge you to fund important
historic preservation programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction
providing at least $47 million for State Historic Preservation Offices
and $9 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. We also urge
you to restore funding of $25 million for Save America's Treasures and
$4.6 million for Preserve America, which have not been funded for the
past 2 fiscal years.
The 2005 Heritage Health Index of archives, libraries, historical
societies, and museums concluded that immediate action is needed to
prevent the loss of 190 million artifacts that are in need of
conservation treatment.
--59 percent have collections damaged by light.
--56 percent have insufficient security to protect their collections.
--80 percent do not have an emergency plan that includes collections.
--71 percent need additional training and expertise for staff caring
for collections.
--Only 13 percent have access to endowment funds for preservation.
Historic preservation programs matter now more than ever--not only
because they protect our national heritage, but because they serve as
economic development engines and job creators in the thousands of
communities they serve. For example, Save America's Treasures alone has
been responsible for supporting more than 16,000 jobs since it was
created just 10 years ago. A 2009 report to the Congress by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation found that Preserve America
is addressing many State, local, and regional heritage tourism needs
with a relatively small Federal investment.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Bird Conservancy
Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: American Bird
Conservancy (ABC) is a 501(c)(3) national nonprofit organization
dedicated to the conservation of wild native birds and their habitats
throughout the Americas. Founded in 1994, ABC is the only U.S.-based
group dedicated solely to overcoming the greatest threats facing native
birds in the Western Hemisphere.
As you know, America is blessed with a spectacular abundance and
rich diversity of birds, with more than 800 species inhabiting the
mainland, Hawaii, and surrounding oceans. Unfortunately, according to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2009 State of the Birds report,
many of our bird species are in decline and some are threatened with
extinction making it more important now than ever to continue funding
Federal programs like the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act
(NMBCA) grants program, Joint Ventures (JV), and the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act which have been proven and effective in
maintaining healthy and abundant native bird populations.
Funding Federal bird conservation programs not only provides
ecological benefits, it makes good economic sense. Birds are also a
very important economic driver. According to a report put together by
the Federal Government, Americans spend about $36 billion in pursuit of
birding activities every year. Approximately 1 in 5 Americans--48
million people--engages in bird watching, and about 42 percent travel
away from home to go birding. Birding activities also generate about
$4.4 billion in Federal tax revenues. Birds also naturally provide
billions of dollars' worth of pest control each year benefiting farmers
and consumers alike.
ABC's report, ``Saving Migratory Birds for Future Generations: The
Success of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act'' found that
of our 341 species that are neotropical migrants--meaning birds that
breed in the United States and Canada and winter in Latin America and
the Caribbean--127 are in decline. Sixty of those species, including 29
songbirds, are in severe decline having lost 45 percent or more of
their population in the past 40 years. If these trends continue, future
generations of Americans may never be able to see a bright blue
Cerulean Warbler, Bell's Vireo, or Black-chinned Sparrow.
This trend can be seen all throughout the country. Here in
Washington, DC for example an annual census of birds in Rock Creek Park
that started in the 1940s, found that the number of migratory songbirds
breeding there has dropped by 70 percent during the past half century.
Three species of warbler (Black-and-white, Hooded, and Kentucky) no
longer breed there at all. The main reasons for these precipitous
declines are well established and reported in the 2009 State of the
Birds report: The largest source of bird mortality is due to habitat
loss through conversion for human uses. Resource extraction and a
growing human population have resulted in more development and land
conversion for suburban sprawl so there are simply fewer and fewer
large blocks of unbroken habitat for our native birds.
The second major impact is from habitat degradation from
ecologically harmful land uses, such as unsustainable forestry or
destruction of grasslands to create farm land. Deforestation,
especially in Latin America, is accelerating at an alarming rate,
driven by the needs of the rapidly expanding human population, which
has tripled from 1950-2000. Estimates of the percentage of remaining
forests that are lost each year in the Neotropics are between 1-2
percent.
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act
To address these two problems--habitat loss and degradation, both
of which are rapidly increasing south of our border--ABC respectfully
suggests that the Congress act to help mitigate their impact by
continuing to fund the NMBCA grants program at the highest level
possible. As the subcommittee knows, the NMBCA supports partnership
programs in the United States, Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean
to conserve migratory birds, especially on their wintering grounds
where birds of nearly 350 species, including some of the most
endangered birds in North America, spend their winters. Projects
include activities that benefit bird populations such as habitat
restoration, research and monitoring, law enforcement, and outreach and
education.
The NMBCA grants program has a proven track record of reversing
habitat loss and advancing conservation strategies for the broad range
of Neotropical birds that populate America and the Western Hemisphere.
The public-private partnerships along with the international
collaboration they provide are proving themselves to be integral to
preserving vulnerable bird populations.
Between 2002 and 2011, the program supported 367 projects,
coordinated by partners in 48 U.S. States/territories and 35 countries.
More than $39 million from NMBCA grants has leveraged more than $152
million in matching funds and $7 million in nonmatching funds. Projects
involving land conservation have affected about 2 million acres of bird
habitat. While there are more than 100 worthy proposal received each
year, the program is oversubscribed with funding only available to fund
about 40 projects. From these numbers, it is clear that conservation
that would benefit our migrant songbirds is not able to take place due
to a lack of funding for this program. ABC strongly believes expanding
this program is essential to achieving conservation goals critical to
our environment and economy. Just as importantly, this Federal program
is a good value for taxpayers, leveraging more than $4 in partner
contributions for every $1 that we spend. ABC respectfully requests
that NMBCA be funded at $4 million for fiscal year 2013.
Joint Ventures
JVs also exemplify a highly successful, cost-effective approach to
conservation. By applying science and bringing diverse constituents
together, JVs across the United States have created a model for solving
wildlife management problems and restoring habitats critical to
conserving declining species. Nationally, JVs have protected, restored,
or enhanced more than 18.5 million acres of important habitat for
migratory bird species. There are currently 21 JVs in the United States
that provide coordination for conservation planning and implementation
of projects that benefit all migratory bird populations and other
species.
JVs have a long history of success in implementing bird
conservation initiatives mandated by the Congress and by international
treaties. Projects are developed at the local level and implemented
through diverse public/private partnerships. These projects reflect
local values and needs, while addressing regional and national
conservation priorities. The projects benefit not only birds, but many
wildlife species, and have a positive impact on the health of
watersheds and local economies. For every $1 appropriated for JVs
leveraged more than $35 in non-Federal partner funds. ABC respectfully
requests that JVs be funded at $15 million for fiscal year 2013.
ABC strongly believes increased funding for NMBCA and JVs is
essential to achieving conservation goals critical to our environment
and economy. Just as importantly, these Federal programs are good
values for taxpayers, leveraging more than $4 and $30, respectively, in
partner contributions for each one that the taxpayers spend.
North American Wetlands Conservation Act
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) has helped
conserve wetlands in North America for more than 20 years by providing
funding for conservation projects that benefit wetland-associated
migratory birds in all 50 States, Canada, and Mexico. NAWCA has a
proven track record of success. The program has received more than $1.1
billion in grants for 2,067 projects that have leveraged approximately
$3.2 billion in matching funds affecting 26.7 million acres. More than
4,500 partners have fostered public and private sector cooperation for
migratory bird conservation, flood control, erosion control, and water
quality. For every $1 invested in the program, an average of $3.20 is
raised to match the Federal share by non-Federal entities.
As an organization that works with migratory birds, which by
definition cross international borders during their migration patterns,
we know that protection and restoration of wetland and upland habitat
must occur across the continent if the goal is to protect the species.
As a result ABC respectfully requests that NAWCA be funded at $39.5
million for fiscal year 2013.
America faces a serious challenge to reverse the decline of many of
our bird species, but it is possible. Since birds are sensitive
indicators of how we are protecting our environment as a whole, this
decline signals a crisis that the Congress must act now to reverse it.
If these reports tell us anything, it is that when we apply ourselves
by investing in conservation, we can save imperiled wildlife, protect
habitats, and solve the multiple threats at the root of this problem.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Bird Conservancy; American Forest &
Paper Association; Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies; Audubon;
Bat Conservation International; Environmental Investigation Agency;
Fuller Park Community Development Corporation; Hardwood Federation;
Klamath Bird Observatory; The Nature Conservancy; North American
Banding Council; Point Reyes Bird Observatory; Sierra Club; Union of
Concerned Scientists; United Steelworkers; The University of Montana;
Wildlife Conservation Society; Wild Salmon Center; World Wildlife Fund;
and The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation
The undersigned groups, representing a diverse coalition of timber
and labor industry, conservation groups and academic institutions,
thank Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and subcommittee members
for their continued support for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Office
of International Programs. The following testimony recognizes the
valuable investments made by USFS in promoting U.S. leadership in
international conservation and helping American interests, business and
ecological, to remain protected from being undercut by illegal logging
activities.
While we understand the subcommittee's responsibility in finding
the appropriate balance between conservation and navigating a difficult
fiscal climate, it is important to note that the U.S. Forest Service
International Programs (FSIP) provides tremendous economic value to the
American public. Industry and congressional reports estimate that U.S.
roundwood, sawnwood, and panel exports could increase by approximately
$460 million each year if illegal logging was eliminated. FSIP works on
behalf of the American people to level the playing field for the United
States in international timber trade while protecting the United States
from invasive species and recovering declining U.S. migratory species.
We respectfully request the subcommittee support FSIP by
maintaining fiscal year 2012 funding level for fiscal year 2013 at $8
million. This would not only ensure the investments undertaken in
fiscal year 2012 are maintained, but, more importantly, will ensure
that FSIP remains an integral part of the U.S. forest policy and
practice.
Reducing Illegal Logging and Leveling the Playing Field for
International Timber Trade
One of most important contributions FSIP makes to the American
economy is to level the playing field in international trade for U.S.
timber producers. Illegal logging is a complex and multifaceted issue,
affecting international trade, the long-term viability of forest
ecosystems, land tenure, rural poverty, and governance. For the United
States, it has detrimental impacts on the U.S. forest products industry
and disrupts market access, resulting in huge losses in potential
revenue for American producers.
To combat illegal logging, FSIP dedicates roughly one-quarter of
its budget toward a variety of measures to prevent illegal logging from
many different angles:
--by developing cutting-edge technologies that assist in determining
wood type and origin;
--by organizing regional workshops overseas to exchange and transfer
knowledge;
-- by supporting numerous global platforms and domestic policymaking
(such as the Lacey Act); and
--by building global awareness of legality requirements and
technology.
Moreover, with its breadth of expertise in forest management, FSIP
is coordinating and implementing on-the-ground activities in several
countries to monitor and manage forest ecosystems, support enforcement
work and build strong bilateral programs in regions with serious
illegal logging challenges, such as Peru, Brazil, Russia, and the Congo
Basin. Some highlights include:
Hand-Held Wood Identification Device and Wood Identification
Database.--With support from FSIP and the U.S. Department of
State, USFS scientists are developing a hand-held wood
identification device that port inspectors could use to quickly
determine whether timber shipments match species declarations.
The device also functions on smart phones equipped with
cameras. The application will allow the inspector to scan the
wood shipment and compare the image to those in libraries of
wood identification data.
Innovations in DNA Testing.--Funded by FSIP, USFS is working with
New Mexico State University to support innovation in DNA
testing of wood samples. This will ultimately ensure that
declarations citing origin of wood species are accurate,
improving the abilities of U.S. enforcement agents to determine
legality under the Lacey Act and/or under the Convention on the
International Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna
(CITES).
Other Technologies and Education.--USFS is also working on a
range of other wood science and technological efforts overseas
to enhance data management, timber tracking, and field
identification manuals as well as conducting field personnel
training on forest monitoring.
Targeted Bilateral Assistance.--The FSIP's Peru Forest Sector
Initiative (PFSI) assists the Government of Peru in complying
with the obligations of the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
in partnership with the U.S. Agency for International
Development. The collaboration focuses on the development of an
information and control system for chain of custody for CITES-
listed species, support for population studies for mahogany and
cedar, design of forest inventories, specialized expertise in
yield determination and methodology, development of skill in
forest and wildlife management including community and
indigenous forest management; organizational design and
training to regional governments; anti-corruption plans for the
forest sector; environmental investigation; and environmental
prosecution training.
Protecting the United States from Invasive Species
Invasive forest pests inflict millions of dollars of damage to the
U.S. economy every year. Researchers currently estimate there are at
least 20 destructive forest pests likely to enter the United States in
the coming decade. The threat of invasive species is often manipulated
by countries and cited as a barrier to U.S. exports. Reducing the
threat of invasive species will serve to boost the American economy
while protecting domestic ecosystems. The USDA Forest Service
identifies and uses bio-control agents for invasive forest pests as
bio-control agents, which can be an effective and inexpensive method of
suppressing devastating pests that wreak ecological and economic havoc
on American forests. FSIP facilitates projects involving agency
scientists and land managers with counterparts in those countries where
the invasive species originate. Without international collaboration,
pests already in the United States will not be controlled and there may
be future introductions of economically damaging pests. Current
international cooperation, to protect the U.S.'s forests occurs with
many countries including China and Russia. FSIP has worked to address
invasive species including Sudden Oak Death, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid,
Mile-a-Minute Weed, Beech Bark Scale, European and Asian gypsy moths,
and Emerald Ash Borer.
Recovering Migratory Species in Decline by Conserving Habitat
FSIP invests heavily in protecting overseas habitat for endangered
species listed on the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Millions of dollars
invested into domestic habitat conservation for these species is wasted
if the wintering habitat is not also conserved. For example, wild
Pacific salmon migrate from the rivers of the West Coast of North
America and Eastern Russia to the Pacific Ocean. FSIP works in Eastern
Russia with partner organizations to improve watershed management for
wild salmon stocks. Also in Russia, FSIP has invested in the recovery
of the Korean pine-deciduous forests relied upon by prey species such
as wild boar and deer that has resulted in a steady recovery of the
Siberian tiger over the past decade.
In conclusion, we appreciate the support of the Subcommittee and
request maintaining fiscal year 2012 enacted levels of $8 million for
the U.S. Forest Service Office of International Programs in fiscal year
2013. Continued investment in international conservation will improve
our economic security, while helping our domestic species to flourish
and protecting our local ecological habitats from invasive species. It
will also reaffirm our position as the preeminent conservation leader
in the world.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Fisheries Society; Association of
Fish & Wildlife Agencies; Association of Zoos & Aquariums; National
Audubon Society; Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; The Nature
Conservancy; The Wildlife Society; and Wildlife Management Institute
Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to offer comments on the
fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. On behalf of the 6,366 organizations and
businesses representing millions of birders, hunters, anglers, boaters,
hikers, conservation organizations and other outdoor enthusiasts, we
encourage the subcommittee to provide at least $61.32 million for the
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program in fiscal year 2013. This is
unchanged from the level funding enacted last year and is the same as
the administration's fiscal year 2013 request. We also request that the
non-Federal match requirement remain at 35 percent and that the
proportion allocated for tribal and State competitive grants remain at
approximately 7 and 9 percent, respectively, the same as fiscal year
2012 enacted.
Although the need is much greater, level funding would help
maintain essential capacity to conserve the more than 12,000 species
that States have identified as at-risk in their State Wildlife Action
Plans. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the only Federal
program with the singular purpose of preventing Federal endangered
species listings. It is achieving success as highlighted in the State
Wildlife Grants Success Stories Report which showed how partnerships in
every State are conserving vulnerable fish and wildlife, including many
that are candidates for Federal endangered species listing.
Preventing new endangered species listings is a goal shared by
conservationists, business, farmers, and ranchers and has broad
bipartisan support. Through early and strategic action, we can be
successful in preventing new endangered species listings and even
recover species already on the list, such as the Lake Erie Water Snake,
which was delisted in September 2011 because of State and Tribal
Wildlife Grant investments. Adequate and consistent funding for the
program is essential to fulfillment of the shared Federal-State
responsibility for keeping our Nation's wildlife from becoming
endangered. Now more than ever, we should be focusing limited resources
on this kind of smart, effective investment in conservation.
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program has been cut by one-
third since 2010. The reduction in funding is impacting States' and
their partner's ability to restore habitat, protect land, incentivize
private lands conservation, monitor species and habitats, and conduct
research. Past cuts are slowing conservation work and further cuts may
jeopardize the success of the program, leading to a higher probability
for future endangered species listings. There is no other program that
can take the place of the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program.
State Wildlife Action Plans, which guide spending of State-
apportioned funds, were developed collaboratively by leading
scientists, conservationists, sportsmen, and private landowners and
identified the most effective and practical means to prevent wildlife
from becoming endangered. The Congress can demonstrate its commitment
to these plans in every State and territory by providing the Federal
share of support, leveraging millions in State and private matching
funds. This investment in conservation helps support thousands of jobs
and the $730 billion outdoor recreation industry.
We ask the subcommittee to support the administration's request to
maintain the required non-Federal match at 35 percent, the same level
as fiscal year 2012 enacted. This level of match will help ensure
program funds are efficiently put on the ground and will support those
States still recovering from substantial budget cuts to their nongame
programs the last several years. In addition, we ask the subcommittee
to keep the proportion of funds for tribal and State competitive grants
at roughly the same proportion, approximately 7 and 9 percent,
respectively. Although we feel there is an appropriate role for
competitive grants, particularly for regional and landscape projects,
we don't feel growth in competitive grants should come at the expense
of apportioned funding which is at or near its lowest level since
inception of the program in 2000. Funding provided to States through
apportionments is already accountable in the following ways:
--Funding dispersed through apportionments: are directed by State
Wildlife Action Plans that were approved by the Director of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
--must be subsequently reviewed and approved as grants to FWS; and
--will adhere to an effectiveness measures framework that will be
incorporated into FWS's new Wildlife TRACS reporting and
tracking system beginning in October 2012.
We understand and appreciate the fiscal constraints that face our
Nation. However, the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is modest
compared to the scope of work it funds (proactive conservation in all
56 States, territories, and the District of Columbia) and the
importance of that work (recovery of some of our Nation's most
imperiled fish and wildlife). We appreciate the subcommittee's past
support for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program and hope
funding can be maintained in fiscal year 2013 at or more than the
fiscal year 2012 level.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Forest Foundation
Investments in the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Forest Stewardship
Program and the USFS Forest Health Program on Cooperative Lands will
help family forest owners get ahead of increasing threats from invasive
pests and pathogens, wildfire, and development pressures. It is also
critical that funding for USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
Program and overall USFS research and development (R&D) is maintained,
so these programs continue to provide the information and technical
resources for landowners to make informed decisions about our forests.
Investments in forestry programs will help strengthen rural
communities, support rural jobs, and ensure that communities that rely
on the clean water and air, wildlife habitat, and forest products from
these forests, don't face additional costs for these services.
Additionally, we urge continued support for the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Environmental Education, which
invests in the future--our children--ensuring the next generation is
well-prepared to manage our Nation's natural resources.
Family forest owners are facing a ``perfect storm'' of threats.
Wildfires, invasive species and other insects and diseases, pressures
from development, shrinking forest products markets, and ownership
changes make it harder than ever to keep America's forests healthy and
productive. It is therefore essential we ensure these families have
tools, technical information, and policy support to keep their forests
as forests, for current and future generations.
The American Forest Foundation (AFF) urges the subcommittee to
maintain fiscal year 2012 funding for programs that support good forest
stewardship on our Nation's 251 million acres of family owned forests
and ensure the next generation is equipped to conserve and manage these
forests--for the benefit of all Americans.
Given the tight budget climate, we understand tough decisions must
be made. However, we urge you to consider maintaining funding for the
previously mentioned programs as a high priority, given the impact
these programs have on rural families and communities, forest
conservation, and the future of our country's forest resources.
AFF is a nonprofit conservation organization that works on the
ground through a variety of programs including the American Tree Farm
System, representing 83,000 tree farmers who sustainably manage more
than 26 million acres under rigorous standards. Our mission is to help
these families be good stewards and keep their forests healthy for
future generations. Because we know that conserving our forests also
means enabling the next generation to manage and care for them, AFF is
also home to the largest environmental education program, Project
Learning Tree (PLT). Our network of coordinators in all 50 States
helps train more than 30,000 teachers each year in peer-reviewed
curricula, correlated to State standards. Since its inception, PLT has
reached 75 million students, helping them learn how to think, not what
to think, about complex environmental and natural resources issues.
Families and individuals steward more of America's forests than the
Federal Government or corporations. Families and individuals own 35
percent of our Nation's forests.\1\ These private forests provide
myriad public benefits--clean air, clean water, recreation, renewable
resources that build our homes and communities, and good-paying rural
jobs. Family forest owners invest their own time, resources, and energy
into keeping their forests healthy and ensuring their children and
grandchildren have the same opportunities. Sometimes families can do
this on their own, but in many cases, these families need help, both
technically and financially. In addition to the private, consulting
forester workforce, every State has a network of reliable and trusted
service foresters that help family forest owners make good forest
management decisions. These boots-on-the-ground make all the
difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA, May 2008, Who Owns America's Forests?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Steve and Janet Funk, for example. Steve and Janet are our
2011 National Outstanding Tree Farmers of the Year from Idaho. When the
couple first purchased their Tree Farm in the early 1970s, it was in a
state of total disrepair. The stream banks were heavily eroded and the
forested hillsides were overstocked and severely neglected. Knowing he
needed professional guidance, Steve looked toward his State forestry
agency, the Idaho Department of Lands, and local extension programs.
Steve proceeded to work with these professionals to complete his first
Forest Stewardship management plan, with the goal of restoring water
quality, wildlife habitat, and the health and productivity of his
forest.
State service foresters were always available to help the Funks
after a harvest, determine what species were best to plant, and
determine the best management tactics for maximum productivity.
Resources from the Forest Stewardship Program were instrumental in
bringing the Funk's tree farm back to life.
With the proposed cuts to the Forest Stewardship Program, fewer
family forest owners will have access to State service foresters who
help millions of America's forest owners keep America's private forests
healthy. These foresters provide valuable technical advice as well as
help forest owners write management plans to guide the future
management of their land. We simply cannot have healthy forests without
foresters.
Steve and Janet Funk are just 2 forest landowners from a collection
of more than 1,200 forest owners in 48 States who, in the last 4 weeks,
signed a letter calling on the Congress to maintain support for the
Forest Stewardship Program. These folks can't imagine how they would
continue sustainably managing our Nation's forests without the
assistance of our network of State foresters.
In addition to active landowners like the Funks, there is a large
portion of family forest owners, estimates suggest close to 95 percent,
that aren't actively engaged in the management of their lands.\2\ We
know from the latest trends in forest health and wildfire, that leaving
nature to take its course is no longer a viable option. We must find
ways to engage these landowners in active management of their
woodlands. The Forest Stewardship Program provides support for State
agencies to reach these landowners and help them engage in management
that will improve the health of their land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Brett J. Butler. 2010. Family Forest Owners of the United
States, 2006: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010
RPA Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proper forest management is critical to ensuring the long-term
sustainability of our Nation's forests. Every day forests across the
country face threats from invasive pests and pathogens. Forests--58
million acres--are at risk of being overtaken by insects, disease, and
other invasive species, threatening to change the existing structure of
our forest ecosystems. The implications of this forest loss on our
Nation's clean water supply, wildlife habitat, recreation, renewable
energy supply, and rural communities would be devastating.
Pulling Examples From Across the Country.--Last year, the Asian-
longhorned beetle, which threatens 15 tree species from maples to
birches, was found, for the first time, in southern Ohio.\3\ In
California and Arizona, the goldspotted oak borer has already killed
more than 80,000 live oak and black oak trees in less than 15 years.\4\
And in Minnesota, forest owners are gearing up for what would be a
devastating attack of thousand cankers disease on their black walnut
trees. These are just a few in a long list of invasive threats our
forest owners face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ USDA Agriculture Research Service. 2011. Behavior and Biology
of the Asian Longhorned Beetle.
\4\ Center for Invasive Species Research, University of California,
Riverside. 2011. The Goldspotted Oak Borer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efforts such as the USFS Forest Health Program, help landowners
better understand the threats they face and the management techniques
which mitigate harm. In the case of the emerald ash borer, the Forest
Health Program created an integrated program strategy, dedicated to
reducing the adverse impacts of this pest on Northeastern area forests.
Similar efforts for other threats are a main focus of these programs,
ensuring our Nation's forest landowners are equipped with the best
knowledge to make the most informed management decisions.
USFS's Forest Health Programs are critical tools in identifying,
mitigating, and eliminating the impacts of invasive pests and
pathogens. Without these programs, our Nation's forests, and the
livelihoods that depend on them, would be left unprotected.
Both of these programs, the Forest Stewardship Program and the
Forest Health Program, must be grounded in sound science and sound
forest information. That's where USFS's FIA Program and EPA's R&D come
in. These programs provide irreplaceable data about our forests, the
health and conditions, and give landowners the tools to know how to
manage the growing threats they face. The R&D function is not only
essential for providing forest management research, it is also on the
leading edge of providing new information about the use of wood
products through life-cycle assessments. With more information about
the environmental and economic benefits of using wood products,
especially in the growing green building market, decisionmakers can
make informed building material choices. And we believe as the science
shows, wood is one of the top materials when it comes to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and storing carbon, reducing energy
consumption and pollution, and creating jobs. With more decisionmakers
choosing wood, family forest owners have more demand for their products
which helps ensure they have the resources to reinvest in keeping their
lands healthy. We urge the subcommittee to support the Forest
Stewardship and Forest Health programs and we continue to call on USFS
to invest in life-cycle assessment research in particular.
Steve, Janet, and our vast network of Tree Farmers also understand
the importance of educating the next generation of Tree Farmers and
natural resource managers. The Funks want to ensure that the next
generation will take on the challenge of good stewardship and continue
to conserve these lands. This is a growing concern, with 170 million
acres of family forests expected to change hands in the next few
decades as family forest owners increase in age.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Brett J. Butler. 2010. Family Forest Owners of the United
States, 2006: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010
RPA Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve and Janet, like so many tree farmers, do their part to
educate local schoolchildren on the importance of proper forest
management. In addition to hosting numerous school tours, every year,
they coordinate with their State Project Learning Tree Coordinator to
host more than 40 State teachers on their tree farm. These educators
learn first-hand the many public benefits of healthy forests and the
management necessary to protect these forest goods and services--
information that then goes back to the classroom, reaching hundreds
more schoolchildren.
Programs like EPA's Office of Environmental Education, authorized
by the National Environmental Education Act, or USFS's Conservation
Education Program, help support Project Learning Tree efforts and
enable more Tree Farmers, like Steve and Janet, to reach even more
kids. Without these program resources, fewer kids would understand the
important connection of our country's well-being to the natural world.
Educating the next generation is key to conserving and maintaining
healthy forests for the long-run, and these education programs make it
happen.
To conclude, AFF recognizes the subcommittee must find areas to
reduce spending. We simply ask the subcommittee to consider the impact
these reductions may have on the country's more than 10 million family
forest owners and every American who benefits daily from the benefits
of well-managed, working forests. We urge the subcommittee to work to
maintain funding levels for the USFS's Forest Stewardship Program,
Forest Health Cooperative Lands Program, Forest Inventory and Analysis
Program, Research and Development Program, Conservation Education
Initiative, and EPA's Office of Environmental Education.
I thank the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to provide
some insight on these programs and appreciate consideration of my
testimony. I am more than happy to answer any questions on these
programs and our Tree Farm network.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geosciences Institute
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geosciences
Institute's (AGI) perspective on fiscal year 2013 appropriations for
geoscience programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. AGI is a
nonprofit federation of 50 geoscientific and professional associations
that represents more than 250,000 geologists, geophysicists, and other
Earth scientists who work in industry, academia, and government.
Founded in 1948, AGI provides information services to geoscientists,
serves as a voice of shared interests in our profession, plays a major
role in strengthening geoscience education, and strives to increase
public awareness of the vital role the geosciences play in society's
use of resources, resilience to natural hazards, and the health of the
environment. We ask the subcommittee to support and sustain the
critical geoscience work in the United States Geological Survey (USGS),
the National Park Service (NPS), and the Smithsonian Institution.
Specifically we ask for $1.2 billion for USGS, $333 million for NPS's
Resource Stewardship Program, and $857 million for the Smithsonian
Institution.
As the U.S. economy improves, the Nation must continue to focus on
intersecting needs for energy resources, water resources, mineral
resources, soil resources, and healthy ecosystems. To speed up the
recovery of our economy and workforce, we need to sustain and
efficiently use our natural resources and cost-effectively improve our
quality of life and the quality of the environment, while reducing
risks from natural hazards. USGS is the Nation's only natural resource
science agency that can provide the objective data, observations,
analyses, assessments, and scientific solutions to these intersecting
critical needs.
U.S. Geological Survey
Virtually every American citizen and every Federal, State, and
local agency benefits either directly or indirectly from USGS products
and services. A wide variety of industries rely on USGS for assessments
and data to reduce their costs and risks and to help them develop their
own products and services. As was made clear by the National Research
Council report ``Future Roles and Opportunities for the U.S. Geological
Survey'', the USGS's value to the Nation goes well beyond the
Department of the Interior's stewardship mission for public lands.
USGS addresses a wide range of important problems facing the
Nation:
--natural hazards;
--environmental change;
--water resources;
--waste disposal; and
--energy and mineral resources.
AGI in ``Critical Needs for the Twenty First Century: The Role of
the Geosciences'' lists seven critical and policy actions to help the
Nation meet these needs through the geosciences, including the USGS
(available online at www.agiweb.org/gap/criticalneeds/index.html). With
a burgeoning human population, rising demand for natural resources and
the rising costs of natural hazards, it is critical to more fully
integrate USGS data and understanding into actions for a sustainable
world. USGS plays a prominent role in meeting national needs, while
growing the economy, building a skilled workforce and ensuring a
natural resource-literate public.
AGI strongly supports smart growth of about $98 million compared to
the USGS fiscal year 2013 request for a total budget of $1.2 billion.
Please avoid proposed cuts of $48 million and distribute an additional
$50 million for energy, minerals, water, hazards, geospatial analyses,
mapping, and data preservation. Enhancing infrastructure, observations,
data, and understanding builds the workforce inside and outside of USGS
and spurs economic growth through wise resource management.
Mineral Resources Program.--The value of domestically processed
mineral materials was about $633 billion in 2011. The USGS Mineral
Resources Program (MRP) is the only entity, public or private, that
provides an analysis and assessment of the raw materials and processed
minerals accessible from domestic and global markets. This highly
regarded research program is the Nation's premier credible source for
regional, national, and global mineral resource and mineral
environmental assessments, statistics and research critical for sound
economic, mineral-supply, land-use and environmental analysis, planning
and decisionmaking. Not only does the program track global commodities,
it prepares assessments such as the recent report on rare earth element
deposits in the United States.
The data and analyses of the MRP are used by the Department of the
Interior, Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Department of State, the Federal Reserve, other Federal, State and
local government entities, foreign governments, private companies, and
the general public. Analyses based on the MRP data are essential for
guiding economic and environmental policy and for providing options for
land-use decisions posed by industry, government, and private land
owners. We urge the subcommittee to support the Mineral Resources
Program at a level of $54 million so that it may perform its core
missions without a loss of critical information and jobs. This level is
the same as the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2005 levels and more
than the fiscal year 2013 request of $45 million.
Please avoid proposed cuts of $5.25 million in Mineral Resources to
research related to minerals and human health, research on rare earth
elements, analysis, and assessments of resources in Alaska and in other
countries, jobs associated with this work and external funding for
States and universities.
AGI appreciates the consolidation of energy, minerals and
environmental health, but we are concerned about two significant
proposed cuts. Please avoid cuts of $1 million to the Energy Resources
Program's State Cooperative Project for assessments of coal and oil
shale resources. Please avoid cuts of $2 million to Toxic Substances
Hydrology to reduce research on pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and other
emerging contamination as well as environmentally robust approaches to
uranium resource extraction and shale gas development.
Water Program.--AGI is concerned with the decreased funding in the
President's request for USGS's Water Resources Programs. The USGS is
the Nation's premier Federal water science agency and knowledge about
water quality and quantity is necessary for economic growth and to
avoid catastrophes. Going forward for fiscal year 2013, AGI supports
efficient budgets to sustain many critical water programs including
National Streamflow Information, Ground Water Monitoring Network, the
National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA), Hydrologic Research and
Development, Hydrologic Networks and Cooperative Water. We respectfully
ask that water programs in the fiscal year 2013 request be restored to
a total budget of $231 million, by removing proposed cuts to the
Cooperative Water program (-$5 million in request), the Water Resources
Research Act (-$6.5 million), the National Water Quality Assessment
Program (-$6.5 million), and Hydrologic Networks and Analysis (-$3.7
million).
Please avoid proposed cuts to the Cooperative Water program to
eliminate research and monitoring of local to State level water quality
and availability or cuts to Water Resources Research which eliminates
research grants to 54 institutes at universities. Please avoid proposed
cuts to the National Water Quality Assessment Program for reductions in
monitoring sites, well water sampling, and laboratory methods
development for pharmaceuticals, pesticides, antibiotics, and other
emerging contaminants in water systems or to the Hydrologic Networks
and Analysis which eliminates real time and archived water resources
data for all users.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and Other Natural
Hazards.--A key role for the USGS is providing the research,
monitoring, and assessment that are critically needed to better prepare
for and respond to natural hazards. The tragic earthquake/tsunami in
Japan and the Indian Ocean, the massive earthquakes in New Zealand,
Chile, Haiti, Pakistan, and Wenchuan, and the local earthquake in
Mineral, Virginia remind us of the need for preparation, education,
mitigation, and rapid response to natural hazards. Several National
Academies' reports and studies by other hazard experts have shown that
mitigation and preparation reduces fatalities, injuries, and economic
losses. With great forethought, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Authorization Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-503) called for modernization
of existing seismic networks and for the development of the Advanced
National Seismic System (ANSS)--a nationwide network of shaking
measurement systems focused on urban areas. ANSS can provide real-time
earthquake information to emergency responders as well as building and
ground shaking data for engineers and scientists seeking to understand
earthquake processes and mitigate damage.
With 2,142 of 7,100 stations in operation at the end of fiscal year
2011, the ANSS is far from achieving its goals. Critical investments
now will help to reduce earthquake risks; help to create jobs and grow
the economy by improving and modernizing seismic networks and the built
environment; help support external earthquake research and education
efforts; and help to support other major earthquake science
initiatives, such as the EarthScope Observatories run by NSF. A major
component of EarthScope is a seismic network that is moving across the
country and is appropriately complemented and connected to ANSS. Given
all of these factors, now is really the time to increase investments in
USGS-National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) through the
Earthquake Hazards Program. AGI strongly supports reauthorization of
NEHRP in 2012 (H.R. 3479/S. 646), the passage of the Volcano Warning
Act (S. 566) and appropriations to meet the goals of both measures in
fiscal year 2013. AGI strongly supports robust appropriations of at
least the request for the Earthquake Hazards Program ($58.9 million),
the Volcano Hazards Program ($25 million) and Landslide Hazards Program
($3.9 million).
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program.--AGI is very
grateful to the Congress for passing the re-authorization of the
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGDP) in the 2009
public lands omnibus (Public Law 111-11, section 11001). This important
partnership between the USGS, State geological surveys, and
universities provides the Nation with fundamental data for addressing
natural hazard mitigation, water resource management, environmental
remediation, land-use planning, and raw material resource development.
AGI supports a modest increase of $1.5 million for the NCGDP for a
total of $29.5 million in fiscal year 2013. This additional support
would restore the Federal and State Partnerships to almost fiscal year
2010 levels; still far less than authorized levels of $64 million.
National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program.--The
data preservation program (Public Law 109-58, section 351) is
administered by USGS in partnership with State geological surveys and
other stakeholders. Private and public entities collect geologic and
geophysical data in the form of paper records, digital files, and
physical samples. Often these data and samples are given to State
geological surveys either voluntarily or because of regulatory
statutes. These data are worth far more than the cost of preserving
them because they provide information about natural resources and
natural hazards that are used by others for business or safety. The
program generates more value in terms of economic development,
environmental stewardship, hazard mitigation, and fulfilling regulatory
requirements than it costs to run.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2013 places the
National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation and the
Biological Information Management and Delivery Program within a single
subactivity called science synthesis, analysis, and research. AGI
supports an appropriation of $1 million, the same as the fiscal year
2010 amount to sustain the program.
Smithsonian Institution
The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History plays a dual
role in communicating the excitement of the geosciences and enhancing
knowledge through research and preservation of geoscience collections.
AGI asks the subcommittee to support Smithsonian research with steady
funds that are a tiny fraction of the overall budget, but will
dramatically improve the facilities and their benefit to the country.
We strongly support the President's request of $856.8 million for the
Smithsonian Institution in fiscal year 2013.
National Park Service
The national parks are very important to the geoscience community
and the public as unique national treasures that showcase the geologic
splendor of our country and offer unparalleled opportunities for
research, education, and outdoor activities. NPS's Geologic Resources
Division was established in 1995 to provide park managers with geologic
expertise. Working in conjunction with USGS and other partners, the
division helps ensure that geoscientists are becoming part of an
integrated approach to science-based resource management in parks. AGI
supports the President's small increase ($333 million for NPS Resource
Stewardship for fiscal year 2013) so the NPS can adequately address the
treasured geologic resources in the National Parks, especially as the
National Parks approach their 100th anniversary.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
REQUEST SUMMARY
On behalf of the Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs),
which compose the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC),
thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2013
appropriations recommendations for the 29 colleges funded under the
Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act (Tribal
College Act); the Bureau of Indian Education postsecondary
institutions; and the Institute of American Indian Arts. The Bureau of
Indian Education administers these programs, save for the Institute of
American Indian Arts, which is congressionally chartered and funded
directly through the Department.
In fiscal year 2013, TCUs seek $82,872,000 for institutional
operations, an endowment program, and technical assistance grants under
the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of
1978 or Tribal College Act; of which, $73.5 million for titles I and II
grants (27 TCUs); $109,000 for title III (endowment grants), and
$601,000 for technical assistance. In fiscal year 2011, the clear
intent of the Congress was to level fund the institutional operating
grants for the TCUs funded under titles I and II of the Tribal College
Act, having appropriated the same funding level for the overall pot of
funds available to support Tribal College Act programs. However,
because of a spike in enrollments at the TCUs, the operations funding
actually dropped by $549 per Indian student. TCUs are being penalized
for their successful efforts to recruit and retain students. Our fiscal
year 2013 request restores the funding for institutional operating
grants to the fiscal year 2010 level based on the per Indian student
allocation.
AIHEC's membership also includes tribally controlled postsecondary
career and technical institutions whose institutional operations
funding is authorized under title V of the act; AIHEC supports their
request for $9.372 million. There are three other TCUs funded under
separate authorities within Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations, namely:
--Haskell Indian Nations University;
--Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute; and
--the Institute of American Indian Arts.
AIHEC supports their independent requests for support of the
institutional operating budgets of these institutions.
NEED FOR CHANGE IN FUNDING STRATEGY
Today there are 37 TCUs operating on 75 campuses in 15 States.
These institutions, accredited by independent, regional accreditation
agencies and like all institutions of higher education, must undergo
stringent performance reviews on a periodic basis to retain their
accreditation status, were begun specifically to serve the higher
education needs of American Indians. Annually, these institutions serve
students from more than 250 federally recognized tribes, more than 75
percent of whom are eligible to receive Federal financial aid.
A process should be articulated, beginning in the fiscal year 2013
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, to
compare and fund TCUs annually on a ``per Indian student'' basis, as
authorized under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities
Assistance Act, rather than a lump sum. The current funding strategy
fails to take into account annual growth in TCU student populations, so
what might look like ``level'' funding year to year actually translates
into annual funding decreases. TCU student enrollments are growing as
TCUs work to help meet national education (completion) and
accountability (retention) goals, but the overall funding pot is
remaining nearly stagnant. In fiscal year 2011 alone, TCUs grew by more
than 1,660 full-time Indian students. This growth, encouraged by the
Federal Government, resulted in a loss of funding of $549/full-time
Indian student, or $9.2 million, in just 1 year, compared to the TCUs'
fiscal year 2010 funding level.
The Congress put the student-based funding formula in law to help
reflect the realities of operating small and geographically remote
higher education institutions engaged in strengthening tribal
communities and growing American Indians in postsecondary education.
But over the years, appropriations have focused on the overall dollar
amount, with no attention to how that impacts a TCU's actual operating
budget when allocated per student. It is imperative that a student-
focused formula be employed when determining funding priorities.
This is not simply a matter of appropriations fluctuating greatly
and continually falling short of an authorization; it effectively
impedes our institutions from having the necessary resources to grow
their programs in response to the changing needs of their students and
the communities they serve. Ultimately, the TCUs need to be fully
funded at the authorized level of $8,000 per Indian student. To
illustrate the reasonableness of this request, Howard University (HU),
located in the District of Columbia, is the only other minority-serving
institution, besides the TCUs, to receive basic institutional
operations funding from the Federal Government. The similarity ends
there as HU's Federal support (exclusive of its medical school) amounts
to more than $19,000 per student. In contrast, the majority of the TCUs
currently receives $5,235 per Indian student, with no Federal funding
toward basic operations for the non-Indian students, which account for
approximately 20 percent of TCU enrollments. HU needs this funding--no
question. So do TCUs.
FURTHER JUSTIFICATIONS
Tribal Colleges and Universities Provide Critical Access to Vital
Postsecondary Education Opportunities.--Tribal Colleges and
Universities provide access to higher education for American Indians
and others living in some of the Nation's most rural and economically
depressed areas. According to U.S. Census data,\1\ the annual per
capita income of the U.S. population is $26,059. By contrast, the
annual per capita income of American Indians is $15,671 or about 40
percent less. In addition to serving their student populations, TCUs
offer a variety of much needed community outreach programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source.--U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal Colleges and Universities Are Producing a New Generation of
Highly Trained American Indian Teachers, Tribal Government Leaders,
Nurses, Engineers, Computer Programmers, and Other Much-Needed
Professionals.--By teaching the job skills most in demand on their
reservations, TCUs are laying a solid foundation for tribal economic
growth, with benefits for surrounding communities. In contrast to the
high rates of unemployment on reservations, graduates of TCUs are
employed in ``high need'' occupational areas such as Head Start
teachers, elementary and secondary school teachers, and nurses/
healthcare providers. Just as important, the vast majority of tribal
college graduates remain in their tribal communities, applying their
newly acquired skills and knowledge where they are most needed.
Tribal Colleges and Universities Meet the Strict Standards of
Mainstream Accreditation Boards Offering Top-Quality Academic Programs;
Contributing to the Achievement of the National Graduation Goal, and
Serving as Effective Bridges to 4-Year Institutions of Higher
Learning.--A growing number of TCUs have attained a 10-year
accreditation term, the longest term granted to any higher education
institution. All TCUs offer associate degrees with 13 offering
bachelor's and 2 conferring master's degrees, making TCUs a critical
component in achieving the national goal to once again lead the world
in the percentage of the population with college degrees by 2020.
Additionally, TCUs' transfer function from 2-year to 4-year degree
institutions is significant. An independent survey of TCU graduates
conducted for the American Indian College Fund indicated that more than
80 percent of respondents who attended a mainstream college prior to
enrolling at a TCU did not finish the degree they were pursuing at the
mainstream college. The rate of completion markedly improved for those
who attended a TCU prior to beginning a degree program at a mainstream
institution. After completing tribal college coursework, less than one-
half of respondents dropped out of mainstream colleges, and nearly 40
percent went on to earn a bachelor's degree. This clearly illustrates
TCUs' positive impact on the persistence of American Indian students in
pursuit of baccalaureate degrees. The overwhelming majority of
respondents felt that their TCU experience had prepared them well for
further education and noted that it had a very positive influence on
their personal and professional achievements.
ADDITIONAL FACTS
Enrollment Gains and New Tribal Colleges and Universities.--
Compounding existing funding disparities is the fact that although the
numbers of TCUs and students enrolled in them have dramatically
increased since 1981, appropriations have increased at a
disproportionately low rate. Since they were first funded, the number
of tribal colleges has quadrupled and continues to grow; Indian student
enrollments have risen more than 370 percent. Between fiscal year 2005
and fiscal year 2012, five additional TCUs have become accredited and
eligible for funding under title I of the Tribal College Act. TCUs are
in many ways victims of their own successes. The growing number of
tribally chartered colleges and universities being established and
increasing enrollments have forced TCUs to slice an already inadequate
annual funding pie into even smaller pieces.
Local Tax and Revenue Bases.--TCUs cannot rely on a local tax base
for revenue. Although tribes have the sovereign authority to tax, high
reservation poverty rates, the trust status of reservation lands, and
the lack of strong reservation economies hinder the creation of a
reservation tax base. As noted earlier, on Indian reservations that are
home to TCUs, the unemployment rate can well exceed 60 percent.
Federal Trust Responsibility.--The emergence of TCUs is a direct
result of the special relationship between American Indian tribes and
the Federal Government. TCUs are founded and chartered by their
respective American Indian tribes, which hold a special legal
relationship with the Federal Government, actualized by more than 400
treaties, several Supreme Court decisions, prior congressional action,
and the ceding of more than 1 billion acres of land to the Federal
Government. Beyond the trust responsibility, the fact remains that TCUs
are providing a public service that no other institutions of higher
education are willing, or able, to provide by helping the Federal
Government fulfill its responsibility to the American people,
particularly in rural America. Despite the fact that only enrolled
members of a federally recognized tribe or the biological child of a
tribal member may be counted as Indian students when determining an
institution's share of the operating funds, TCUs have open enrollment
policies. Approximately 20 percent of TCU enrollments are non-Indians.
These institutions are simply and effectively providing access to
quality higher education opportunities to reservation community
residents.
Gaming and the Tribal Colleges and Universities.--Although several
of the reservations served by TCUs do have gaming operations, these are
not the mega casinos located in proximity to urban outlets and featured
in the mainstream media. Only a handful of TCUs receive regular income
from the chartering tribe's gaming revenue, and the amounts received
vary greatly from year to year. Most reservation casinos are small
businesses and use the gaming revenue to improve the local standard of
living and potentially diversify into other, more sustainable areas of
economic development. In the interim, where relevant, local TCUs offer
courses in casino management and hospitality services to formally train
tribal members to work in the local tribally run casinos.
Although some form of gaming is legalized in 48 States, the Federal
Government has not used the revenues generated from State gaming as a
justification to decrease Federal funding to public colleges or
universities that are State-run.
It has been implied that those tribes that operate the few
enormously successful and widely publicized casinos should be financing
higher education for all American Indians. However, no State is
expected to share its gaming revenue with a nongaming State.
president's budget and appropriations request for fiscal year 2012
As noted earlier, it has been three decades since the Tribal
College Act was first funded, and the TCUs have yet to receive the
congressionally authorized per Indian student funding level. To fully
fund the TCUs institutional operating grants would require an increase
of $27 million more than the current funding level. However, we do
recognize the budget constraints the Nation is currently facing and
consequently, we are not requesting that level of increase in fiscal
year 2013, but rather seek to restore funding to the fiscal year 2010
level of $5,784 per Indian student, which calls for an increase of $
$6.1 million more than fiscal year 2012 and $3.7 million more than the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget request. Additionally, we seek to
maintain level funding for the technical assistance grants, as included
in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request. Details of the
request are outlined in the Request Summary above.
CONCLUSION
TCUs provide quality higher education to many thousands of American
Indians who might otherwise not have access to such opportunities. The
modest Federal investment that has been made in TCUs has paid great
dividends in terms of employment, education, and economic development.
Continuation of this investment makes sound moral and fiscal sense.
We greatly appreciate your past and continued support of the
Nation's TCUs and your serious consideration of our fiscal year 2013
appropriations requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates
the opportunity to provide testimony in support of appropriations for
the United States Geological Survey (USGS), United States Forest
Service (USFS), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal
year 2013. AIBS encourages the Congress to provide the USGS with at
least $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2013, with at least $177.9 million
for the Ecosystems activity. We further request that the Congress
provide the USFS Forest and Rangeland Research program with at least
$295.3 million, and EPA's Office of Research and Development with at
least $600 million.
AIBS is a nonprofit scientific association dedicated to advancing
biological research and education for the welfare of society. AIBS
works to ensure that the public, legislators, funders, and the
community of biologists have access to and use information that will
guide them in making informed decisions about matters that require
biological knowledge. Founded in 1947 as a part of the National Academy
of Sciences, AIBS became an independent, member-governed organization
in the 1950s. Today, AIBS has nearly 160-member organizations and is
headquartered in Reston, Virginia, with a Public Policy Office in
Washington, DC.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
USGS provides unbiased, independent research, data, and assessments
that are needed by public and private sector decisionmakers. Data
generated by the USGS save taxpayers money by reducing economic losses
from natural disasters, allowing more effective management of water and
natural resources, and providing essential geospatial information that
is needed for commercial activity and natural resource management. The
data collected by the USGS are not available from other sources and our
Nation cannot afford to sacrifice this information.
The ecosystems activity within USGS underpins the agency's other
science mission areas by providing information needed for understanding
the impacts of water use, energy exploration and production, and
natural hazards on natural systems. The USGS conducts research on and
monitoring of fish, wildlife, and vegetation--data that informs
management decisions by other Interior bureaus regarding protected
species and land use. USGS science is also used to control invasive
species and wildlife diseases that can cause billions of dollars in
economic losses. Collectively, the knowledge generated by these USGS
programs is used by Federal and State natural resource managers to
maintain healthy and diverse ecosystems while balancing the needs of
public use.
Other examples of successful USGS ecosystem initiatives include:
--Development of comprehensive geospatial data products that
characterize the risk of wildfires on all lands in the United
States. These products are used to allocate firefighting
resources and to plan fuel reduction projects.
--Identification of white-nose syndrome, a fungus that is devastating
U.S. bat populations and could jeopardize the multi-billion
dollar pest control services provided by bats.
--Identification and evaluation of control measures for Asian carp,
sea lamprey, Burmese pythons, and other invasive species.
--Study of the impacts of solar energy and other next generation
energy sources on wildlife and endangered species.
Through the Cooperative Research Units, the USGS and their partners
address pressing issues facing natural resource managers at the local,
State, and Federal levels. Examples of recent research initiatives
include studying the effects of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on
wildlife and fisheries, and improving management of elk and waterfowl.
In addition to providing research expertise, these partnerships at 40
universities in 38 States serve as important training centers for
America's next generation of scientists and resource managers. More
than 500 graduate students each year receive training by USGS
scientists at Cooperative Research Units. The program is also an
efficient use of resources: each Federal dollar invested in the program
is leveraged more than three-fold.
The National Streamflow Information Program within the Water
Resources mission area provides needed information for resource
managers and scientists. Its national network of streamgages records
changes in streamflow due to alterations in precipitation, land use,
and water use. This information is vital to State and local
governments, utilities, and resource managers who make decisions about
water use.
The requested fiscal year 2013 budget would support several science
priorities. The proposed budget would enable the USGS to develop
methodologies to better prevent, detect, and control Asian carp and
other invasive species. USGS would also be able to provide enhanced
surveillance and diagnostic tools, and to develop management tools for
white-nose syndrome and other ecologically and economically costly
wildlife diseases. Additionally, USGS would be able to study and better
inform decisions about new energy sources. Importantly, the proposed
budget would increase support for USGS research on high-priority
conservation and land-use issues faced by other Interior bureaus, which
lack intramural scientific resources to study these issues.
Although the proposed budget supports many USGS priorities, the
requested funding level would result in cuts to other programs that
support agency core missions. For instance, USGS would have to diminish
efforts to assess the Nation's water quality and reduce studies on the
impacts of environmental contaminants. Given the agency's critical role
in informing the environmental and economic health of the Nation, more
support is justified. We urge the Congress to fully fund the USGS by
restoring administration-proposed reductions to core science programs
and operations costs while maintaining the proposed increases for other
areas.
In summary, the USGS is uniquely positioned to provide a scientific
context for many of the Nation's biological and environmental
challenges, including water quality and use, energy independence, and
conservation of biological diversity. Biological science programs
within the USGS gather long-term data not available from other sources.
These data have contributed fundamentally to our understanding of the
status and dynamics of biological populations and have improved our
understanding of how ecosystems function, all of which is necessary for
predicting the impacts of land management practices and other human
activities on the natural environment. This array of research expertise
not only serves the core missions of the Department of the Interior,
but also contributes to management decisions made by other agencies and
private sector organizations. USGS science is also cost-effective, as
the agency's activities help to identify the most effective management
actions. In short, increased investments in these important research
activities will yield dividends.
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
USFS research provides scientific information and new technologies
to support sustainable management of the Nation's forests and
rangelands. These products and services increase the basic biological
and physical knowledge of the composition, structure, and function of
forest, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems.
The fiscal year 2013 budget request would cut funding for the
Forest and Rangeland Research by $2.5 million. If enacted, the budget
would reduce the USFS's capacity to conduct research relevant to
wildfires, control of invasive species, and management of wildlife and
fish. Given the importance of this scientific work to the management of
public and private lands, we urge the Congress to fund the program at
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Office of Research and Development (ORD) supports valuable
extramural and intramural research that is used to identify and
mitigate environmental problems facing our Nation. ORD research informs
decisions made by public health and safety managers, natural resource
managers, businesses, and other stakeholders concerned about air and
water pollution, human health, and land management and restoration. In
short, ORD provides the scientific basis upon which EPA monitoring and
enforcement programs are built.
Despite the important role played by ORD, its funding has declined
by 11 percent since fiscal year 2004, when it peaked at $646.5 million.
At $575.6 million, the budget request for fiscal year 2013 falls far
short of addressing past and current shortfalls. We ask that the
Congress restore funding for ORD to at least the fiscal year 2010
level.
The Ecosystem Services Research program within ORD is responsible
for enhancing, protecting, and restoring ecosystem services, such as
clean air and water, rich soil for crop production, pollination, and
flood control. The program has been chronically underfunded, according
to the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB). Indeed, the current level of
funding ``provides inadequate funding for research that supports
multiple EPA regulatory programs and that the SAB has characterized as
transdisciplinary with the `potential to be transformative for
environmental decisionmaking' . . .'' according to an SAB analysis of
the fiscal year 2012 budget request. The fiscal year 2013 request fails
to correct this problem, instead proposing a reduction of $600,000.
Moreover, funding for EPA ecosystem research has been cut nearly in
half since 2004. We ask that the Congress address the chronic
underfunding of the program.
The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program supports valuable
research on human health and the environment through competitively
awarded research grants. The program enables EPA to fill information
gaps that are not addressed by intramural EPA research programs or by
other agencies. A report by the National Academy of Sciences found that
the ``STAR program is an important part of the overall EPA research
program.'' That same report recommends that funding for the STAR
program should be at 15 to 20 percent of the overall ORD budget, ``even
in budget-constrained times.'' Despite a proposed increase for the
program, the fiscal year 2013 request would fund STAR at less than 15
percent of the overall ORD budget. We urge the Congress to fund STAR at
the recommended level.
The STAR Graduate Fellowship contributes to the training of the
next generation of scientists by supporting graduate students pursuing
an advanced degree in environmental science. The National Academy of
Sciences called the fellowship ``a valuable mechanism for enabling a
continuing supply of graduate students in environmental sciences and
engineering.'' Since its inception in 1995, this successful program has
supported the education and training of 1,500 fellows who have gone on
to pursue careers as scientists and educators. The agency's request
would flat fund the program. Given the fellowship's valuable role in
preparing environmental scientists and engineers, we ask for the
program's funding to be increased accordingly.
ORD's Safe and Sustainable Water Resources program supports
research that underpins safe and sustainable water. In addition to
helping to ensure safe drinking water for society, the program's
research focuses on better understanding resiliency of watersheds to
stressors and factors that affect watershed restoration. The budget
request would allow the program to pursue research that will inform
decisions about water safety and to ensure the sustainability of our
coastal watersheds and estuaries.
In conclusion, we urge the Congress to restore funding for the ORD
to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. These appropriation levels would
allow ORD to address a backlog of research needs.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Lung Association
SUMMARY: FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Improving Air Quality and Addressing Climate Change:
Federal Stationary Source Regulation............... 34.1
Federal Support of Air Quality Management.......... 134.8
Climate Protection Programs........................ 108.0
Clean Air Allowance Trading Program................ 20.8
State and Local Air Quality Management Grants...... 301.5
Diesel Emission Reduction Act Grants............... 30.0
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Certification............ 101.9
State Indoor Radon Grants.............................. 8.0
Indoor Air: including Radon Program.................... 4.1
Research: Air, Climate, and Energy..................... 105.8
Enforcement............................................ 15.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Lung Association is pleased to support the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) program to improve the nation's
air during fiscal year 2013. The American Lung Association was founded
in 1904 to fight tuberculosis and today, our mission is to save lives
by improving lung health and preventing lung disease. We urge the
subcommittee to support ensuring that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has the necessary resources to protect the public health from
air pollution, and we urge the subcommittee to pass an fiscal year 2013
bill free from any policy riders.
Protecting the public from the health threats of pollution is a
core mission of the EPA, and it has a long history of success.
Furthermore, the public expects EPA to implement the Clean Air Act and
strongly supports EPA's effort to reduce air pollution. In March, we
released a bipartisan public opinion poll that shows strong public
support the EPA's efforts to update clean air protections. Nearly
three-quarters (73 percent) of voters say that we do not have to choose
between air quality and a strong economy--we can achieve both. And a 2-
to-1 majority (60 to 31 percent) believes that strengthening safeguards
against pollution will create, not destroy, jobs by encouraging
innovation.
Implementing the Clean Air Act to protect health and save lives is
a tremendous responsibility and the EPA workload is vast. In fiscal
year 2013, we expect EPA to update health-based air quality standards;
implement rules to clean up toxic pollution from major sources such as
power plants; clean up toxic pollution from automobile tailpipes;
aggressively enforce the law to ensure compliance and protect the
public; support State and local air pollution cleanup; continue
research on the health impacts of air pollution; improve air pollution
monitoring; and ensure that the Clean Air Act is implemented in a way
that protects the most vulnerable. As a Nation, we need EPA to be able
to do all of these things. Below, we have highlighted key provisions of
the President's fiscal year 2013 budget that deserve your attention
and/or support.
IMPROVING AIR QUALITY AND ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE
We support the President's budget increases to improve air quality
and address climate change. Specifically, we support EPA's request for
the Federal Stationary Source Regulation budget increase of $6.8
million, including an additional $2.4 million to fund the review of
existing Clean Air Act standards for criteria pollutants including
ozone and particulate matter to ensure that the air pollution health
standards effectively convey to local communities when the air is
unhealthy to breathe, as required by law; as well as the requested $2
million for the development of new source performance standards to
reduce greenhouse gases. As EPA advances clean air protections, more
coordination will be needed and we urge you to provide the resources to
do so as requested.
We also support EPA's request for an additional $8.5 million for
Climate Protection Programs, including $2.9 million for the Greenhouse
Gas Reporting Program, and the $2 million requested by EPA to develop
Carbon Pollution Standards for Power Plants. Higher temperatures can
enhance the conditions for ozone formation. Even with the steps that
are in place to reduce ozone, evidence warns that changes in climate
are likely to increase ozone levels in the future in large parts of the
United States. It is clear that EPA is taking a careful and common
sense approach to addressing climate change, including setting carbon
pollution standards for power plants.
The American Lung Association supports the increase requested by
EPA to provide Federal Support for Air Quality Management of $11.9
million (including $531,000 for science and technology needs) to assist
States, tribal, and local air pollution agencies in the development and
implementation of plans to meet standards established by EPA. People
who live near major sources of pollution often face the greatest health
risk. Through development of faster, electronic reporting, closing of
data gaps, and continuing to develop the science necessary to reduce
pollution to healthy levels, EPA supports States, tribes, and local
agencies and directly benefits communities.
The Clean Air Allowance Trading Program is responsible for
development, implementation, and assessment, and provides regulatory
and modeling support for efforts to address major regional and national
air issues from stationary sources. Clean air allowance trading
programs help implement the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and reduce acid deposition, toxics deposition, and regional
haze. Pollutants include sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and, as a co-benefit of SO2
emission reductions, mercury. Please support a funding level of
$792,000 (including $715,000 to meet science and technology needs) to
implement this important program.
Finally, we urge the Congress to provide at least the requested
$101.9 million for the EPA Federal Vehicle Fuels Standards and
Certifications Programs. It is critically important to increase the
budget for EPA's Federal Vehicle Fuels Standards and Certifications
Programs, particularly to improve the effectiveness of the
certification and compliance testing programs in the face of increasing
demand, more challenging oversight requirements, and the increasing
diversity of technologies. Currently, EPA conducts very limited testing
of small imported engines but a high fraction of these engines fail the
test. Additional resources are needed to improve testing and compliance
for this important program to protect public health.
We strongly support EPA's planned work to update gasoline sulfur
and tailpipe standards. Light duty cars and trucks remain a significant
source of air pollution. This work is vital to address any adverse air
quality impacts that may result from increased use of renewable fuels.
INDOOR AIR AND RADIATION
Indoor air quality is a major concern for the American Lung
Association, and we support the $17.8 million budget request for the
Reducing Risks from Indoor Air Program to promote comprehensive asthma
care that integrates management of environmental asthma triggers and
healthcare services through community based programs, and we appreciate
EPA's special attention to communities most at risk including children,
low-income and minority populations.
However, we strongly oppose the $1.9 million cut to the Indoor Air
Radon Program (including $200,000 for science and technology needs) and
the elimination of the $8 million State radon categorical grants
proposed in the President's budget. Exposure to radon continues to be a
significant risk to human health, and is the largest cause of lung
cancer after tobacco.\1\ Without the guidance and funding support from
EPA, State programs will simply not be able to protect the public from
the threat of radon. Please fully restore these programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Assessment of Risks
from Radon in Homes (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please restore the Tools for Schools which has succeeded in
improving environmental conditions and reducing asthma triggers in
schools across the country. More schools need this help. Please fund
this important program.
SUPPORT FOR STATE AND LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
The American Lung Association strongly supports increased funding
for State and local air pollution agencies, which are on the front
lines in the effort to improve air quality across the Nation. These
agencies will be called on to put in place the revised and new
safeguards set under the Clean Air Act and must adopt and enforce a
range of new emissions reduction programs--including the recently
finalized Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants that will
save up to 11,000 lives per year when fully implemented. At this
critical juncture, State and local air pollution agencies need more
resources, not less, to ensure proper implementation of the Clean Air
Act and protection of the public so we strongly support the requested
additional $65.8 million for State and Local Air Quality Management
Grants.
However, we strongly oppose cuts in the President's budget to the
widely supported Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) program that was
reauthorized in late 2010. Twenty million old diesel engines are in use
today that pollute communities and threaten the public and workers.
Immense opportunities remain to reduce diesel emissions and protect
public health through the DERA program. Please restore funding to the
$30 million level.
As mentioned previously, we strongly oppose the elimination of the
$8 million State radon categorical grants as proposed in the
President's budget. Without the financial support from EPA, the State
programs will not be able to protect the public from the pervasive
threat of radon.
RESEARCH: AIR, CLIMATE, AND ENERGY
The American Lung Association strongly supports EPA's Air, Climate
and Energy Research Program. Research is essential to improve the
understanding of the health effects of air pollution and determining
what levels of pollution should be set to protect the public with an
adequate margin of safety. Specifically, we urge the Congress to
provide at least the additional $15 million requested in the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget for improved air quality
monitoring. Improving the Nation's air pollution monitoring network is
absolutely critical in providing better information to enhance Federal,
State and local knowledge and empower efforts to protect the health of
their communities. Continued investment in other areas of research,
especially in climate change and biofuels, is also vital to informing
future agency action.
ENFORCEMENT
The American Lung Association supports EPA's request for
enforcement funding to ensure that air pollution standards and
requirements are being met to protect public health. In order to
effectively protect the public and promote justice for
disproportionately impacted populations, EPA must have the ability to
enforce penalties for permit violations and respond to civil
enforcement actions authorized by the Clean Air Act. We ask the
Congress to fully fund EPA's enforcement program appropriation request
of $15.8 million, in the interests of the Nation's youngest, oldest,
and most economically challenged citizens.
CONCLUSION
For 40 years the Clean Air Act has charged EPA to protect the
public from air pollution and fulfill the promise of air that is clean
and healthy for all to breathe. We urge the subcommittee to ensure that
EPA is meeting the required deadlines and updating standards to reflect
the best science with the maximum health protection, and to pass and
fiscal year 2013 bill free of any policy riders. Thank you for the
opportunity to present the recommendations of the American Lung
Association. Every day we are fighting for clean, healthy air for all
Americans to breathe.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
the following testimony on the fiscal year 2013 appropriation for
science and technology (S&T) programs at the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The ASM is the largest single life science organization
in the world with more than 38,000 members.
The administration's proposed fiscal year 2013 budget of $807.3
million for EPA's S&T activities is $13.5 million; a 1.7-percent
increase more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. This request is
roughly 10 percent of the total EPA budget proposal, and it provides
crucial resources for EPA's science based regulatory responsibilities.
The S&T funding supports research and development (R&D) efforts,
personnel costs, laboratory purchases, and other operating expenses,
resources necessary to strengthen the science underlying EPA's
environmental standards and their enforcement.
The fiscal year 2013 EPA budget provides critical resources for the
Agency's current strategic plan, which identifies five goals to guide
EPA research, education, regulatory, compliance, and enforcement
functions during fiscal year 2011-2015:
Goal 1: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
Goal 2: Protecting America's Waters
Goal 3: Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable
Development
Goal 4: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
Goal 5: Enforcing Environmental Laws
EPA has developed five cross-cutting strategies to help achieve the
Strategic Plan's goals, one of which is ``advancing science, research,
and technological innovation.'' EPA's strategic successes depend upon
best practice science capabilities enabled by adequate S&T funding. EPA
research programs contribute new knowledge to regulatory science;
analyze environmental samples; provide technical support to Federal,
State, and local labs; monitor regulated pollutants; check compliance
and enforce Federal regulations; and respond to emergencies.
In the past year, EPA monitored United States air quality following
Japan's nuclear disaster, awarded grants to universities and health
departments to develop new controls for bed bug infestations, and
accepted a congressional directive to evaluate the potential impacts of
hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. In January, EPA announced its
fiscal year 2012-2013 ``priority goals''--selected as measurable and
achievable within 2 years, designed to advance the agency's long-term
strategic objectives. One priority goal is the clean-up of 22,100
contaminated U.S. sites by September 30, 2013. As specified in the
administration's request, the fiscal year 2013 budget also would
support restoring water quality in the Great Lakes, implementing new
computing tools to improve environmental monitoring data-gathering, and
developing new standards for vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions. Such
EPA actions require frequent testing and a thorough understanding of
current scientific knowledge.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FUNDING BUILDS TECHNICAL EXPERTISE IN
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
The EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) currently manages
research programs in six priority areas to advance environmental
science:
--air, climate, and energy;
--safe and sustainable water resources;
--sustainable and healthy communities;
--chemical safety for sustainability;
--human health risk assessment; and
--homeland security research.
EPA scientists and engineers conduct this research at ORD's three
national laboratories, four national centers, and two offices situated
in 14 facilities. These centers and labs are responsible for studies
spanning the agency's S&T research portfolio:
--National Exposure Research Laboratory--employs more than 400
scientists, engineers, and staff to develop the knowledge and
tools needed for environmental risk assessments as well as
optimal responses to contaminants.
--National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory--
conducts research on the effects of contaminants and
environmental stressors on human health and ecosystems, to
identify and evaluate risks.
--National Risk Management Research Laboratory--focuses on practical
actions to solve environmental problems like improving air
quality, cleaning contaminated sites, and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.
--National Center for Computational Toxicology--uses high-throughput
screening technologies, systems biology, and advanced computer
models to develop better tools that can screen thousands of
chemicals for toxicity.
--National Center for Environmental Assessment--prepares technical
reports and risk assessments on how pollutants, etc., might
impact human health and the environment; also develops new risk
assessment methods and tools.
--National Center for Environmental Research--manages EPA's
competitive grants and fellowship programs to develop the next
generation of U.S. scientists and engineers.
--National Homeland Security Research Center--created in 2002,
provides the scientific knowledge to counter biological,
chemical, and radiological pollutants.
Research at EPA's Microbiological and Chemical Exposure Assessment
Research Division (MCEARD) is concerned about microorganisms in the
environment that could be beneficial or harmful to human health. MCEARD
scientists have established risk assessment tools and methods to detect
molds, bacteria like Escherichia coli, viruses, Giardia parasites, and
other microbes in water, soil, and air samples. The agency's
researchers have contributed significantly to commonly used protocols
for monitoring microbial contaminants throughout the United States.
Across its six priority programs, ORD is placing more emphasis on
finding sustainable solutions, within a sustainability focused
operational framework recently developed by the National Research
Council at EPA's request. In addition, the six programs routinely
leverage collaborations with other EPA offices, Federal agencies, and
State and local stakeholders. With its Federal partners, EPA's S&T
expertise is integral to the Nation's homeland security efforts. EPA is
the lead agency for Federal preparations against terrorist attacks via
water and for decontamination of indoor and outdoor areas post-attack.
Biosecurity-related discoveries by ORD scientists and engineers also
have clear applications to other sectors of public health and
environmental sciences. As part of its homeland security
responsibilities, EPA will use fiscal year 2013 funds to implement a
Regional Center of Expertise for Chemical Warfare Agent Laboratories,
coordinating agency efforts into a more efficient operation.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FUNDING PROTECTS AGAINST THREATS TO
HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS
Every action taken by EPA to protect public health and the
environment must be supported by solid S&T expertise and risk
assessments. In the fiscal year 2013 budget, S&T funding distributed
among EPA's five strategic goals would fall less than fiscal year 2011
levels, but slightly more than fiscal year 2012 enacted levels with one
exception:
--taking action on climate change and improving air quality, $271
million (4.3-percent increase);
--protecting America's waters, $151 million (1.2-percent increase);
--cleaning up communities and advancing sustainable development, $183
million (2.3-percent decrease);
--ensuring the safety of chemicals and preventing pollution, $185
million (2.4-percent increase); and
--enforcing environmental laws, $18.5 million (2.5-percent increase).
To achieve EPA's strategic goals, fiscal year 2013 funds will
support prioritized actions in the coming year, all dependent upon S&T
capabilities, including the following:
--About 70 Federal rules directing EPA's air toxic control efforts
are due for review, and EPA experts and health risk data will
shape the resultant standards and their enforcement.
--EPA will replace outdated technologies to detect air contaminants
currently used in the national monitoring networks, using S&T
funds to develop improved monitors for ambient air pollutants
that are more cost-effective for EPA, State, and local
agencies.
--Fiscal year 2013 increases include funds for the Drinking Water
program that will provide additional technical assistance to
States. By September 30, 2013, EPA also will have collaborated
with 20 States to specifically improve small drinking water
systems. A partnership created last August with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture will direct fiscal year 2013 EPA
resources toward protecting rural drinking water and wastewater
systems.
--With the Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey, EPA
researchers will prepare a detailed study of potential air,
ecosystem, and water quality impacts of hydraulic fracturing.
--The EPA Pollution Prevention Program will focus its R&D efforts on
evaluating and encouraging greater use of greener chemicals,
products, and technologies.
EPA programs play a role in preserving healthy environments in U.S.
communities. In January, EPA provided nearly $10 million in grants to
38 States, territories, and tribes to protect swimmers at beaches
against bacterial and other contamination. A recent annual EPA report
showed that EPA actions in fiscal year 2011 stopped more than 1.8
billion pounds of harmful pollution in the Nation's air, land, and
waters. In the past year, EPA safeguarded our food supply by issuing
compliance orders to several beef feedlots in the Midwest and warning
against consuming fish from contaminated waters in Texas. The agency
also announced improvements to its Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS), an online repository of EPA's scientific evaluations of health
risks associated with environmental contaminants. There currently are
540 chemical substances in the IRIS database.
Environmental Protection Agency Funding Stimulates Scientific and
Economic Innovation
In fiscal year 2013, EPA grants will continue to support both the
university researchers who make new discoveries in environmental
sciences and the educational institutions that train our future
scientists and engineers. One example is EPA's principal sponsorship of
the University of California's Center for Environmental Implications of
Nanotechnology, created in 2008 to help design environmentally safe
nanomaterials for what is expected to become a $1 trillion industry in
the near future. Another is the exemplary Science To Achieve Results
(STAR) fellowship program, which supports graduate environmental study.
ASM recommends that the Congress provide increased funding for EPA
science programs in the fiscal year 2013 budget for the agency. EPA's
effectiveness in enforcing Federal environmental standards clearly
depends upon the quality of EPA science and technology and increased
resources are needed for the important EPA mission of protecting the
public against unhealthy environments. The external portion of EPA's
S&T funds which goes to universities is of major importance in training
the next generation of scientists and engineers who will implement more
cost-effect and sustainable protection of human health and the
environment.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy; Crop Science
Society of America; and Soil Science Society of America
Dear Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
subcommittee: On behalf of the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop
Science Society of America (CSSA), and the Soil Science Society of
America (SSSA), I am pleased to submit comments in strong support of
enhanced public investment in the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S.
Geological Survey, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ASA, CSSA,
and SSSA urge the subcommittee to support USFS at a minimum level of
$4.86 billion; the U.S. Geological Survey at a level of $1.1 billion,
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science and Technology
appropriation at $807 million.
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA represent more than 18,000 members in academia,
industry, and government, and 13,000 Certified Crop Advisers. The
largest coalition of professionals dedicated to the agronomic, crop,
and soil science disciplines in the United States, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA
are dedicated to utilizing science in order to meet our growing food,
feed, fiber, and fuel needs. With an ever-expanding global population
and increasing food demands, investment in food and agriculture
research is essential to maintaining our Nation's food, economic and
national security.
U.S. Forest Service
USFS sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of the
Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future
generations, and the health of soils represents a vital component of
forest management.
Forest and Rangeland Research
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA urge the subcommittee to support funding for
Forest and Rangeland Research at a level of $292 million in fiscal year
2013 to maintain an essential level for basic research. The research
and development arm of USFS provides scientific information and new
technologies to support the sustainable management of the Nation's
forests and rangelands. This knowledge and technology is essential to
foster healthy watersheds, forest products, wildlife protection,
outdoor recreation opportunities and other benefits across the United
States.
Water, Air, and Soil Research and Development Program
USFS scientists in this department have conducted essential
research such as developing a software tool to predict the impact of
contaminant releases, including radioactive materials, to surface
waters (which was later used for assessment purposes at Japan's
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear powerplant). In another project, researchers
with USFS's Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center
applied models to measure water supply stress in relation to carbon and
biodiversity. All of these tools provide important information for
decisionmakers.
National Forest System
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support a funding level of $1.6 billion for the
National Forest System, as requested in the President's fiscal year
2013 budget proposal. This funding is essential to not only provide for
the maintenance of forests and grasslands that contribute to air and
water quality, plants, and wildlife, but also to respond to the
public's interests and needs. The National Forest System programs
support water-quality protection and improvement; recreation
opportunities for the public; energy for the Nation; forest products;
wildlife habitat; and forage for domestic animals--all while
maintaining or improving the health of the land.
U.S. Geological Survey
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the President's 2013 budget request for
$1.1 billion for USGS, a $34.5 million increase more than the fiscal
year 2012 enacted level. USGS is uniquely positioned to address many of
the Nation's greatest challenges. USGS plays a crucial role in reducing
risks from earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, landslides, wildfires, and
other natural hazards, assessing water quality and quantity, providing
geospatial data to improve agricultural production, soil management,
and crop adaptation. In addition, the science provided by the USGS is
increasingly in demand as new energy supplies are developed,
competition for water grows, and the cost of natural disasters expands.
USGS is working in every State and has nearly 400 offices across the
country and works with more than 2,000 Federal, State, local, tribal
and private organizations.
Environmental Protection Agency
In order to fulfill its mission of protecting human health and the
environment, we need to maintain investments in the Environmental
Protection Agency's ecological and exploratory research as well as
partnerships with academia and State and local government.
Science and Technology
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the President's budget request of $807
million for the EPA Science and Technology appropriations account. This
request includes $576 million for research through the Office of
Research and Development (ORD), which conducts intramural and
extramural research across a broad spectrum of disciplines. ORD seeks
out the science and engineering solutions necessary to realizing a
healthy, productive, and sustainable environment. ORD has worked with
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop models for how
chemicals could impact human health, partnered with major cities to
investigate solutions to water security issues, and collaborated with
local municipalities to improve stormwater management practices.
Science To Achieve Results
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the President's budget request of $81
million for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants and
fellowships that are awarded to scientists and universities throughout
the country to conduct targeted research in a competitive and
independently peer reviewed program. This research has addressed
children's health issues, hydraulic fracturing, potential endocrine
disruptors, water infrastructure, and air monitoring.
Thank you for your consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Landscape Architects;
City Parks Alliance; International Mountain Bicycling Association;
League of American Bicyclists; PGA of America; and The Trust for Public
Land
To the Chair and members of the subcommittee, as national
organizations representing people who design, create, manage, protect
and use the Nation's urban parks, we are writing to express our strong
support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in fiscal year
2013 and to urge you to allocate robust funding to this valuable
program in the fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill, including the proposed LWCF stateside
competitive grant program.
At this time of national fiscal crisis, investments that create
jobs and grow our economy must be paramount. LWCF benefits local
economies, communities, and the environment. Natural amenities like
parks, open space, and rivers fuel economic investment, particularly
when they are close to our population centers. Parks, greenways, and
trails augment surrounding property values--contributing to higher tax
revenues--encourage tourism, and attract employers drawn to the
enhanced quality of life for residents. The shared outdoor spaces also
provide opportunities for recreation and exercise critical to
countering skyrocketing rates of childhood obesity and other health
problems. Moreover, our parks and public lands protect critical
drinking water supplies through watershed, forest, and wetland
conservation.
Already, outdoor recreation activities contribute $730 billion
annually to the U.S. economy, supporting 6.5 million jobs, according to
the Outdoor Industry Foundation. New investments in parks could quickly
create an added 100,000 to 200,000 positions--jobs based largely in
local communities and, thus, hard to outsource.
As you begin the process of drafting the fiscal year 2013 budget,
we request $450 million in funding for LWCF. These investments will
support public land conservation and ensure access to the outdoors for
Americans, in cities and rural communities alike. We also encourage
your support for the proposed stateside competitive matching grant
program that would be allocated $20 million under the authorities found
in sections 3, 5, and 6 of the LWCF Act. Through this proposed
competitive program, States would be eligible to apply for projects
which:
--enhance and create urban parks and community green spaces;
--develop public access to rivers, lakes, streams, and other bodies
of water through water trails and blueways; and
--conserve rural landscapes.
This matching grant program would leverage private and
philanthropic support at the local level, where urban parks have
fostered a vital network of private-public partnerships to sustain
them. The public values supported by these targeted LWCF investments
are critically important to the future health of local communities and
their residents.
The entire suite of LWCF programs protects natural resource lands,
outdoor recreation opportunities and working forests at the local,
State and Federal levels, ensuring that critical wildlife habitat,
hunting and fishing access, State and local parks, Civil War
battlefields, productive forests, and other important lands are
protected for future generations. The LWCF stateside program is the
Government's primary investment tool for ensuring that children and
families have access to close-to-home recreation. It has funded more
than 41,000 projects including sports fields, outdoor recreation
facilities and trails touching all 50 States.
LWCF receipts are not revenues for general purposes--they are
payments to the Government specifically intended for conservation
spending. More than $17.5 billion has been siphoned from the LWCF trust
fund since the program's inception in 1965; these funds have been
diverted from their original conservation purpose with no
accountability. This chronic redirection of funding has created a large
backlog of conservation needs, including already-negotiated
acquisitions from willing sellers, and has led States and Federal land
management agencies to postpone or cancel many important projects.
The LWCF is one of the most important long-term investments we can
make to help spur our economy, create jobs by putting more Americans
back to work in tourism and recreation, and help American's stay
healthier by making it easier to spend more time outside.
By working together to protect our natural heritage and leveraging
resources like LWCF to provide children and families with access and
opportunities to enjoy the outdoors, we can make our communities
healthier, sustainable, and more economically competitive.
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal
year 2013 funding for White-Nose Syndrome activities of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS); U.S. Geological Service; Bureau of Land
Management (BLM); and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS); and for the Wild
Horse and Burro program of the Bureau of Land Management.
Since the Congress last received testimony on the devastation being
wrought on bat populations by White-Nose Syndrome (WNS), the picture
has grown more alarming. In January, FWS released new estimates of the
death toll: Having now spread to 20 States (this time last year it was
16) and 4 Canadian provinces, with more than 200 sites affected, WNS
has caused the deaths of at least 5.7 million hibernating bats.
Mortality rates at many affected sites continue to be at or near 100
percent. Insect-eating bats provide pest-control services worth at
least $3.7 billion, and possibly as much as $53 billion, per year to
U.S. agriculture. When the death toll stood at 1 million, scientists
estimated that that many bats could have eaten nearly 700 tons of
insects per year. With the disappearance of bats due to White-Nose
Syndrome--necessitating greater use of pesticides and raising the price
of food for consumers--our country's agriculture industry is at risk of
serious economic losses that will likely be noticeable in 4 to 5 years.
There are public health impacts as well due to greater numbers of
disease-carrying insects.
The above-mentioned agencies have been hard at work to understand
the fungus, Geomyces destructans, involved in the deaths of so many
bats, to identify steps to control and prevent its spread, and assist
States with WNS oversight, surveillance, research, education, and
outreach. Scientists succeeded in mapping the genome of the fungus and
identifying its origin. Now, having also been able to conclude that
Geomyces destructans does indeed cause WNS, they are in a better
position to deal with it. Projects underway include but are not limited
to:
--detailed studies of the fungus, its transmission, and possible
means of mitigation, including nonchemical control; and
--improving WNS detection techniques; and developing a better
understanding both of bats' resistance and susceptibility to
infection and of the persistence of the fungus in the
environment.
Additional priorities include assessing the post-WNS world,
evaluating remnant populations, and determining the broader ecological
impacts of WNS.
We very much appreciate the Congress's concern over this wildlife,
environmental, and economic disaster, and the steps it took in the
fiscal year 2012 appropriations redirecting $4 million in FWS spending
to WNS, as well as instructing BLM and USFS to prioritize research
related to WNS and the inventorying and monitoring of bat resources on
agency lands. There is a need, however, for new funds to support the
many research, surveillance, prevention, and mitigation efforts needed
to address this increasingly urgent problem. As noted above, much has
been accomplished since the disease was first detected and scientists
are on the verge of accomplishing a good deal more. Modest increases in
the agencies' budgets for WNS will prevent the unraveling of this hard-
won progress.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: +$4.5 Million
FWS leads the Federal Government's WNS efforts and supports all of
the working groups under the White-Nose Syndrome National Plan. Its
accomplishments include assembling an investigative team, support for
research and State response activities, developing national and State
plans, putting containment protocols in place, and providing
surveillance.
We ask the subcommittee to maintain the President's fiscal year
2013 recovery fund request of $81.909 million, including the requested
$1.897 million within that amount for WNS, to be supplemented by an
additional $2.603 million for WNS, for a total of $4.5 million, for an
incremental increase in the Congress's fiscal year 2012 commitment.
These funds are needed for the following:
--Interagency coordination, providing and relaying scientific
information and guidance to and among Federal and State
agencies, tribes, landowners, recreation, and conservation
groups to ensure best practices on WNS-related issues, such as
research findings, status of disease spread, and fungus
decontamination procedures;
--identifying priorities for applied research that will assist in
combating WNS and managing its spread, and funding projects
that support these goals;
--support to State wildlife agencies to conduct disease surveillance,
monitor bat populations, implement conservation measures, and
conduct research; and
--conservation action for bat species in decline due to WNS,
including assessing populations and spectrum of threats and
providing guidance to Federal and State agencies and private
landowners on the needs of species.
U.S. Geological Survey: +$1 Million +1 FTE
We ask the subcommittee to maintain the $1 million increase
requested in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget in order to allow
enhancements to USGS's WNS surveillance and diagnostic capabilities,
and to support research on topics such as the following:
--Immunology and pathogenesis (the origin, development, and resultant
effects of WNS);
--vaccine development;
--prevalence and survival of WNS fungus in cave environments; and
--modeling WNS disease processes.
These activities support the goals of the following working groups
of the National Plan:
--diagnostics;
--disease management;
--epidemiological and ecological research;
--disease surveillance; and
--conservation and recovery.
National Park Service: +$300,000
Fourteen parks have significant cave resources (there are 4,000
caves in NPS sites), account for 2,600 jobs, and generate $105 million
in ``value added'' to the local communities. Seven of these sites are
affected by WNS; they receive approximately 22 million visitors per
year. We ask the subcommittee to provide $300,000 for the National Park
Service's WNS efforts, which include the following:
--Preventing WNS spread by conducting visitor decontamination and
monitoring flow of visitors on an as-needed basis;
--conducting on-the-ground surveillance of disease; and
--monitoring for disease presence or absence on NPS lands.
These activities support the goals of the National Plan Disease
Management Working Group.
Bureau of Land Management: +$1 Million
In order for BLM to comply with the Congress's fiscal year 2012
directive to ``prioritize research related to WNS in bats and the
inventory and monitoring of bat resources on BLM-administered lands'',
we ask the subcommittee to provide $1 million for BLM's WNS efforts.
This will fund conducting bat inventories of the BLM's presently known
caves and abandoned mines, which will support the goals of the National
Plan Disease Management Working Group.
U.S. Forest Service: +$1.5 Million
In order for USFS to comply with the Congress's fiscal year 2012
directive to ``prioritize research related to WNS as well as inventory
and monitoring of bat resources on Forest Service lands'', we ask the
subcommittee to provide $1.5 million. With this level of funding, the
USFS will be able to undertake the following:
--Research on topics such as enhancing environmental conditions for
bat survival in the face of WNS, possible biological controls
for WNS, and ways to measure the status and fitness of bat
populations;
--preventing WNS spread by conducting visitor decontamination and
monitoring flow of visitors on an as-needed basis;
--conducting on-the-ground surveillance of disease;
--monitoring for disease presence or absence; and
--managing forests to optimize bat habitat.
Among other pests in their diet, bats eat mosquitoes and gypsy
moths, and there are 15 beetles and 10 moths in the diet of the little
brown bat alone, one of the species badly affected by WNS.
Massachusetts expects an increase in defoliation by the winter moth,
which is also found in Connecticut and New Hampshire, all of whose bat
populations have been significantly decimated by WNS. More research
into the economic impact on forests from the loss of bat populations is
greatly needed.
These activities support the goals of the Disease Management,
Epidemiological and Ecological Research, and Conservation and Recovery
Working Groups of the National Plan.
Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act
The wild horse is as much a symbol of American heritage as the
image of Uncle Sam and baseball. Currently, these wild horses are at
risk of mistreatment by BLM, which misuses most of its budget to round
up and warehouse wild horses and burros to make room for privately
owned cattle. Wild horses have been removed from more than 19 million
of the 52 million acres allocated to them by the Congress. Since 2004,
wild horses have been at risk of being sold to killer-buyers who make a
profit by sending horses to slaughter for human consumption. AWI
requests that any increase in appropriations under the Wild Free-
Roaming Horses and Burros Act be solely used for implementation of
humane, on-the-range management methods such as immunocontraception
versus unnecessary roundup. AWI strongly encourages that this ``no-
kill'' language also be maintained to ensure the BLM does not kill
healthy wild horses and burros:
``Provided, That appropriations herein made shall not be available
for the sale or destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and
burros in the care of the Bureau or its contractors''.
______
Prepared Statement of the Arctic Slope Native Association Limited
Thank you for the honor and opportunity to provide testimony. My
name is Marie Carroll and I am the President/Chief Executive Officer of
the Arctic Slope Native Association Limited (ASNA) based out of the
northernmost community of the United States of America, Barrow, Alaska.
We operate the Samuel Simmonds Memorial Hospital under the Self
Determination Act through a title V 683 Compact with the Indian Health
Service (IHS). Our service area is the size of the State of Minnesota.
IHS began the work to replace our 48-year-old hospital in 1991. In
1996, ASNA took over management of the health facilities under 638
Compact with IHS. Since then, ASNA took over the project justification
and other related documents to get the project in line with the IHS
facilities construction program. ASNA is constructing the hospital
through a title V hospital construction agreement with IHS. I am
pleased to report to you that our hospital construction project is on
time and on budget, it is also the first project of its size to be
constructed by a tribal health organization under title V. We
anticipate the completion of the project in December of this year. IHS
and ASNA have agreed to go through the acceptance and commissioning
process jointly at the end of this year.
ASNA plans to move from the 48-year-old, 2 by 4 facility to a more
modern hospital in April 2013. However, we have a challenge because our
staffing package was excluded in the fiscal year 2013 President's
budget. IHS has told ASNA that they did not recommend a staffing
package for fiscal year 2013 because of the uncertainty of full funding
for our construction budget in fiscal year 2012. Thanks to the Congress
our project was fully funded in fiscal year 2012 which has kept our
project on time and on budget without additional cost of delaying a
project in the Arctic environment. Which brings me to the final point,
ASNA has been responsible in carrying out the construction program, we
are now without a staffing package to bring a new hospital on line in
April unless our staffing package be fully funded along with other
tribal facilities opening in fiscal year 2013 at least through the
portion of the fiscal year that the facilities are operational.
We are grateful for the new facility that will benefit not only the
Alaskan Native people who reside in the northernmost communities in our
country, it will also benefit everyone who lives there or visits our
region because we operate the only hospital north of the Arctic Circle.
In my language we end our public statements by simply saying,
Quyanaq, meaning thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Arctic Slope Native Association; the
Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma; the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; the
Citizen Potawatomi Nation; the Kodiak Area Native Association; the Nez
Perce Tribe; the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe; the Southcentral
Foundation; the SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium; the St.
Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the Tanana Chiefs Conference
My name is Lloyd Miller and I am a partner in the law firm of
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP, of Washington, DC. I
am submitting this testimony on behalf of 11 tribes and tribal
organizations that experienced contract support cost shortfalls but who
have been denied their day in court, due to no fault of their own. On
behalf of these 11 tribes and tribal organizations we request that the
Committee include language which would deem their claims to have been
timely filed so that they can finally have their day in court. The
language would not guarantee any outcome on the claims, and would only
assure that the tribes and tribal organizations are permitted to bring
them.
The 11 tribes and tribal organizations named here were all caught
in a double catch-22 that was not of their making.
The first catch-22 concerned two law suits that were pending before
New Mexico Federal Judge Leroy Hansen. One was a class action lawsuit
against the Bureau of Indian Affairs over unpaid contract support
costs, and is called the Ramah case.\1\ The other was a class action
law suit against the Indian Health Service over unpaid contract support
costs and is called the Zuni case.\2\ These were essentially identical
law suits. The Ramah BIA suit was filed in 1990, and the Zuni IHS suit
was filed in 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan, No. 1:90-cv-00957 (D.N.M. filed
Oct. 4, 1990).
\2\ Pueblo of Zuni v. United States, No. 1:01-cv-01046 (D.N.M.
filed Sept. 10, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the BIA class action case, Judge Hansen ruled in 1993 that
individual tribal contractors did not need to individually ``present''
their own claims to the Government in order to be covered by the law
suit. Instead, Judge Hansen ruled, the claims that were filed by the
Ramah Navajo Chapter were sufficient to cover all tribal contractors.
Later, in 1999 and 2001, portions of this lawsuit were settled and all
qualifying tribal contractors in the country shared in the
settlements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Babbitt, 50 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (D.N.M.
1999); Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Norton, 250 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (D.N.M.
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Zuni class action law suit against IHS was filed in 2001, and
for 4 years it was handled by Judge Hansen. Since Judge Hansen had
already ruled in the Ramah case that individual tribal contractors did
not need to present their individual claims in order to be covered by
the class action law suit--and because Judge Hansen's decision was the
only decision in the country to address this issue--individual tribal
contractors likewise relied on the 2001 Zuni class action law suit to
protect their claims. They did not file individual claims.
In 2005, the Zuni law suit was assigned to a new Judge. Within a
few weeks the Government informed the new Judge that the Government
intended to challenge Judge Hansen's earlier 1993 ruling. Shortly after
this development--again, in 2005--all of the 11 tribes and tribal
organizations named above filed individual claims against the
Government. The claims reached back as far back as fiscal year 1996 (5
years before the Zuni case was filed, but 9 years before the 2005
claims were filed). Eventually, the new Judge handling the Zuni case,
Judge Johnson, announced that he disagreed with Judge Hansen's 1993
decision. Judge Hansen ruled that a class action law suit does not
protect individual tribal contractor's claims if those claims have not
been separately presented to the Government within 6 years after they
first accrued. (Partly for this reason, Judge Johnson ended up refusing
to certify the Zuni case as a class action. It was later dismissed.)
This was the first catch-22. The 11 tribes and tribal organizations
named here relied on Judge Hansen's ruling that a class action lawsuit
relieves individual tribal contractors of the burden of filing their
own claims. No one could have predicted that the Zuni case being
handled by Judge Hansen would be transferred to Judge Johnson, and that
Judge Johnson would then disagree with Judge Hansen and require all
tribal contractors to present their claims one by one.
The second catch-22 concerns what happens when a class action law
suit is not certified. The usual rule is that individuals who are
covered by an uncertified class action are protected during the time
that the law suit was pending. They do not lose any rights. If the
class is not certified, the individuals are then free to go forward on
their own, and they are given the extra time that the law suit was
pending to pursue their own individual claims. This is called ``class
action tolling'', because the class action law suit ``tolls'' the time
for the individual to act on his or her own.
That is the usual rule. But when the 11 tribes and tribal
organizations sought to rely on the usual ``class action tolling rule''
to pursue their individual claims, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
held that the ``class action tolling rule'' does not apply in
Government contract litigation. As a result, claims that were filed
more than 6 years after the claims arose are considered untimely.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Arctic Slope Native Assoc., Ltd. v. Sebelius, 583 F.3d 785
(Fed. Cir. 2009). Subsequent cases have ruled that the ``equitable
tolling'' doctrine also does not apply in this setting to preserve the
timeliness of claims more than 6 years old. See, e.g., Menominee Indian
Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, _ F. Supp. 2d _, 2012 WL 192815
(D.D.C. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the second catch-22. In 2001, these 11 tribes and tribal
organizations assumed that the usual class action tolling rules would
protect them if there were ever any problem with the Zuni class action
law suit, only to learn, for the very first time in 2009, that the
usual rules do not apply to this kind of law suit. By then--even by
2005--it was too late to cure the problem of the claims having been
presented too late.
Two catch-22 situations should not stand in the way of tribes
having their day in court on legitimate assertions that the Government
underpaid their contract support cost requirements. For this reason, we
request that the Committee consider including in the bill the following
language:
``: Provided, That claims presented to an Indian Health Service
contracting officer on or before October 31, 2005, and involving claims
which accrued after October 1, 1995, and on or before September 30,
1999, shall be deemed timely presented''.
The proposed language would deem the claims that were filed in
2005, and covering contract years 1996-1999, to have been timely filed.
If enacted, each of the 11 tribes and tribal organizations will finally
have its day in court. The proposed language does not guarantee any
outcome, just a day in court.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Reservation
My name is Thomas ``Stoney'' Anketell, I am a member of the
Executive Board of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Reservation. On behalf of the Fort Peck Tribes, I am pleased to present
testimony on the fiscal year 2013 budget. We are a large, land-based
tribe located in northeastern Montana. The Fort Peck Reservation
encompasses 2 million acres. The Reservation Native American population
is approaching 8,000 and our tribal enrollment is more than 12,000
members. Our greatest need is healthcare, infrastructure, economic
development and public safety.
The tribes' unemployment rate on the reservation is 56 percent. Of
our tribal members who are working, 4 in 10 live below the poverty
level. Given the enormous unemployment and poverty rates on the
reservation, our needs for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Indian
Health Service (IHS), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
programs and services are substantial.
The United States has a continuing trust responsibility to assist
tribes address the basic governmental services such as safe drinking
water, public safety, and healthcare. More than 20 years ago, an
earlier Congress noted that when there is community stability--with
core governmental services being met--``Indian tribes are in the best
position to implement economic development plans, taking into account
the available natural resources, labor force, financial resources and
markets.'' If the Federal Government could provide greater assistance
to us with these core governmental services, our members would be much
better off.
Contrary to what some may think, the appropriation of funds for
Tribal Governments is not a discretionary act by the United States,
rather these appropriations represent the Federal Government's
fulfillment of its mandatory obligation under the treaties and
agreements entered into with tribal governments. We kept our word. The
United States must do the same.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
The Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System.--The health status of
a community is directly related to the quality of our available water.
That is why the Fort Peck Tribes took the lead in building the Fort
Peck Reservation Rural Water System project, a Project that will
provide quality drinking water to the Reservation and surrounding
communities. The Congress enacted the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water
System Act of 2000, Public Law 106-382, to ensure a safe and adequate
drinking water supply to all of the residents of the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation. Under the law, the BIA has the statutory obligation to
fund the operation and maintenance of this Project. We are very excited
that the BIA has included $750,000 in programmatic funding for the
operation of this important Project in its budget. However, the cost of
operating this Project in fiscal year 2013 will be $1.866 million.
Thus, the BIA will need an additional $1.11 million to meet its
statutory obligation with regard to the operation of the Fort Peck
Reservation Rural Water Project if the Congress appropriates only what
the BIA has requested.
The tribes and the Bureau of Reclamation have completed
construction of many components of this $200 million project, including
the raw water intake facility and the water treatment facility. The
integrity of the Water Treatment facility is vital, as the EPA has
determined that the well that now provide water to the City of Poplar,
the seat of tribal government, home to the BIA and IHS agency and the
location of the Poplar schools, is contaminated by a brine plume.
Again, while the BIA budget includes $750,000 for the O&M of this
important Project, more funding is needed. Specifically, an additional
$1.11 million is needed to fully operate the Fort Peck Reservation
Rural Water System in fiscal year 2013.
Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development and Road
Maintenance.--The tribes are very supportive of the BIA's request for
$8.5 million for energy development in Indian country. However, we are
concerned that of this amount $2.5 million will be directed only at the
Fort Berthold Reservation. We believe that these resources should be
more equitably distributed among the tribes who are presented with the
opportunities now being experienced at Fort Berthold.
The Bakken formation, which is in play at Fort Berthold extends to
the Fort Peck Reservation. An April 2008 USGS Report determined that
there are 3 to 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken
formation alone. This represents a once in a lifetime opportunity for
our tribal government--working in close collaboration with our Federal
trustee--to use the bounty of our natural resources to create jobs and
spur sustainable economic development to erase the persistently high
rates of unemployment and poverty on our Reservation.
However, our experience--like that at Fort Berthold a few years
ago--is that the BIA Regional and Agency staff often do not have
adequate technical expertise in the complex field of energy
development, and they do not always appreciate that ``time is of the
essence'' when it comes to energy development.
Consequently, the Fort Peck Agency's long delays in processing
mineral leases and other critical energy development paperwork often
frustrate our energy development plans and serve only to push oil, gas
and other types of energy and mineral development off the Reservation.
In fact, BIA approval of oil and gas leases can take so long that
Indian probates have been known to open and close before any BIA action
is ever taken. We know from the experience at Fort Berthold that if the
BIA makes an investment in the people at the agency level to ensure
that they have the knowledge and capacity to work in the field of
energy development great things can happen. We believe the same
opportunities exist on the Fort Peck Reservation and the BIA needs to
make the same commitment that it made to the Fort Berthold Tribes to
the Fort Peck Tribes.
Another disincentive to drilling on Indian lands is the $6,500 that
the BLM charges for a permit application to drill on Federal land,
including Indian and tribal trust lands. In fiscal year 2010, the
Appropriations Committee increased this fee from $4,000 to $6,500. In
theory, this fee is intended to cover the BLM's cost of processing the
drilling permit application. However, the funds collected on Indian
lands are not dedicated to processing permits on Indian lands.
Moreover, the fee is highly disproportionate to the $75 that the State
of Montana charges to process the same kind of permit on State fee
land. This is creates a disincentive for developers to consider Indian
and tribal lands. We would ask that Indian lands be exempt from the BLM
fee.
Closely related to economic development is the adequacy and safety
of our public roads. We have seen the increased fatalities at Fort
Berthold resulting from the explosion of truck traffic on the
reservation resulting from oil drilling. Paved roads have deteriorated
rapidly from the increased traffic, often by overweight vehicles.
Please reverse the harmful trend of the last 30 years, and increase
funding for the BIA Road Maintenance Program by $10 million, so that
tribes can provide routine and emergency road maintenance services to
ensure the safety of our existing roads. Years of budget cuts have
undermined our ability to maintain our transportation infrastructure to
an adequate design standard. This is a public safety issue.
Funding for Public Safety and Detention.--The need for increased
law enforcement and tribal courts remains a priority for the Fort Peck
Tribes. We greatly appreciate the increases the Congress has recently
provided for public safety programs. These increases, however, are
insufficient to fulfill the United States' basic trust responsibility
in the areas of health and safety. Our Reservation needs more officers
and the resources they require to patrol a large land base. This must
be matched with additional resources for Tribal Courts and detention
facilities.
I want to particularly support the $6.5 million requested to fund
the operations of the newly constructed detention facilities. The Fort
Peck Tribes received a grant from the Department of Justice to rebuild
our detention facilities. We have entered into a contract with the BIA
for the operation of this newly expanded facility and are excited. We
will be operational in fiscal year 2013. This new facility will allow
us to better house and care for our prisoners close to their families
and the community support that they need to become productive members
of our society again. Please ensure that the BIA and OFMC have the
resources needed to maintain these facilities after they are built. We
lack infrastructure. When built, these facilities must be properly
maintained or they will deteriorate far sooner under our harsh Montana
winters.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
Indian country continues to suffer higher rates of infant
mortality, suicide, accident, alcoholism, diabetes, and heart disease
when compared with other minorities and the general American
population. Yet money directed to healthcare, especially preventative
care--such as routine checkups and health education that clearly
improves the quality of life and helps avoid more expensive health care
costs in the future--has not been provided to tribal communities. The
Federal Government has a trust responsibility to provide healthcare to
Native Americans, an obligation that was paid for by the Native people
of this county with millions of acres of land, resources, and the
sacrifice of our traditional way of life.
Fort Peck Dialysis Center.--There is a desperate need on our
Reservation for a fully staffed and equipped health facility capable of
providing a full range of medical services to our members. The IHS
needs to evaluate and plan the process for new facilities in Montana,
including the urgent expansion of the Fort Peck Tribal Dialysis Unit to
18 stations (from 10) or construction of a new dialysis unit. We are
now at capacity, serving 33 patients 6 days a week. We have additional
73-100 pre-renal patients. If we cannot expand our services, these
patients will have to travel great distances for this life-sustaining
care. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act now allows the Indian
Health Service to dedicate resources to dialysis, which is an important
aspect of healthcare in Indian communities. We request that the
subcommittee direct the Indian Health Service to report to the Congress
on its efforts to address the need for dialysis treatment in Indian
country, especially rural areas such as the Rocky Mountain Region.
Contract Health.--We recognize the significance of the requested
$20 million increase in Contract Health Care but this increase is
inadequate to address the growing healthcare crisis in Indian country.
The Fort Peck Tribes alone need a near doubling of our inadequate
Contract Health Care budget--to $11 million--to meet the growing health
demands of our more than 12,000 tribal members. Far too many members
are not referred out for Contract Health Care Services which their
primary healthcare providers determine are medically necessary because
we only have CHS dollars to treat life threatening illnesses and
injuries.
Currently, the IHS does not refer individuals for necessary medical
care, even when they have medical insurance, because the IHS does not
want to pay the minimal co-pays or deductible for these services. As a
result, our members do not get the care they need until it reaches the
critical ``life or limb'' stage at which point the IHS would still only
have to pay the minimal co-pay or deductible. It would seem that it
would be far better public policy to pay the co-pay or the deductible
for preventive care rather than let medical conditions worsen until a
person's health deteriorates to a life-threatening life or limb crisis.
Yet, the IHS will not reconsider its interpretation of the payor-of-
last resort policy to allow for these sound health policy decisions to
be made and implemented within available healthcare funds.
At a minimum, the Congress should request that a study be conducted
to examine how CHS funds are expended and to make recommendations that
will help save lives.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Finally, I want to express the tribes' strong support for the
increased funding for tribal environmental programs. Specifically, I
urge the subcommittee to support the $96.3 million for the Tribal
General Assistance Program (Tribal GAP program). The Fort Peck Tribes
were one of the first tribes in the country to obtain Treatment as a
State Status under the Clean Water Act and one of the first to obtain
Class I air designation for our Reservation. For the Fort Peck Tribes,
protecting the land and resources that our ancestors fought so hard to
preserve for us is our paramount mission. We work closely with our
Federal and State partners to accomplish this goal and appreciate the
continuing support of the Congress for these efforts. The tribal GAP
program is critical to maintaining tribal capacity in these areas.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to present the views of
the Fort Peck Tribes.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of American State Geologists
SUMMARY
Within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) budget, we
recommend that a sum of $29.5 million be budgeted for the National
Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program in fiscal year 2013, rather than
the proposed $28 million, by not implementing the proposed $1.5 million
cut to the base program, and by incorporating funding for two new
initiatives:
--WaterSMART; and
--Hydraulic Fracturing.
Also within the USGS budget, we strongly support the National
Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program, and we are
pleased that plans as we understand them call for funding of this
activity at least equal to the fiscal year 2012 ($996,000) level as
part of the program with which this activity has been merged.
We believe that USGS is responsible for programs that are essential
for the functioning of the U.S. Government and of the Nation, for
optimization of the health, wealth, and security of the American
people, as well as preservation and appreciation of our natural
heritage.
Whether at the U.S. Federal level, the U.S. State level, or in
national or regional jurisdictions throughout the world, geological
survey agencies fulfill the role of maintaining systematic information
on the landmass administered by the Government they serve, as well as
additional roles where geologic information is needed by Government.
Whereas academic research institutes have a conceptual mandate,
geological survey agencies have a unique and essential spatial mandate
associated with their landmass. While academic centers focus on
research and education, geological surveys are engaged in mapping over
areas, and monitoring over time, as essential roles that accompany
their needed research roles.
This jurisdiction-wide, long-term function builds and maintains a
body of knowledge regarding an understanding and accounting of earth
materials, processes, and geologic history, based on mapping,
monitoring, and research. Benefits for society result, as this
systematic, accessible, and authoritative knowledge is used in relation
to energy, mineral, and water resources, as well as hazards. Management
of these issues, guided by sound information, is needed by society to
ensure orderly progress toward their objectives.
In a Federal system, both Federal and State governments require
geological survey agencies to carry out their mission and mandates in
an informed manner. States strongly endorse and support the unique
Federal role of the USGS, which addresses national programs,
specialized capabilities, and the needs of the Federal Government.
State geological surveys meanwhile work closely with users on the
priorities of each State. In our roles, we benefit from partnerships
with USGS, while our roles were strongly endorsed last year by a paper
released by the American Institute of Professional Geologists.
While USGS functions with a budget of more than $1 billion,
supported by on the order of 10,000 employees, State geological surveys
in total are funded at a level of $250 million per year, and are
supported by more than 2,000 employees.
The work of the U.S. Federal and State geological surveys is
closely coordinated. State geological surveys therefore have a great
interest in the role of the USGS, as this role is a major factor in
fulfillment of our roles.
The President's budget proposal outlines support for successful and
effective USGS programs that stimulate economic development, that save
lives and property from natural disasters, and that protect the
environment and public health. Through competitive grants and
partnership programs, USGS directly benefits from collaboration with
leading experts across the Nation.
We endorse identification of priorities to which resources need to
be shifted. We agree with the importance of a National Groundwater
Monitoring Network, other water programs such as those related to
stream gages, improved disaster mitigation and response, improved
information needed to guide the economic benefits and risks of
hydraulic fracturing, and increased attention to rare earth element
research and assessment.
We note with concern, however, potential reduction to important
programs, including the minerals program, coal assessments, and several
water programs. We are particularly concerned about proposed reductions
to partnership and grant programs that promote efficiency, as well as
preserving long-term datasets.
Proposed reductions to the minerals programs are difficult to
reconcile with the rapidly growing urgency of the efforts that are
needed to ensure our access to materials that allow our economy to
function. We endorse conservation and recycling, and we recognize that
increasing global population and standard of living will require more
mining.
Most mineral commodities occur in the United States, where these
materials can be mined using the world's best practices for
environmental stewardship and health and safety for workers and the
public. The USGS has a vital role in documenting domestic production
and reserves, and in assessing the likelihood of future discoveries
that will add to our mineral and energy resources.
The dominance of China as a producer and consumer of mineral and
energy commodities is a major factor that will influence our future.
This can best be understood by utilizing critical data that are
collected and reported by the USGS. USGS minerals data collection was
considered to be an essential Government function in two 2008 National
Academy of Sciences reports. We therefore believe these are programs
and functions that should not be cut.
We also are concerned about proposed reductions to energy-related
programs, such as grants to States for coal resource assessments. Coal
remains a major source of inexpensive electricity for America, while
coal and other carbon-based energy fuels such as unconventional sources
of oil and natural gas will continue to dominate global energy supply
for years to come. It therefore is important that research is
developing ways to reduce fossil-fuel-related emissions.
While the Department of Energy maintains information on domestic
energy production, USGS's role in long-term forecasting of energy
supplies is unique and necessary. Much of this work is done in
collaboration with States, using data largely compiled and provided by
States, and the Association of American State Geologists supports this
working relationship.
State Geologists recognize, however, that geologic maps showing
sediment and rock materials at and below the land surface are the
foundation that guides all programs dealing with issues such as energy,
minerals, construction, water, and hazards.
In Ohio, for example, developers and engineers who used modern
geologic maps saved about $50,000 for every project. Typically, many
projects use the same map, multiplying these cost savings many times
over. Furthermore, economists documented Kentucky's geologic maps to be
worth 25 to 39 times the cost of the mapping.
Less than one-half of the United States, however, is covered by
adequate geologic maps, and many maps need to be updated due to the
progress of science, new technology, and much new data. USGS therefore
needs to have a vibrant geologic mapping program, as do State
geological surveys nationwide, and we welcome the Federal role in
maintenance of standards and coordination.
Geologic mapping at the resolution and coverage done by geological
survey agencies is clearly a role for Government, because the public
benefits and cost savings are broad, and businesses must limit their
work to small areas of immediate interest to their activity.
While the mapping is guided by the accumulated knowledge of
Government geologists, geologic mapping commonly utilizes surveys
conducted by the private-sector, such as immensely useful new airborne
laser elevation surveys known as LiDAR.
We therefore place emphasis on our advocacy for the National
Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, a subactivity within the USGS
Core Science Systems Activity, funded at $26.3 million in fiscal year
2012. Given its proven record in stimulating economic development and
protecting the public, we believe that this program should grow to its
authorized level of $64 million per year in upcoming years.
All Federal dollars in the portions of this program that we are
involved with are matched one to one with State dollars. Despite this,
significant State geologic mapping resources that could be used to
match Federal dollars are being left on the table.
We certainly are pleased, however, that the President's budget
proposal recognizes the key role of geologic mapping in pressing
priorities, in particular related to water and hydraulic fracturing, by
proposing transfers to the program in relation to these topics.
Given the importance of geologic mapping, however, we not only
endorse these proposed transfers, but we also suggest that a proposed
reduction to the base of the program not be implemented, thus resulting
in a further expansion of this crucial activity. We also note that it
is good that the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Act provides
clear guidance for distribution of these proposed increases.
In turn, geologic mapping is underpinned by precious data and
materials accumulated by scientists over decades. We thus recognize the
fundamental importance of the National Geological and Geophysical Data
Preservation Program, also a subactivity within the Core Science
Systems Activity, funded at about $1 million in fiscal year 2012. This
is another cooperative program with States, which doubles the Federal
investment.
The 2002 National Academy of Sciences report on Geoscience Data and
Collections--National Resources in Peril made the case for preserving
these irreplaceable data and physical samples and led to congressional
authorization of this program at $30 million per year within the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. We have seen many uses for these data and samples
in exploration for domestic mineral and energy resources. We believe
that this program should grow.
In the President's budget proposal, we note that this program has
been merged with allied activity, and we applaud efficiencies that will
be thus achieved, while we strongly support the activity being
maintained at a funding level at least equivalent to that of fiscal
year 2012.
In summary, the Association of American State Geologists strongly
endorses the President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal for USGS,
because we strongly endorse what we regard as the essential role that
USGS fulfils in building and maintaining essential information needed
by the U.S. Government and by people nationwide.
In particular, we endorse programs that are operated as
partnerships, thus leveraging funds, as well as encouraging
coordination, efficiency, and adoption of nationwide standards.
Nevertheless, we have concerns about proposed reductions in important
programs.
We appreciate this opportunity to offer information that we hope
will be helpful for the work of the subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Art Museum Directors
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record
regarding fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the National Endowment
for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
We respectfully request that the subcommittee approve a funding level
of $155 million for the NEA and $155 million for the NEH, which would
restore them to their fiscal year 2011 levels.
The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) is composed of the
directors of more than 200 art museums in the United States, as well as
several in Canada and Mexico. Its mission is to support its membership
in fostering vibrant communities. The AAMD is a current grantee of the
NEA.
Both the NEA and the NEH help museums achieve their mission of
preserving, exhibiting and interpreting art to the broadest possible
audiences. To cite a recent example, the Los Angeles County Museum of
Art (LACMA) received grants from both the NEA and the NEH to support
the exhibition Children of the Plumed Serpent: The Legacy of
Quetzalcoatl in Ancient Mexico, its accompanying catalogue and
educational activities.
According to the exhibition Web site:
``Recent scholarship demonstrates that a confederacy of city-states
in southern Mexico . . . successfully resisted both Aztec and Spanish
subjugation. Children of the Plumed Serpent explores the extraordinary
wonders in fresco, codices, polychrome ceramics, gold, turquoise,
shell, textiles, and other precious materials that were produced by
these confederacies between AD 1200 and 1500, as their influence spread
throughout Mesoamerica by means of vast networks of trade and exchange.
A ruling class of nobles, or caciques, believing that Quetzalcoatl, the
human incarnation of the Plumed Serpent, had founded their royal
lineages, called themselves the `Children of the Plumed Serpent' . . .
The culture hero Quetzalcoatl, the Plumed Serpent, epitomizes a Mexican
sense of national identity that is deeply rooted in the heroic
qualities of its ancient art.''
Children of the Plumed Serpent opens at LACMA on April 1, 2012.
After its run in Los Angeles it will travel to the Dallas Museum of
Art. Together, the NEA and NEH contributed nearly 25 percent of the
cost of the exhibition, which totaled approximately $1.3 million. As is
always the case, the NEA and NEH ``seal of approval'' leveraged other
contributions. There is no doubt that the Federal grants had a huge
impact in keeping Children of the Plumed Serpent in its desired format
and scope.
The exhibition highlights the role of museums in cultural exchange
and collaboration. The U.S. Department of State, having determined it
to be in the national interest of the United States, awarded it
protection from seizure, assuring that the works would be returned to
their lenders. Further, LACMA collaborated with two important cultural
institutions in Mexico, the National Council for Culture and the Arts
and the National Institute for Anthropology and History. The exhibition
also received indemnity from the Federal Council on the Arts and the
Humanities, which is administered by the NEA and without which many
objects would not be able to travel to the United States.
(In connection with the indemnity program, which the Congress
expanded in 2007, we respectfully suggest that it may be time to look
again at raising the limits available for domestic and international
exhibitions.)
The educational outreach of the exhibition is targeted to low-
income, primarily Hispanic parts of the metropolitan area, and will
include bilingual materials. Typically, attendance at the museum is
about 12-percent Hispanic, but it doubles when there is a Latin
American exhibition. Attendance for Children of the Plumed Serpent is
estimated at about 100,000 people in its LACMA venue. For the past
decade, LACMA has had a Latin American Initiative, with at least one
exhibition per year. Last year's show, Contested Visions in the Spanish
Colonial World, which examined the significance of indigenous peoples
within the artistic landscape of colonial Latin America, also received
an NEH planning grant and a grant from NEA; attendance was 56,748. That
exhibition was on view at LACMA from November 6, 2011 through January
29, 2012 and is currently touring to two museums in Mexico.
More information about the exhibition is available online at:
www.lacma.org/art/exhibition/children-plumed-serpent-legacy-
quetzalcoatl-ancient-mexico.
Museum staff notes that the majority of the cost of exhibitions
often comes down to labor and materials--shipping, crating, couriers to
accompany the art, and installation. This was dramatically illustrated
recently by the ongoing creation and installation of Levitated Mass,
which entailed quarrying and transporting a 340-ton boulder more than
100 miles across southern California. As LACMA director Michael Govan
told the Los Angeles Times:
``This is not money used for buying something but for building
something: it goes to concrete workers, truckers, quarry workers, so
this money is being injected into the economy and lives of working
people. It's not unlike the impulse of the 1930s WPA Works Progress
Administration to put craftspeople in a down economy to work. For me,
there is a key distinction: Are you putting money into the pockets of a
European gallery or putting money into the American economy?''
To put into context the educational scope of the museum: it serves
between 600,000 and 1 million people a year, including more than
300,000 through its education programs. Education activities include
art-making programs in schools and libraries, tours of the museum for
students and adults, art classes for children, teenagers, and adults,
summer and holiday art camps for children, programs for college
students, high school internships, family days, workshops and
curriculum materials for teachers, lectures, concerts, films,
conversations with artists, and more. Across the entire State, the
museum's education programs reach 351 organizations including 217
schools, 67 colleges and universities, 31 community organizations, 22
cultural organizations, and 14 healthcare organizations. Nearly 70,000
individuals and families are members of LACMA; membership fees start at
$25 for college students, which entitles them to free admission all
year. All children under 18 are NexGen members, which allows them free
admission and free admission for one accompanying adult.
LACMA is also a proud participant in the Blue Star Museums
initiative, which offers free admission to military families from
Memorial Day to Labor Day.
The map below shows the extent of the museum's outreach, with each
dot symbolizing an organization that uses LACMA's educational services.
The AAMD mapping project, which is supported in part by an NEA
grant, now encompasses 100 museums, including.
Please note that the maps are generally produced in color and with
more detail. The map depicted was altered to fit the testimony format
required by the subcommittee.
Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the mapping project gives
museums the capacity to analyze their community service by geography
and socio-economic level, allowing them to target resources to where
they are most needed. For example, just last week a museum requested a
list of majority-minority census tracts in its service area.
With the NEA's help, the mapping project has given us a new level
of understanding of the reach and depth of museum programming in their
communities. Further, surveys of our membership show that one-third of
them offer free admission to all, while two-thirds offer free admission
to children. The average full price of admission for adults is under
$10, but nearly all offer steep discounts and/or free days. One hundred
percent of AAMD member museums serve K-12 schools; 93 percent serve
colleges and universities; and 68 percent of our museums serve
preschools. In total, AAMD members serve about 40,000 schools across
the Nation. One-third have programs for people with Alzheimer's, and
their caregivers, and an increasing number offer art instruction for
medical and nursing students, which has been proven to increase their
powers of observation, leading to better diagnostic skills.
None of this work is possible, however, unless museums can care for
and present art to the public. In these basic, core functions, the help
of the NEA and NEH has been and continues to be invaluable.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony for the
record.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Public and Land-Grant
Universities
On behalf of the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities
(APLU) Board on Natural Resources (BNR), we thank you for your support
of science and research programs within the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) and the Environmental Protection Agency. We appreciate
the opportunity to provide recommendations for the following programs
within USGS:
--$8.8 million for the Water Resources Research Institutes; and
--$18.9 million for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units.
Within the Environmental Protection Agency, we recommend $81
million for the Science to Achieve Results extramural grants and
fellowship programs.
APLU BNR requests at least $8.8 million for the Water Resources
Research Institutes (WRRI). The APLU BNR request is based on the
following:
--$7 million in base grants for the WRRI as authorized by section
104(b) of the Water Resources Research Act, including State-
based competitive grants; and
--$1.8 million to support activities authorized by section 104(g) of
the act, and a national competitive grants program.
Federal funding for the WRRI program is the catalyst that moves
States and cities to invest in university-based research to address
their own water management issues. State WRRI take the relatively
modest amount of Federal funding appropriated, match it 2:1 with State,
local, and other funds and use it to put university scientists to work
finding solutions to the most pressing local and State water problems
that are of national importance. The Institutes have raised more than
$15 in other funds for every $1 funded through this program. The added
benefit is that often research to address State and local problems
helps solve problems that are of regional and national importance. Many
of the projects funded through this program provide the knowledge for
State or local managers to implement new Federal laws and regulations.
Perhaps most important, the Federal funding provides the driving force
of collaboration in water research and education among local, State,
Federal and university water professionals. This program is essential
to solving State, regional and inter-jurisdictional water resources
problems. For example, the Idaho Institute conducted work in 2011 for
the City of Boise and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to
determine whether the Boise Front geothermal aquifer was adequate for
supplying current and increased withdrawals. Similarly, Institutes in
Louisiana, California and North Carolina have made major contributions
in emergency planning and hurricane recovery, protecting groundwater
aquifers from sea water intrusion, and reducing water treatment costs.
The institutes also train the next generation of water resource
managers and scientists. Last year, these institutes provided research
support for more than 1,400 undergraduate and graduate students at more
than 150 universities studying water-related issues in the fields of
agriculture, biology, chemistry, Earth sciences, engineering and public
policy. Institute-sponsored students receive training in both the
classroom and the field, often working should-to-shoulder with the top
research scientists in their field on vanguard projects of significant
regional importance.
In addition to training students directly, Water Resources Research
Institutes work with local residents to overcome water-related issues.
For example, the California Institute for Water Resources, like most of
its peers, holds field days, demonstrations, workshops, classes,
webinars, and offers other means of education in an effort to transfer
their research information to as many users as possible. Outreach that
succeeds in changing a farmer's approach to nitrogen application or
reducing a homeowner's misuse of lawn treatments can reduce the need
for restrictive regulation.
APLU BNR requests at least $18.9 million for the Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Units (CRU). This program serves to:
--train the next generation of fish and wildlife managers;
--conduct research designed to meet the needs of unit cooperators;
and
--provide technical assistance to State and Federal personnel and
other natural resource managers.
Originally established to provide training for students in fish and
wildlife biology, the units were formally recognized by the Cooperative
Units Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-686). The CRU provide experience and
training for approximately 600 graduate students per year, a critical
need as State and Federal workforces face unprecedented retirements
over the next 5 to 10 years. The CRU also provides valuable mission-
oriented research for their biggest clients, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and cooperating State agencies. Today, there are 40 Cooperative
Research Units in 38 States.
Each unit is a true Federal-State-university collaboration in that
it is a partnership between USGS, a State natural resource agency, a
host university, and the Wildlife Management Institute. For every $1
the Federal Government puts into the program, $3 more are leveraged
through the other partners. The U.S. economy has long relied on the
bountiful natural resources bestowed upon this land. Federal investment
in the CRU will be returned many times over though the training of
future natural resource managers who will guide the Nation in
sustainable use of our natural resources. The research conducted by CRU
scientists directly supports the difficult management challenges faced
by natural resources managers. The examples below demonstrate the value
of the CRUs to wildlife issues with local and national importance.
--The Minnesota Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit currently
has 3 Federal employees, 3 post-doctoral research fellows and a
total of 12 graduate students. Current research funded by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Federal agencies
totals $4.9 million. Among the numerous projects being
conducted by unit personnel, a project determining the
olfactory sensitivity of Asian carp to putative hormonal sex
pheromones has recently received national attention. The Asian
carp is an invasive species that threatens many of the Nation's
freshwater native fish because they are more competitive than
native fish for food. The Minnesota CRU hopes to use the sex
pheromones to attract and trap Asian carp, removing them
permanently from the Nation's freshwater lakes and rivers.
--The Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit has 3 Federal
scientists who are training 22 graduate students and supervise
8 year-round staff plus 15 seasonal staff and 5 work-study
students. Total grants and contracts for these three scientists
exceed $1.5 million and include projects related to gray wolf
monitoring and population estimation, improving fish passage at
lower Columbia River dams, and defining ``recovery'' for
endangered species.
APLU BNR supports the President's request of $81 million for the
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants and fellowship programs. The
STAR program funds extramural research grants and graduate fellowships.
Using a competitive and peer-reviewed process, the STAR program
supports targeted research in support of EPA's mission. The funded
research falls into three areas: grants awarded to individuals or small
groups, grants awarded to multidisciplinary teams, and fellowships for
masters and doctoral students. The STAR program allows EPA to solicit
independent research apart from the research EPA itself conducts.
Because the research is conducted at many of the best universities
across the Nation, it is not unusual for the findings to be published
in highly respected, peer-reviewed journals, allowing for widespread
dissemination of the research.
About Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities and the Board
on Natural Resources
APLU's membership consists of 221 State universities, land-grant
universities, State-university systems and related organizations. The
Board's mission is to promote university-based programs dealing with
natural resources, wildlife, ecology, energy, and the environment. BNR
representatives are chosen by their President's office to serve and
currently number more than 500 scientists and educators, who are some
of the Nation's leading research and educational expertise in
environmental and natural-resource disciplines. APLU institutions
enroll more than 3.5 million undergraduate students and 1.1 million
graduate students, employ more than 645,000 faculty members, and
conduct nearly two-thirds of all federally funded academic research,
totaling more than $34 billion annually.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators
WHO WE ARE
Edward G. Hallock, president, on behalf of the Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), is pleased to provide testimony
to the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee on
fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the Environmental Protection
Agency. ASDWA represents the State drinking water programs in the 50
States, territories, District of Columbia, and the Navajo Nation in
their efforts to provide safe drinking water to more than 275 million
consumers nationwide.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
ASDWA respectfully requests that, for fiscal year 2013, the
subcommittee appropriate funding for three State drinking water
programs at levels commensurate with Federal expectations for
performance; that ensure appropriate public health protection; and that
will result in enhancing economic stability and prosperity in American
cities and towns. ASDWA requests $200 million for the Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS) program; $1.287 billion for the Drinking
Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) program; and $10 million for
State drinking water program security initiatives. A more complete
explanation of the needs represented by these requested amounts and
justification for these requested levels follows.
HOW STATES USE FEDERAL FUNDS
States Need Increased Federal Support To Maintain Overall Public
Health Protection.--State drinking water programs strive to meet public
health protection goals through two principal funding programs:
--the Public Water System Supervision Program (PWSS); and
--the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) Program.
These two programs, with their attendant State match requirements,
provide the means for States to work with drinking water systems to
ensure that American citizens can turn on their taps with confidence
that the water is both safe to drink and the supply is adequate. In
recent years, State drinking water programs have accepted additional
responsibilities to work with all public water systems to ensure that
critical drinking water infrastructure is protected; that plans are in
place to respond to both natural and manmade disasters; and that
communities are better positioned to support both physical and economic
resilience in times of crisis.
Vibrant and sustainable communities, their citizens, workforce, and
businesses all depend on a safe, reliable, and adequate supply of
drinking water. Economies only grow and sustain themselves when they
have reliable water supplies. More than 90 percent of the population
receives water used for bathing, cooking, and drinking from a public
water system. Firefighting also relies on potable water from public
water systems to ensure public safety. Even people who have their own
private wells to meet their daily water needs will visit other homes or
businesses served by a public water system. As important as public
water systems are to the quality of water we drink and our health, the
majority of water produced by public water systems is used by
businesses for a variety of purposes, including processing, cooling,
and product manufacturing. The availability of adequate supplies of
water is often a critical factor in attracting new industries to
communities. Public water systems--and the cities, villages, schools,
and businesses they support--rely on State drinking water programs to
ensure they are in compliance with all applicable Federal requirements
and the water is safe to drink. A number of incidents in the United
States over the past several years that have led to illnesses or deaths
from unsafe drinking water serve as stark reminders of the critical
nature of the work that State drinking water programs do every day and
the dangers of inadequately funded programs,
The Public Water System Supervision Program.--To meet the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, States have accepted
primary enforcement responsibility for oversight of regulatory
compliance and technical assistance efforts for more than 155,000
public water systems to ensure potential health-based violations do not
occur or are remedied in a timely manner. More than 90 contaminants are
regulated in Federal drinking water regulations and, the pace of
regulatory activity has accelerated in recent years. Since 1996, State
drinking water programs have participated in the development and
implementation of more than 25 new Federal regulations and strategic
initiatives designed to enhance the protection of public health. States
are also implementing an array of proactive initiatives to protect
public health from ``the source to the tap''. These include source
water assessments and protections; technical assistance with water
treatment and distribution; and enhancement of overall water system
performance capabilities. In recent years, States have also taken on an
increasingly prominent role in working with Federal and local partners
to help ensure sufficient water quantity. In short, State activities go
well beyond simply ensuring compliance at the tap.
The Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund Program.--Drinking
water in the United States is among the safest and most reliable in the
world, but it is threatened by aging infrastructure. The DWSRF program
is helping, but greater levels of Federal support are needed. The
payback on this investment has been exceptional. In the core DWSRF
program, $12.4 billion in cumulative capitalization grants and $2
billion in American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funds since
1997 have been leveraged by States into nearly $22 billion in
infrastructure loans to small and large communities across the country.
Such investments pay tremendous dividends--both in supporting our
economy and in protecting our citizens' health. State drinking water
programs have also used DWSRF funds to support the technical assistance
and training needs of numerous small drinking water systems and to help
these often challenged water systems obtain the technical, managerial,
and financial proficiency needed to meet the requirements of the SDWA.
State Drinking Water Security Responsibilities.--State drinking
water programs are critical partners in emergency planning, response,
and resiliency at all levels of government. State primacy agencies
provide key resources and critical support regardless of whether the
emergency is rooted in terrorism, natural disasters, or cyber
intrusions. States continually work toward integrating security
considerations throughout all aspects of their drinking water programs.
Technological advances in contaminant detection and decontamination
capabilities, new economic risk and impact analysis models, and
enhancements in cyber security techniques also demand State program
awareness, implementation, and outreach to the water community.
WHY INCREASED FUNDING IS URGENTLY NEEDED
State Drinking Water Programs are Hard Pressed.--States must
accomplish all of the above-described activities, and take on new
responsibilities, in the context of the continuing economic downturn.
This has meant operating with less State-provided financial support--
which has historically compensated for inadequate Federal funding.
State drinking water programs have often been expected to do more with
less and States have always responded with commitment and ingenuity.
However, State drinking water programs are now in crisis and are
stretched to the breaking point. Insufficient Federal support for this
critical program increases the likelihood of a contamination event that
puts the public's health at risk.
State Funding Gap Continues To Grow; States Cannot Keep Up.--
Although the 1996 SDWA Amendments authorized the PWSS program at $100
million per year, appropriated amounts have only recently reached that
authorized level--a level that now, more than 16 years from the date of
those amendments, falls far short of the need. $105 million was
appropriated for the PWSS program in fiscal year 2012. The President's
fiscal year 2013 budget requests $109 million for the PWSS grant--an
amount that is woefully inadequate for the enormity of the task faced
by State drinking water programs. A few years ago, State drinking water
program administrators identified an annual shortfall nationally of
approximately $360 million between available funds and those needed to
administer their programs. That gap only continues to grow and has a
number of negative consequences. Many States are simply unable to
implement major provisions of the newer regulations, leaving the work
undone or ceding the responsibility back to EPA where it is likely to
languish because of EPA's own resource constraints and lack of ``on the
ground'' expertise. This situation has created a significant
implementation crisis in several regions of the country and is
ultimately delaying implementation of critically needed public health
protections.
FISCAL YEAR 2013 REQUEST LEVELS AND SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT PROGRAM
OBLIGATIONS
The Public Water System Supervision Program.--The number of
regulations requiring State implementation and oversight as well as
performance expectations continue to grow while at the same time, the
Federal funding support necessary to maintain compliance levels and
meet expectations has been essentially ``flat-lined'' or included only
meager increases. Inflation has further eroded these inadequate funding
levels. State drinking water programs are hard pressed to understand a
justification for these funding levels since they are engaged in the
critical phases of implementing the LT 2/Stage 2 Rule cluster (two
sophisticated and complex initiatives to control disinfection by-
products and microbial contaminants), the recently promulgated Ground
Water Rule, and changes to the Lead and Copper Rule. States want to
offer the flexibilities allowed under these and other rules to local
water systems; however, fewer State resources mean less opportunity to
work one-on-one with water systems to meet their individual needs.
Looking ahead, States expect that new rules for perchlorate and
carcinogenic volatile organic carbon compounds will be forthcoming in
the near future as well as revisions to the Total Coliform Rule.
ASDWA respectfully requests that the fiscal year 2013 funding for
the PWSS program be appropriated at $200 million. This figure begins to
fill the above-described resource gap and is based on the expense of
implementing new drinking water rules, taking on a number of other new
initiatives, and accounting for the eroding effects of inflation.
The Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund Program.--States were
very encouraged by the $1.387 billion appropriated for the DWSRF in
fiscal year 2010 but are disappointed at the subsequent downward
trend--$963 million in fiscal year 2011 and $919 million in fiscal year
2012 and the alarming administration request of $850 million for fiscal
year 2013--a figure not seen since 2008. The primary purpose of the
DWSRF is to improve public health protection by facilitating water
system compliance with national primary drinking water regulations
through the provision of loans to improve drinking water
infrastructure. Water infrastructure is needed for public health
protection as well as a sustainable economy, as explained above. States
have very effectively and efficiently leveraged Federal dollars with
State contributions to provide assistance to more than 8,500 projects,
improving health protection for millions of Americans. According to the
most recent figures available, this equals a 177.4-percent return on
the Federal investment. Approximately 72 percent of projects and 38
percent of assistance has been provided to small communities (serving
less than 10,000 people). However, EPA's most recent National Drinking
Water Infrastructure Needs Survey (2007) indicated that water system
needs total $334.8 billion over the next 20 years to comply with SDWA
mandates. States believe the $2 billion in ARRA funds and the fiscal
year 2010 appropriated level were very substantial down payments on
addressing those needs and filling the infrastructure gap. In light of
these indicators of success and documented needs, we believe funding at
the $1.287 billion level will better enable the DWSRF to meet the SDWA
compliance and public health protection goals for which it was
designed.
ASDWA respectfully requests $1.287 billion in fiscal year 2012
funding for the DWSRF program. This was the amount appropriated in
fiscal year 2011 and ASDWA believes this is an appropriate funding
level on an ongoing basis.
Security Responsibilities.--After 7 years of supporting State
security programs through a small grant of approximately $5 million in
EPA's appropriation, no funds have been provided for this purpose since
fiscal year 2009 and none are requested for fiscal year 2013. State
drinking water programs need funds to continue to maintain and expand
their security activities, particularly for small and medium water
systems and to support utility-based mutual aid networks for all
drinking water systems. It is very difficult to understand why this
grant has been zeroed out of EPA's proposed budget. Given the realities
exemplified by ongoing Homeland Security initiatives, the goals of the
National Infrastructure Protection Plan, and the lessons learned from
Hurricanes Katrina, chronic flooding in the Midwest, and most recently,
from the 2011 Northeast experience with Hurricane Irene and Tropical
Storm Lee, State drinking water programs are working more closely than
ever with their water utilities to evaluate, assist, and support
drinking water systems' preparedness, response, and resiliency
capabilities. States continue to expand their efforts to reflect a more
resilient ``all hazards'' approach to water security and to focus their
efforts toward smaller water systems. These systems rely heavily on the
States to help them meet their needs and identify potential funding
sources.
ASDWA respectfully requests $10 million in fiscal year 2012 funding
for the State security initiatives. These funds would be commensurate
with the security tasks state drinking water programs must take on.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, ASDWA respectfully recommends that Federal fiscal
year 2013 budget needs for the provision of safe drinking water be
adequately funded by the Congress. A strong drinking water program
supported by the Federal-State partnership will ensure that the quality
of drinking water in this country will not deteriorate and, in fact,
will continue to improve--so that the public can be assured that a
glass of water is safe to drink no matter where they travel or live.
States are willing and committed partners. However, additional Federal
financial assistance is needed to meet ongoing and ever growing
regulatory and security needs. The financial needs of these programs is
particularly acute when one considers that the Budget Control Act of
2011 sequestration may well cut an additional 9 percent from whatever
is ultimately appropriated. In 1996, the Congress provided the
authority to ensure that the burden would not go unsupported. For
fiscal year 2013, ASDWA asks that the promise of that support be
realized.
______
Prepared Statement of Bat Conservation International
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. Bat
Conservation International (BCI) is a nonprofit organization that
conducts and supports science-based research, education, and
conservation to ensure that bats will still be helping to maintain
healthy environments and human economies far into the future. We are
based in Austin, Texas, with a membership of more than 10,000 from all
50 of the United States. We respectfully request $7.8 million plus one
full-time employee in fiscal year 2013 funding to address White-nose
Syndrome (WNS), a disease decimating North American bats.
WNS poses the gravest threat ever faced by U.S. bats. Since its
discovery in 2006, the disease has killed at least 5.7 million bats. It
is named for the previously unknown, cold-loving white fungus that
causes the disease, found on the faces and wings of infected bats. WNS-
infected bats awaken frequently during hibernation, burning the fat
reserves they need to survive the winter. They often emerge early from
hibernation, before the return of warm weather and insects, only to
freeze or starve to death. The disease or its associated fungus has
spread to 20 States and 4 Canadian provinces in the 6 years since WNS
was first observed in a cave near Albany, New York. The Northeastern
United States has borne the brunt of WNS so far, but the disease or its
fungus has spread as far south as Alabama. It has also reached as far
west as Oklahoma, in a location closer to the Pacific Ocean than to the
site of WNS's first observation in New York.
Biologists consider the WNS die-off to be North America's most
precipitous wildlife decline in the past century. The disease strikes
hibernating bats--those that sleep through the winter in caves and
mines--and has affected every hibernating bat species in its geographic
path. Of the Nation's 47 bat species, 25 hibernate, and all of these
hibernating species are considered at risk of the disease. WNS or the
fungus currently affects nine species, including the federally
endangered Indiana and gray bats, which could well be even closer to
extinction as a result. Some WNS-infected sites experience mortality
rates of almost 100 percent. Losses are so severe that researchers are
predicting regional extinctions of the little brown bat--previously one
of America's most common mammals--in Northeastern States within 15
years.
Bats provide many benefits to humankind. As primary predators of
night-flying insects, bats are critical to maintaining the balance of
nature. A bat can eat one-half to all of its body weight in insects per
night, consuming vast numbers of pests that damage crops such as corn,
cotton, and potatoes. A study published last year in the journal
``Science'' estimates the value of bats to the U.S. agriculture
industry ranges from $3.7 to $53 billion per year. Bats also eat
insects that damage forests and spread disease. Some bat species
pollinate crops and disperse seeds. Research of bat biology has yielded
important chemical products, including a medication to prevent strokes.
Bat droppings in caves support unique ecosystems, including
microorganisms that could be used in detoxifying industrial wastes and
producing safer pesticides and antibiotics.
The loss of bats would have serious ecological and economic
consequences. With millions of bats dead from WNS, their would-be prey
insects are surviving to attack crops and forests. The ``Science''
article argues that, as a result of WNS, North American agriculture
will begin noting economic losses within 3 to 4 years, with especially
severe impacts to the Midwest and Great Plains regions. In addition to
crop losses, farmers will need to use more pesticides, increasing the
financial strain on farming families, raising the price of food for
consumers, and releasing more chemicals into our environment. Bats are
important predators, so their disappearance could have broad, ripple
effects on the environment that we cannot yet assess.
Population declines from WNS could lead to listing more bat species
under the Federal Endangered Species Act, as well as State-level
statutes, which would cause far-ranging economic costs. Due to WNS, the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is conducting a status review of the
little brown bat and listing reviews of the northern long-eared bat and
eastern small-footed bat. At the State level, Ohio and Wisconsin have
each listed four bat species, and other States are considering
designations. Bat species affected by WNS have broad geographic
distributions and complex ecological patterns, which would likely
require very high recovery costs. Finally, regulations stemming from
listing more bat species would have economic impacts on industries such
as mining, defense, energy, forestry, construction, transportation,
tourism, and outdoor recreation.
BCI appreciates the commitment the Congress has demonstrated toward
fighting WNS. In fiscal year 2010, the Congress made an appropriation
of $1.9 million to FWS for WNS. In the fiscal year 2012 spending
package, the Congress directed FWS to spend no less than $4 million on
WNS, and directed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States
Forest Service (USFS) to prioritize WNS activities. We thank the
Congress for recognizing not only the gravity of WNS, but also the
institutional and geographic scope of the response needed to fight the
disease. The Federal Government--in conjunction with partners in State,
local, and tribal agencies, academic institutions, and nonprofits--has
mounted an admirable response to the disease within the framework of
the National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in
Managing White Nose Syndrome in Bats (National Plan).
The increases for WNS requested in the President's fiscal year 2013
budget will enable Federal agencies to capitalize on, and add to, the
hard-won progress they have made against WNS. Researchers have answered
many of the basic science questions about this previously unknown
disease, and are ready to apply the knowledge to exploring management
and conservation measures. Failing to fund WNS this year will undermine
the accomplishments Federal agencies and their partners have made to
fight this devastating epidemic.
BCI therefore supports the requests for WNS funding in the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget, and we urge the subcommittee to
maintain them. If the subcommittee can invest more in fighting WNS to
protect bats and the valuable contributions bats make to the economy,
agriculture, and the environment, we suggest the following outlays.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--$4.5 Million
We ask the subcommittee to maintain the $1.897 million for WNS in
the President's fiscal year 2013 budget, and to maintain the
President's fiscal year 2013 Recovery Fund request of $81.909 million.
An additional $2.603 million for WNS--for a total of $4.5 million--
would incrementally increase the Congress's fiscal year 2012
commitment.
This will fund:
Research.--Identify priorities for applied research that will
assist in combating WNS and managing its spread, and fund
projects that support these goals.
Interagency Coordination.--Provide and relay scientific
information and guidance to and among Federal and State
agencies, tribes, landowners, recreation, and conservation
groups to ensure best practices on WNS-related issues, such as
research findings, status of disease spread, and fungus
decontamination procedures.
State Support.--Provide funding for State wildlife agencies to
conduct disease surveillance, monitor bat populations,
implement conservation measures, and conduct research.
Conservation Action for Bat Species in Decline Due to White Nose
Syndrome.--Assess populations and threats; provide guidance on
needs of species to Federal and State agencies and private land
owners.
U.S. Geological Survey--$1 Million Plus One Full-Time Equivalent
We ask the subcommittee to maintain the requested increase in the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget for $1 million and one full-time
employee to carry out work related to WNS.
This will support:
--Enhancing WNS surveillance and diagnostic capabilities.
--Research, on topics such as:
--Vaccine development;
--Pathogenesis--the origin, development, and resultant effects--of
WNS;
--Prevalence and survival of WNS fungus in cave environments;
--Modeling WNS disease processes.
These activities support the goals of the following working groups
of the National Plan:
--Diagnostics;
--Disease management;
--Epidemiological and ecological research;
--Disease surveillance; and
--Conservation and recovery.
National Park Service--$300,000
We ask the subcommittee to provide $300,000 for the National Park
Service's WNS efforts.
This will fund:
--Preventing WNS spread by conducting visitor decontamination and
monitoring flow of visitors on an as-needed basis.
--Conducting on-the-ground surveillance of disease.
--Monitoring for disease presence or absence.
These activities support the goals of the National Plan Disease
Management Working Group.
Bureau of Land Management--$1 Million
In order for BLM to continue the Congress's fiscal year 2012
directive to ``prioritize research related to WNS in bats and the
inventory and monitoring of bat resources on Bureau-administered
lands'', we ask the subcommittee to provide $1 million for BLM's WNS
efforts.
This will fund bat inventories of the BLM's presently known caves
and abandoned mines, supporting the goals of the National Plan Disease
Management Working Group.
U.S. Forest Service--$1 Million
In order for USFS to continue the Congress's fiscal year 2012
directive to ``prioritize research related to White Nose Syndrome as
well as inventory and monitoring of bat resources on Forest Service
lands'', we ask the committee to provide $1 million to be divided
between the Research and Development branch and the National Forest
System branch.
This will fund:
--Research, on topics such as:
--Enhancing environmental conditions for bat survival in the face
of WNS.
--Possible biological controls for WNS.
--Ways to measure the status and fitness of bat populations.
--Preventing WNS spread by conducting visitor decontamination and
monitoring flow of visitors on an as-needed basis.
--Conducting on-the-ground surveillance of disease.
--Monitoring for disease presence or absence.
--Managing forests to optimize bat habitat.
These activities support the goals of the following National Plan
Working Groups:
--Disease management;
--Epidemiological and ecological research; and
--Conservation and recovery.
Money spent on WNS is a wise investment. First, preventing the
spread of WNS will spare businesses the regulatory and other impacts of
bat die-offs. In addition, implementing WNS response generates jobs.
Finally, conducting WNS research, management, and prevention now will
reduce future expenses to the U.S. economy resulting from pest impacts
to agriculture and forestry, businesses affected by additional bat
listings, and the cost of listed-species recovery. In this case, an
ounce of prevention is truly worth a pound of cure.
Thank you for the opportunity to share BCI's position on this
serious matter, and we respectfully ask you to consider our urgent
request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Bernalillo Board of County Commissioners
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2013
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial public benefits
including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural, historical, and recreation heritage. As LWCF is funded from
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these
funds should go to their intended and authorized use as a conservation
offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
As part of the LWCF request in fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service included an allocation of $1.5 million for Middle Rio
Grande National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). I am pleased that this funding
was included in the request and urge the Congress to provide necessary
funds for LWCF for this important project.
The 570-acre Price's Dairy property is located in the South Valley
of Albuquerque, New Mexico, 5 miles south of downtown. This tract is
one of the largest remaining farms in the Middle Rio Grande Valley and
the largest agricultural property within the Albuquerque metro region.
The city of Albuquerque is among the fastest-growing urban areas in the
United States, and its developing sprawl contributes to a loss of
history and culture while placing significant stress on the natural
resources of the Valley and the Rio Grande.
Over the years, various attempts have been made to preserve this
property. During that time, other large-acreage properties on the river
have been subdivided and developed and the water rights sold to support
other needs. With a landowner who seeks a conservation outcome, the
opportunity exists now to protect this section of the Rio Grande,
engage the next generation though environmental education and outreach,
and support economic development on the south side of the city. This is
a property that has high environmental values but also will benefit New
Mexico residents and visitors far into the future.
These conservation efforts culminated on September 29, 2011, with
an announcement by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to authorize the Price's Dairy property
as the Middle Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge (MRGNWR). The unit
would be the first urban refuge in the FWS southwest region.
Overwhelming public support for the new refuge was generated throughout
the FWS's planning process, and it was named one of the 50 State
projects under the Obama administration's America's Great Outdoors
Initiative.
The creation of this new refuge will protect the natural resource
values of the property that would be lost through subdivision and
development, bolster environmental education and outreach for local
students and residents, and provide a gateway to the larger regional
park system. In addition, because of the property's significant senior
water rights, the protection of this property would also add to the
health and vitality of the adjacent Rio Grande, which is struggling to
support the people and wildlife that depend on it for water. About 70
percent of the State's population--more than 1.3 million people--live
in the 10 counties along the Rio Grande.
The FWS proposal creating the new MRGNWR emphasizes restoration of
river, bosque, and wildlife habitats on the property. The section of
the river next to Price's Dairy has been designated critical habitat
for Rio Grande silvery minnow and southwestern willow flycatcher, two
endangered species. The restoration of the landscape and the
redistribution of acquired senior water rights on the property to
increase instream flows would meet objectives to improve habitats and
their viability, lower the threat to fish and wildlife of drought, and
mitigate expected effects of climate change. Price's Dairy provides an
important waypoint for migratory birds such as sandhill cranes, Arctic
geese, and varied duck species that move up and down the river from
summer breeding grounds in the north to wintering havens in the south.
The river corridor also provides an opportunity for hiking and
biking along the planned Rio Grande Trail, which is proposed to
parallel the river as it cuts through New Mexico from north to south.
The MRGNWR would provide an important trailhead for this system and
also be a new southern terminus of the city of Albuquerque's existing
Paseo del Bosque Trail. These recreational connections would improve
public access to the Rio Grande and underscore the significant Federal,
State, local, and private efforts to promote recreation and the
outdoors.
As an urban refuge, the MRGNWR will connect Albuquerque residents
to the outdoors in ways not previously available. The refuge plan calls
for the eventual construction of an onsite environmental education
center to enhance student learning and connection with nature. The
refuge unit could also become the site of agricultural extension
offices, a native plant materials center, small farm demonstration
plots that promote regionally cherished crops, and university-level
scientific and agricultural research.
Protection of Price's Dairy offers myriad benefits for the public.
As open space and as a trailhead, it would provide recreational
opportunities for an underserved part of the Albuquerque metro area.
Its proximity to the Rio Grande, large undeveloped acreage, and
existing farming activity offer the FWS and State agencies an
opportunity to engage in sound environmental restoration practices
while connecting young people and urban residents to the natural world.
With the attraction of a FWS visitor's center and the nearby access to
Interstate 25, there are also economic benefits to the South Valley.
The acquisition of the property and associated senior water rights
is expected to cost up to $20 million. Demonstrating the importance of
the project to the Albuquerque metropolitan area, the Bernalillo County
Board of Commissioners, of which I am a member, unanimously voted on
September 28, 2010 to appropriate $5 million in county funds for the
acquisition. These funds were made available only over a period of 2
years from approval and expire in late September 2012. To match these
funds, other funding is being sought from a variety of local, State and
Federal sources, and the landowner agreement in place requires a Phase
I closing by the end of June 2012.
To date, in addition to the county funds, $1 million has been
secured from the Albuquerque Metropolitan Flood Control Authority and
$1 million from the Bureau of Reclamation. The fiscal year 2013
President's budget request for FWS includes an allocation of $1.5
million from the LWCF to the MRGNWR, which may be supplemented by
additional LWCF dollars and FWS grants. In order to ensure that this
project moves forward in a timely way, the fiscal year 2013 President's
budget recommendation is urgently needed, while the effort to secure
supplemental local, State, Federal, and private funds continues.
In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the LWCF of $450
million, as proposed in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget,
including critical funding for the Middle Rio Grande NWR. I want to
thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in New Mexico, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of Chugach Regional Resources Commission
As Executive Director of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission
(CRRC), located in Alaska, I am pleased to submit this testimony
reflecting the needs, concerns and requests of CRRC regarding the
proposed fiscal year 2013 budget. As is everyone, we are aware of the
ongoing economic problems in the United States. While the Government is
trimming its spending, the Federal Government must still fulfill its
legal and contractual spending obligations. The Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) not only has a legal and contractual obligation to
provide funding for the CRRC, but the CRRC is able to translate this
funding into real economic opportunity for those living in the Prince
William Sound region.
After failing to seek funding for CRRC for more than a decade, we
are very pleased that the BIA has recognized its obligation to CRRC and
has requested $350,000 for CRRC in fiscal year 2013. In its fiscal year
2013 budget justification, the BIA recognized CRRC's role in developing
the capabilities of its member villages to better facilitate their
active participation in resource use and allocation issues in Alaska.
We urge the subcommittee to support this funding and include it in the
final bill.
Chugach Regional Resource Commission History.--CRRC is a coalition
of Alaska Native Villages, organized in 1987 by the seven Native
Villages located in Prince William Sound and Lower Cook Inlet in
southcentral Alaska:
--Tatitlek Village IRA Council;
--Chenega IRA Council;
--Port Graham Village Council;
--Nanwalek IRA Council;
--Native Village of Eyak;
--Qutekcak Native Tribe; and
--Valdez Native Tribe.
CRRC was created to address environmental and natural resources
issues and to develop culturally sensitive economic projects at the
community level to support the sustainable development of the region's
natural resources. The Native Villages' action to create a separate
entity demonstrates the level of concern and importance they hold for
environmental and natural resource management and protection--the
creation of CRRC ensured that natural resource and environmental issues
received sufficient attention and focused funding.
Employment.--Through its many important programs, CRRC has provided
employment for up to 35 Native people in the Chugach Region annually--
an area that faces high levels of unemployment--through programs that
conserve and restore our natural resources.
An investment in CRRC has been translated into real economic
opportunities, savings and community investments that have a great
impact on the Chugach region. Our employees are able to earn a living
to support their families, thereby removing them from the rolls of
people needing State and Federal support. In turn, they are able to
reinvest in the community, supporting the employment and opportunities
of other families. Our programs, as well, support future economic and
commercial opportunities for the region--protecting and developing our
shellfish and other natural resources.
Programs.--CRRC has leveraged its $350,000 from BIA into almost $2
million annually to support its several community-based programs.
Specifically, the $350,000 base funding allowed CRRC to maintain core
administrative operations, and seek specific projects funding from
sources such as the Administration for Native Americans, the Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, the State of Alaska, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
U.S. Department of Education. This diverse funding pool has allowed
CRRC to develop and operate several important programs that provide
vital services, valuable products, and necessary employment and
commercial opportunities. These programs include:
Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery.--The Alutiiq Pride Shellfish
Hatchery is the only shellfish hatchery in the State of Alaska.
The 20,000 square foot shellfish hatchery is located in Seward,
Alaska, and houses shellfish seed, brood stock and algae
production facilities. Alutiiq Pride is undertaking a hatchery
nursery operation, as well as grow-out operation research to
adapt mariculture techniques for the Alaskan Shellfish
industry. The Hatchery is also conducting scientific research
on blue and red king crab as part of a larger federally-
sponsored program. Alutiiq Pride has already been successful in
culturing geoduck, oyster, littleneck clam, and razor clam
species and is currently working on sea cucumbers. This
research has the potential to dramatically increase commercial
opportunities for the region in the future. The activities of
Alutiiq Pride are especially important for this region
considering it is the only shellfish hatchery in the state, and
therefore the only organization in Alaska that can carry out
this research and production.
Natural Resource Curriculum Development.--Partnering with the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, CRRC is developing and implementing
a model curriculum in natural resource management for Alaska
Native students. This curriculum integrates traditional
knowledge with Western science. The goal of the program is to
encourage more Native students to pursue careers in the
sciences. In addition, we are working with the Native American
Fish & Wildlife Society and tribes across the country
(including Alaska) to develop a university level textbook to
accompany these courses.
In addition, we are in the process of completing a K-12 Science
Curriculum for Alaska students that integrates Indigenous
knowledge with western science. This curriculum is being
piloted in various villages in Alaska and a thorough evaluation
process will ensure its success and mobility to other schools
in Alaska.
Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council.--CRRC is a member of
the Council responsible for setting regulations governing the
spring harvest of migratory birds for Alaska Natives, as well
as conducting harvest surveys and various research projects on
migratory birds of conservation concern. Our participation in
this State wide body ensures the legal harvest of migratory
birds by Indigenous subsistence hunters in the Chugach Region.
Statewide Subsistence Halibut Working Group.--CRRC participates
in this working group, ensuring the halibut resources are
secured for subsistence purposes, and to conduct harvest
surveys in the Chugach Region.
We urge the Congress to sustain the $350,000 included in the BIA's
fiscal year 2013 budget for CRRC. We appreciate the opportunity to
submit this important testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cherokee Nation
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee thank you for accepting testimony into the record on
fiscal year 2013 budgetary concerns regarding Native American Issues.
Cherokee Nation requests that in setting fiscal year 2013 Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Services (IHS) budget
priorities, the Federal Government uphold its Trust Responsibility to
tribes.
Cherokee Nation was one of the first tribes to enter into a treaty
with the United States. In that tradition, the Cherokee Nation executed
a self-determination contract in 1990 under title III of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), which gave
the tribe more authority to administer its programs. In just two
decades, Cherokee Nation has taken over the administration of several
BIA and IHS programs, including healthcare, education, and law
enforcement. ISDEAA is a powerful mechanism that provides tribes with
the opportunity to control and administer essential governmental
services and engage in local economic and resource development.
Cherokee Nation is the largest employer in northeastern Oklahoma
and has an economic impact of more than $1.06 billion on the State's
output level, including $401 million in State income impacts, and
supports 13,527 jobs in a predominantly under-developed, rural region
of Oklahoma. While 3,250 people are employed in the Nation's
Government, an ever-increasing number of people are employed in the
Nation's diverse portfolio of businesses, including hospitality,
healthcare, aerospace, and technology sectors.
The combined revenue from the tribe's business operations helps
fund essential Government services while offering a foundation to
expand and diversify economic development and create job growth in
Oklahoma. Therefore, adequate funding for both IHS and BIA is vital to
maintain and increase our recent progress and strength.
FIXED COSTS--CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS
One of the most important budgetary issues facing Indian Country
for the next fiscal year is the funding of contract support by BIA and
IHS. In Indian Country, every $1 lost in contract support costs is $1
subtracted from healthcare, education, law enforcement, and other
critical governmental services. The contract support cost (CSC)
deficiency has caused severe financial strains on Cherokee Nation's
programs and facilities.
Because CSCs are fixed costs that a contractor must incur, tribes
are required to either:
--reduce funds budgeted for critical healthcare, education, and other
services under contract to cover the shortfall;
--divert tribal funds to subsidize the Federal contract (when such
tribal funds are available); or
--use a combination of these two approaches. For every $1 million
that the Cherokee Nation must divert from direct patient care
to cover CSCs, the Cherokee Nation health system must forego
5,800 patient visits.
While the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for IHS is
$4.42 billion--an increase of $115.9 million more than the fiscal year
2012 enacted level--IHS sees only a very modest $5 million increase in
IHS funding for contract support. The Cherokee Nation appreciates the
increase, but it is less than a 1-percent increase more than the fiscal
year 2012 enacted level. At this level, the IHS contract support cost
shortfall is estimated to increase to approximately $100 million in
fiscal year 2013. This shortfall will substantially impact Cherokee
Nation, which, like other tribes across the United States, operates
replacement or joint venture facilities throughout our tribal
jurisdiction.
The projected CSC shortfall will force the Cherokee Nation to
divert investments in job creation and other important programs to
avoid decreasing primary care, dental treatment, and pharmaceutical
coverage. As long as the Federal Government maintains the status quo of
inadequate funding, the United States is failing in its partnership
with tribes and is ignoring its Trust Responsibility.
Fortunately, BIA does not have the same CSC shortfall crisis.
Cherokee Nation appreciates the President's budget proposal because it
increases Indian self-determination funds by $8.8 million. This
increase must be protected during the appropriations process to avoid
the same problems IHS has with CSC funding and BIA should be seen as a
model for IHS.
We appreciate past and current efforts to reduce shortfalls, but it
is unacceptable for sequestration or domestic deficit reduction efforts
to single out tribes by cutting tribally administered health and law
enforcement programs. The Federal Government has a moral and legal
obligation to fund these essential governmental services. The trust
responsibility is not, and should not be viewed as, discretionary
spending.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
Under a Self-Governance compact with the Department of Health and
Human Services, the Cherokee Nation constructs and maintains waterlines
and improves sanitary services throughout the region. Furthermore, in
conjunction with IHS contract support cost dollars, the tribe operates
a sophisticated network of eight rural outpatient health centers that
provide Native people with primary medical care, dental service,
optometry, radiology, mammography, behavioral health promotion and
disease prevention, and a public health nursing program.
In addition to these services, the Cherokee Nation operates WW
Hastings Indian Hospital in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. Hastings is a 60-bed
facility offering outpatient and ancillary services with more than
300,000 outpatient visits each year and more than 335,000 prescriptions
filled annually. Adequate funding is required to continue this
successful partnership in fulfillment of the Unites States' trust
obligations and IHS must be exempt from future reductions during
appropriations and the sequestration process as prescribed in the
Budget Control Act of 2011.
EXPANDING THE JOINT VENTURE PROGRAM
The IHS Joint Venture program demonstrates the shared commitment of
tribal nations and IHS. This program provides additional health
facilities within the Indian health system and the staff necessary to
support the facilities across Indian Country. This program has been
effective in the Oklahoma City area as well as providing staff at our
clinics across eastern Oklahoma. Cherokee Nation requests the Joint
Venture program be funded at an adequate level, including CSC funds.
INDIAN HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT FUND
In addition to the well-documented disparate funding between IHS
and other federally funded health programs, funds among the various IHS
areas are distributed inequitably. In order to address such inequities,
the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund (IHCIF) was created to achieve
parity among the IHS areas. Over the years, tribes have recommended the
Federal Government implement a time-limited plan to bring all IHS
operating units to the 80-percent level. To achieve parity, a $1
billion investment will be required during a 4-year period.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BLOCK GRANT
FUNDS
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is $3.4 billion, a
$141.9 million decrease from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Each
State receives block grant (formula) funds from SAMHSA for providing
behavioral health services to all residents within the State. However,
when an American Indian is in need of behavioral health services, he
typically seeks care through an IHS or tribally operated facility, as
opposed to a State agency or State-operated facility. As with
competitive and discretionary funds, increasing and giving the Cherokee
Nation access to this type of funding would expand our opportunity to
improve our behavioral health services and better meet the system's
current demand.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Cherokee Nation compacts with the Department of the Interior to
administer a wide array of Federal programs serving American Indians.
Full Federal funding is crucial for continued administration of social
services, child wellness programs, child abuse services, adult and
higher education, housing improvement, law enforcement service, road
and bridge construction, planning and maintenance, forestry and real
estate programs, and Johnson O'Malley education programs.
INDIAN GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM
The Indian Guaranteed Loan Program, established under the Indian
Financing Act of 1974, helps Cherokees and other Native Americans
access capital by guaranteeing and insuring loans to promote economic
development throughout Indian Country. The program leverages
appropriated monies by a ratio of 13 to 1. However, in the upcoming
budget, the program sees a $2.1 million reduction to $5 million because
it is purportedly duplicative of programs in other agencies. However,
these programs do not replace the Guaranteed Loan Program. Cherokee
Nation requests this highly successful program be fully funded so
tribes may access loans when attempting to increase their economic
livelihood in often economic-depressed regions.
TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATIONS
We join our fellow Self-Governance Tribes in continuing to request
funding increases for the fundamental services provided as Tribal
Priority Allocations (TPA). Of the 566 federally recognized tribes, 235
tribes manage their own affairs under Self-Governance agreements with
the BIA. Although these tribes account for 42 percent of the federally
recognized tribes, they received roughly only 15 percent of BIA budget,
which bears the responsibility for providing services to all federally
recognized tribes. Collectively, most of the varied programs fall under
the broad category of ``Tribal Priority Allocations.''
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget includes $2.5 billion for
BIA, which is $4.6 million or 0.2 percent less than the fiscal year
2012 enacted level. While this is basically level with fiscal year
2012's budget, any decrease strains tribal governments. Further, the
budget proposes a total of $897.4 million in TPA and these funds must
be protected as the budget process proceeds.
SEQUOYAH SCHOOLS AND THE TRIBAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS PILOT PROJECT
In 1985, Cherokee Nation gained control of Sequoyah Schools, a
former, underperforming BIA boarding school. After years of tribal
control, Sequoyah is now regionally and State accredited, consistently
meets Adequate Yearly Progress goals and is flourishing. While Sequoyah
receives funding from Bureau of Indian Education grants, the Cherokee
Nation also utilizes tribal funding from motor vehicle tag sales to
fund the School.
The Campus now covers more than 90 acres and houses more than 400
students in grades 7-12 representing 42 tribes. Cherokee Nation and
other tribes better understand how to educate our children and provide
cultural curricula that revitalizes and protects language and tribal
history. The School also creates an academic environment that mirrors
college preparatory schools by utilizing an advanced curriculum and
using data collection to track student progress and School performance,
which allows the administrators to quickly address any deficiencies or
problems that develop.
Therefore, Cherokee Nation is very appreciative of the $2 million
appropriated for the Tribal Education Departments (TEDs) Pilot Project
in the fiscal year 2012 Department of Education budget. Funding for
TEDs is also authorized in No Child Left Behind Act for DOI, but has
not been funded. This pilot project will increase the role of TEDs in
education and will help tribes provide an equitable learning
environment for our children. Therefore, we request $2 million in
fiscal year 2013 for the TED pilot project.
The pilot project will allow tribes and the Federal Government to
utilize a method of funding that has been demonstrated to increase
efficiency and self-determination in other areas. The pilot project
allows TEDs to receive funding as authorized in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for education programs and authorizes
the TED to directly administer such ESEA programs in a similar fashion
as the Cherokee Nation receives and administers funding for IHS and BIA
self-governance programs. The Nation respectfully requests this
subcommittee work with the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies and
Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to
ensure the pilot project is funded and that the appropriations act
language directs the Department of the Interior and Education to
directly provide ESEA funding to the tribes chosen to participate in
the pilot project.
CONCLUSION
Cherokee Nation is committed to providing Federal services and
direct, local-level programs, including job creation, education, health
and law enforcement services, in a time when economic issues and
desired deficit reduction hinder Federal attempts to accomplish the
same. The Federal Government's current fiscal situation does not negate
its trust responsibility to Cherokee Nation and Indian Country. Thank
you for your continued support and for the opportunity to provide
testimony on these critical fiscal year 2013 budget issues. Please
contact the Cherokee Nation Washington Office at 202.393.7007 with any
questions or requests for additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of the Children's Environmental Health Network
The Children's Environmental Health Network (CEHN) providing
testimony on fiscal year 2013 appropriations, especially appropriations
for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
We are writing today to provide testimony on the fiscal year 2013
budget currently before your subcommittee, especially the budget
proposed by the President for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
This year, CEHN is celebrating its 20th anniversary as a national
nonprofit organization whose mission is to protect the developing child
from environmental hazards and promote a healthier environment. The
Network's Board and committee members include internationally
recognized experts in children's environmental health science and
policy who serve on key Federal advisory panels and scientific boards.
We recognize that children, in our society, have unique moral standing.
The Network is deeply concerned about the health of the Nation's
children and urges the subcommittee to help all children grow up in
healthy environments by embracing its role in protecting our
environment and our health.
American competitiveness depends on having healthy educated
children who grow up to be healthy productive adults. Yet, growing
numbers of our children are diagnosed with chronic and developmental
illnesses and disabilities. The National Academy of Sciences estimates
that toxic environmental exposures play a role in 28 percent of
neurobehavioral disorders in children and this does not include other
conditions such as asthma or cancers. Thus, it is vital that the
Federal programs and activities that protect children from
environmental hazards receive adequate resources.
CEHN urges the subcommittee to provide funding at or above the
requested levels for the following EPA activities:
--Office of Children's Health Protection (OCHP);
--Children's Environmental Health Research Centers of Excellence;
--Office of Research and Development;
--School and Child Care Environmental Health;
--The Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units; and
--The National Children's Study.
CEHN also urges full funding of all activities that advance healthy
school and childcare environments for all children.
As epidemiologists see increasing rates of asthma, learning
disabilities, and childhood cancers; as parents seek the causes of
birth defects; as researchers understand more and more about the fetal
origins of disease, policymakers must do a much better job of
understanding and acting on the connections between children's health
and the environments in which they spend their time.
These environments include but go beyond home, school, and
childcare settings. A growing number of studies are finding unexpected
impacts of prenatal environmental exposures on health in later years.
For example, prenatal exposures to either a common air pollutant or a
common pesticide have both been linked to lower IQs and poorer working
memory at age 7.
Thus, all agencies should assure that their children's programs
build on and respond to the growing evidence of the importance of
prenatal exposures to a child's health and future.
This evidence also highlights the shortcomings of the Toxic
Substances Control Act, which does not adequately protect human health,
including that of vulnerable populations such as children. The Network
urges you, as Members of Congress, to support the long overdue reform
of this important statute to give priority to the protection of human
health under this law.
A variety of factors, such as children's developing systems, their
unique behaviors and differing exposures, mean that children can be
more susceptible than adults to harm from toxic chemicals. Standards
and guidelines that are based on adults cannot be assumed to be
protective of children. EPA programs of highest importance in the
protection of children are described below.
Environment Protection Agency's Office of Children's Health
Protection.--EPA's efforts to protect children from environmental
hazards have been led by OCHP since 1997. Despite an effective track
record, funding for OCHP has been level, at approximately $6 million,
since its creation. CEHN strongly supports an increase in funding for
OCHP for its work on environmental health in the home, school and child
care settings. This valuable work includes the office's interagency
work promoting healthy housing and healthy children, where we find that
environmental interventions result in great cost savings, not to
mention the health problems averted, such as asthma episodes and lead
poisoning cases. There is great interest but few resources for these
approaches. OCHP--and EPA--must also build on the research on prenatal
exposures, an area of growing concern. OCHP should help healthcare
providers better understand the science and in translating these
findings for clinical consultation and communicating with patients.
CEHN urges the subcommittee to provide funds more than the proposed
level for OCHP.
Children's Environmental Health Research Centers of Excellence.--
The Centers, jointly funded by EPA and National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), play a key role in providing the
scientific basis for protecting children from environmental hazards.
With their modest budgets, which have been unchanged over more than 10
years, these centers generate valuable research. We were pleased to see
the commitment by EPA's Office of Research and Development to this
program in the budget language and applaud the recent release of
Requests for Proposals for the Children's Centers. A unique aspect of
these Centers is the requirement that each Center actively involves its
local community in a collaborative partnership, leading both to
community-based participatory research projects and to the translation
of research findings into child-protective programs and policies. The
scientific output of these centers has been outstanding. It was these
centers, for example, that generated the findings I mentioned earlier
about connections between prenatal exposures and lower IQ at age 7. We
urge you to provide full funding for these Centers.
Office of Research and Development.--This office is critical in
efforts to understand environmental impacts on children's health.
Children's environmental health is a priority of EPA's strategic plan
and we were pleased to see the mention in the fiscal year 2013 budget
supporting continued research on children's issues. Yet the funding and
research dedicated to this area is not specifically listed or
identified in the plan. If this area is indeed a priority, where are
measurable goals on this area of research? Where is the documentation
of the amount and type of research conducted as well as how the
protection of children is given priority throughout Office of Research
and Development (ORD)? We ask that your subcommittee direct the office
to improve transparency by tracking and reporting on the funding and
research across the office dedicated to children's environmental
health.
ORD's focus on sustainability in its work is commended; no truly
sustainable development paradigm could be developed without protecting
children and their future. Children's environmental health is an issue
that cuts across all of ORD's programs. For example, EPA's National
Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory scientists are
protecting children's health through the development of cost-effective
methods to test and rank chemicals for their potential to cause
developmental neurotoxicity. Historic methods using laboratory animals
are expensive and time consuming. To date, only a small number of the
thousands of chemicals currently in commerce have been assessed for
their potential toxicity and for their effects on the child's
developing nervous system. These new testing methods can screen in
hours to days instead of months to years and will provide faster, less
expensive ways of assessing potential toxicity.
These new testing methods, however, do not replace the need for
continued research in childhood exposures and health effects. Our
understanding is that of the $81 million proposed for the grants
program, only $6.3 million is targeted to children's research (for the
centers mentioned above). Much of the research in this field cannot be
conducted in a short timeframe and requires sustained funding if
scientists are to conduct research and measure effectiveness.
School and Chlid Care Environmental Health.--In America today,
millions of infants, toddlers and preschoolers, often as young as 6
weeks to 4 years of age, spend 40-50 hours a week in childcare. Yet,
little is known about the environmental health status of the Nation's
childcare centers or how to assure that these facilities are protecting
this highly vulnerable group of children. Environmental health is
rarely if ever considered in licensing centers or training childcare
professionals. Similarly, about 54 million children and nearly 7
million adults--20 percent of the total U.S. population--spend up to 40
hours per week inside school facilities every week. Unfortunately, many
of these facilities contain unsafe environmental conditions that harm
children's health and undermine attendance, achievement, and
productivity. Thus, it is vital that EPA maintain and expand its
activities for healthy school and child care settings, such as the
Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools program.
Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units.--Funded jointly by
EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the
Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSUs) form a valuable
resource network, with a center in each of the U.S. Federal regions.
PEHSU professionals provide medical consultation to healthcare
professionals on a wide range of environmental health issues, from
individual cases of exposure to advice regarding large-scale community
issues. PEHSUs also provide information and resources to school, child
care, health and medical, and community groups to help increase the
public's understanding of children's environmental health, and help
inform policymakers by providing data and background on local or
regional environmental health issues and implications for specific
populations or areas. We urge the subcommittee to provide adequate
funding for both EPA's and ATSDR's portions of this program.
National Children's Study.--The National Children's Study (NCS) is
examining the effects of environmental influences on the health and
development of more than 100,000 children across the United States,
following them from before birth until age 21. This landmark
longitudinal cohort study--involving a consortium of agencies including
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NIEHS--will be one
of the richest research efforts ever geared toward studying children's
health and development and will form the basis of child health
guidance, interventions, and policy for generations to come. CEHN urges
the subcommittee to restore the budget of NCS for fiscal year 2013 to
ensure that EPA has sustained funding for the necessary infrastructure
for data access and the ability to collaborate with its partners on the
NCS.
Children's Health and Healthy Children Must be an Ongoing Priority
for This and Every Administration.--Since CEHN's creation 20 years ago,
great leaps forward have been made. We commend the EPA for its great
progress in recognizing children's unique susceptibilities to
environmental toxicants. More remains to be done, however. CEHN urges
the subcommittee to direct EPA to assure that all of its activities and
programs--including regulations, guidelines, assessments and research--
specifically consider children.
EPA's work must always assure that children and other vulnerable
subpopulations are protected, especially poor children, minority
children, farmworker children, and others at risk. A wonderful example
doing just that is EPA's long-awaited decision to limit emissions of
mercury and other toxicants from power plants. Mercury is a potent
neurotoxin, which can permanently damage a child's sensitive nervous
system. If we want our children to reach their full potential, we need
to get mercury out of their environment. This proposal is a practical,
cost-effective, and vital step toward this goal. Other benefits of this
rule will be decreased exposures to pollutants that can cause cancer or
trigger asthma attacks.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these critical issues,
and thank you for your concern about the environmental health of
children.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cook Inlet Tribal Council
Chairman Reed and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Gloria O'Neill and I
am the President and CEO of Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC), an Alaska
Native tribal nonprofit organization which serves as the primary
education and workforce development center for Native people in
Anchorage. CITC has been designated tribal authority through Cook Inlet
Region Inc., organized through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
and recognized under section 4(b) of the Indian Self-Determination Act
and Education Assistance Act, Public Law 93-638. CITC builds human
capacity by partnering with individuals to establish and achieve both
educational and employment goals that result in lasting, positive
change for themselves, their families, and their communities.
Demographics and Expanding Service Population
CITC's programs serve Alaska Native and American Indian people in
the Cook Inlet Region, which includes Alaska's most urbanized and
populated communities, and is home to an Alaska Native/American Indian
population of more than 40,000, approximately 40 percent of the Native
population of the State of Alaska. In Anchorage alone, the Native
population is approximately 22,000, about 20 percent of the total
Native population in the State. Anchorage is the fourth-largest Native
community in the Nation. CITC's programs address many of the social,
economic, and educational challenges faced by Alaska Native people. For
example, Alaska Native students are twice as likely to drop out as
their non-Native peers; 33 percent of Alaska's unemployed are Alaska
Native people, and almost 20 percent of Alaska Native people have
incomes below the Federal poverty line--nearly three times the rate of
non-Native people.
In-migration from rural, largely Alaska Native communities to the
urban areas in the Cook Inlet Region is accelerating as Alaska Native
people find it increasingly difficult to make a living in rural Alaska.
Fifty-nine percent of CITC's participants have been in Anchorage for 5
years or less; and employment, training, and education are frequently
cited as reasons for moving to Anchorage. In contrast, the current
Bureau of Indian Affairs funding formula for CITC is based on the
population figure of 14,569--from the 1990 census--which leaves CITC
with a funding shortfall to meet the needs of the 40,000 Alaska Native
and American Indian people currently residing in our service region.
CITC is able to create and maintain successful programs, despite this
shortfall, due to flexibility granted by the 477 program that allows us
to leverage our existing funding and maximize efficiencies.
Public Law 102-477 is Essential to Effective Service Provision
The Indian Employment Training and Related Services Demonstration
Act, Public Law 102-477, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 3401-3417 (or the ``477
program''), administered by the Office of Indian Energy and Economic
Development in the Department of the Interior, provides a critical
foundation for maximizing the effectiveness of CITC's programs. The law
allows the consolidation of funding streams from the U.S. Departments
of the Interior (DOI), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor (DOL)
into a single employment and training program. The 477 program enables
flexibility on the part of the receiving organization to plan the
programming to best fit the needs of the community and minimize
administrative redundancy by merging reporting requirements, while
still adhering to the Government Performance Results Act's stringent
accountability standards.
Cook Inlet Tribal Council 477 Programs
The 477 Program is essential to the success of our program as it
allows CITC to increase effectiveness and innovation, enhance
interoperability, and eliminate inefficiency while maximizing program
outcomes. The wrap-around services we provide include job training and
placement, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and child
care. CITC's Employment and Training Services Department (ETSD)
provides comprehensive services to assist Native job seekers. CITC's
employment and training programs are based on the premise that
effective solutions to workforce development require integrated
approaches to ensuring job readiness, training, and placement. By
working closely with State and Federal programs, community and tribal
nonprofits, universities, vocational training centers, employers, and
Native corporations, CITC is able to provide a wide array of training
and employment assistance, coupled with supportive services, to help
overcome many barriers to employment.
CITC is the sole provider of tribal TANF in Anchorage, a key
component of our 477 program. Our TANF program is built on an
integrated service model that connects participants to the range of
programs offered throughout CITC's departments. Through our integrated
service model, CITC has reduced caseloads as well as effectively
implemented TANF prevention. This is precisely the type of innovation
and interoperability that would be impossible without the flexibility
provided by the 477 program.
Furthermore, efficiencies gained within the TANF program resulted
in a 5-year savings of $7.1 million--savings that have been re-invested
in supportive services and programs going directly to participants. 477
allows tribes and tribal entities (e.g., CITC) to administer federally
funded employment and job training programs as a single program, with a
single budget and single set of reporting requirement. CITC relies on
the 477 program to provide our people more effective and integrated
services while reducing costly administrative redundancy.
Over the past 5 years CITC 477-supported programs have:
--Provided 8,257 job seekers with career coaching, training, and job
search assistance; 5,403 (65 percent) of these individuals were
placed in jobs. In 2010, the average hourly wage (AHW) of a job
seeker coming to CITC for services was $9.95--upon leaving CITC
their AHW was $17.23.
--Transitioned 2,270 TANF recipients from welfare to work, with an
AHW of $11.53.
--Provided training opportunities and job placement in critical
employment sectors, including:
--Customer Service/Retail Management (AHW $11.01);
--Driver's Education (AHW $14.16) and CDL Driver's Certification
(AHW $16) Union Apprenticeship (AHW $number needed);
--Weatherization Training (AHW $14.77-$22.15);
--Healthcare: CNA, LPN, RN, Medical Coding (AHW $13.79)
We are proud of the effective programs that we provide and the
success that our participants enjoy. The 477 program is critical to our
effectiveness, especially in this environment of shrinking funding
sources.
Subcommittee Support for 477
Last year the tribes sought assistance from the Congress regarding
two problematic changes the agencies proposed to the administration of
the 477 program that would significantly undermine its success:
--ending the practice of transferring 477 program funds to
participating tribes and tribal organizations through Public
Law 93-638 contracts or Self-Governance agreements, as
authorized by the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (ISDEAA); and
--a new requirement that 477 tribes and tribal organizations report
their 477 expenditures separately by funding source number for
audit purposes.
This subcommittee has been very responsive to the tribes' concerns
and supportive of the 477 program. The House/Senate Appropriations
conferees on the fiscal year 2012 Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill instructed the Federal agencies to engage
in consultations with the 477 tribes and tribal organizations to reach
consensus on the transfer and reporting of funds administered by tribes
through program plans adopted by tribes and approved by the Department
of the Interior under the 477 program.
The Federal agencies and 477 tribes agreed to try to resolve their
differences over these issues, which led to the formation of the Public
Law 102-477 Administrative Flexibility Work Group. This group has met
weekly and included policy and program representatives from DOI, which
administers the 477 program, HHS, DOL and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), as well as representatives from 10 affected tribes and
tribal organizations. In the meantime, the agencies agreed to
temporarily allow funds to continue to be transferred through ISDEAA
and have suspended the reporting requirements instituted in the March
2009 OMB Circular. The agencies and tribes have moved toward consensus
in some general areas:
--First, the agencies and tribal representatives agree in principal
that the 477 program is one provided for tribes by virtue of
their status as Indians. Its targeted purpose is to facilitate
employment opportunities for Indian youth and adults, as well
as to encourage tribal self-sufficiency consistent with self-
determination principles. The 477 program is structured so that
tribal program plans, as authorized under the 477 act, are
approved and administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and
thus can be funded through ISDEAA.
--Second, the both sides have agreed in principal that the 477 act
authorizes tribes to develop 477 program plans to integrate
services and expenditures from various agency programs in a
single, coordinated, comprehensive tribal program plan with a
single budget and a single annual report delivered to DOI. The
current reporting system includes OMB-approved statistical,
narrative, and financial reporting forms. The Federal agencies
have identified limited additional reporting information
required by law but not currently reported in the consolidated
reports provided annually to DOI. Discussion is ongoing as to
what, if any, additional information needs to be included in
the statistical, narrative, and financial reports.
In spite of this progress, it has become clear that the agencies
continue to question one of the fundamental purposes of the 477
program--to allow tribes and tribal organizations to reallocate their
funds within their approved 477 program in order to address local
issues and programmatic needs in the most effective manner. From our
perspective, giving this authority and responsibility to tribes to meet
their own needs is exactly the point and strength of the 477 program.
It is precisely this flexibility that has allowed us to be so
successful. In addition, the tribal representatives have requested, but
not received, written confirmation that this funding mechanism will
continue without restriction and be available for new programs coming
into the 477 program in the future. Finally, the tribes continue to
request that the 2009 OMB Circular A-133 be permanently suspended or
rescinded.
Given this disagreement of fundamental principle, we urge the
subcommittee to remain involved in this issue and supportive of the 477
program. Specifically, we request that the subcommittee maintain
section 430, the language on 477 that was included in the bill last
year, and amend to clarify the intent of the program by adding
following language:
``(3) all funds transferred under an approved Public Law 102-477
plan may be reallocated and rebudgeted by the Indian tribe or tribal
organization to best meet the employment, training and related needs of
the local community served by the Indian tribe or tribal
organization.''.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, CITC, as a 477 tribal organization is grateful for
this subcommittee's interest in and support for the 477 program. This
program is essential to our ability to meet the needs of our people in
innovate and efficient ways that allow us to provide wrap around
services designed on a model of integration and interoperability. The
Tribal Work Group representatives remain concerned that, in the absence
of specific legislative authorization as provided in section 430 with
the above addition, the spirit, the letter and the opportunities of the
Public Law 102-477 law will be subject to changes in implementation
from administration to administration.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the
fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. The National Wildlife Refuge System stands alone
as the only land and water conservation system with a mission that
prioritizes wildlife and habitat conservation and wildlife-dependent
recreation. Since 1995, the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
(CARE) has worked to showcase the value of the Refuge System and to
secure a strong congressional commitment for conserving these special
places. Located in every U.S. State and territory, refuges conserve a
diversity of America's environmentally sensitive and economically vital
ecosystems, including oceans, coasts, wetlands, deserts, tundra,
prairie, and forests. We respectfully request a funding level of $495
million for the operations and maintenance accounts of the National
Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) for fiscal year 2013.
This testimony is submitted on behalf of CARE's 22 member
organizations, which represent approximately 15 million Americans
passionate about wildlife conservation and related recreational
opportunities.
American Birding Association
American Fisheries Society
American Sportfishing Association
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
Defenders of Wildlife
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
Izaak Walton League of America
Marine Conservation Institute
National Audubon Society
National Rifle Association
National Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Refuge Association
Safari Club International
The Corps Network
The Nature Conservancy
The Wilderness Society
The Wildlife Society
Trout Unlimited
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Wildlife Forever
Wildlife Management Institute
Although CARE strives to make steady progress toward funding the
NWRS at $900 million annually, a budget that more accurately reflects
demands on the ground, our request of $495 million for fiscal year 2013
essentially maintains the NWRS at a flat funding level. It includes
only a modest increase more than the fiscal year 2012 appropriation in
order to keep fuel in the trucks, pay for rising utilities and building
rent, and cover other fixed costs. The NWRS generally requires an
annual increase of at least $15 million to offset these rising costs,
but our request for approximately $8 million in additional funding for
fiscal year 2013 accounts for the current salary freeze for Federal
employees.
An appropriation of $495 million in fiscal year 2013 would
stabilize the workforce by keeping workforce downsizing plans securely
on the shelf, thereby reducing pressure on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to cut refuge staff less than already insufficient
levels. It would enable refuge staff to continue making progress toward
protecting and restoring America's wildlife and habitat, and providing
a positive experience for nearly 46 million annual visitors who use
refuges for hunting, fishing, watching wildlife, and educational and
interpretive programs.
This funding would also allow the NWRS to continue its recently
initiated inventory and monitoring program. The need for this program
was made clear by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which forced FWS
staff to hastily catalog the assets of gulf coast refuges in order to
recoup the cost of damaged resources from responsible parties. Without
adequate baseline data, most refuges are ill-prepared to assess or
respond to such impacts, and the inventory and monitoring program is
needed to fill the widespread information gaps that exist across the
NWRS.
Many years of inadequate budgets have left the NWRS's operations
and maintenance (O&M) backlog at nearly $3.2 billion. While budget
increases in fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010 helped
immensely, too many visitors still show up to find roads and visitor
centers closed, viewing platforms and hiking trails in disrepair, and
habitat restoration and nature education programs eliminated.
Annual budgets that do not cover fixed costs are particularly
harmful because the NWRS is already stretched thin responding to
damages from natural disasters. From fiscal years 2005-2011, the NWRS
sustained $693 million in damages from natural disasters including
hurricanes, flooding, tornadoes, fires, a tsunami, and an earthquake.
The damages in 2011 alone were almost $200 million, approximately 40
percent of the NWRS's O&M funds for the year. Of the $693 million in
damages, the Congress appropriated $254 million in emergency
supplemental funding, but the remaining $439 million has been added to
the NWRS's $2.5 billion deferred maintenance backlog.
Today, more than 35 percent of America's national wildlife refuges
have no on-site staff, leaving no one to unlock gates, teach
schoolchildren, administer hunting programs, or carry out restoration
projects. Refuges with only one or two staff lack the capacity to
partner with interested stakeholders, and opportunities for volunteer
involvement and leveraging of additional dollars are lost. Non-native,
invasive plants have infested approximately 2.5 million acres, and only
10 percent of this acreage was treated in 2011. Further, a crippling
shortage of law enforcement officers has left refuges sorely under-
protected from illegal activities such as drug production and
trafficking, wildlife poaching, illegal border activity, assaults, and
many types of natural resource violations. Currently, only 244 full-
time law enforcement officers are tasked with managing the 150-million-
acre NWRS--the equivalent of one officer per 650,000 acres--which an
independent analysis recommends be patrolled by a force of 845
professional officers. For instance, one officer in the Pacific region
is responsible for covering nearly 54 million acres of the NWRS alone.
National wildlife refuges are critically important on local and
regional scales. According to data from a recent report by Southwick
Associates, the NWRS generates $8 in economic activity for every $1
appropriated by the Congress. Further, more than 32,500 American jobs
are attributed to recreation on refuges. And, as stated in the fiscal
year 2013 budget justification for FWS, ``On a national level, each $5
million invested in the Refuge System's appropriations (salary and
nonsalary) impacts an average of 83.2 jobs, $13.6 million in total
economic activity, $5.4 million in job-related income and $500,000 in
tax revenue. Each 1-percent increase or decrease in visitation impacts
$16.9 million in total economic activity, 268 jobs, $5.4 million in
job-related income, and $608,000 in tax revenue. Therefore, maintaining
a healthy visitor program at national wildlife refuges is vital to the
economic well-being of communities all across the Nation.''
Refuges also provide important environmental and health benefits,
such as filtering storm water before it runs downstream to municipal
water supplies and, in many areas, reducing flooding by capturing
excess rainwater and attenuating coastal storm surges. The Southwick
Associates report states that in 2010, refuges generated more than
$32.3 billion in these ecosystem services, a return of more than $65
for every $1 appropriated by the Congress.
Refuges are vital places for the American people to connect with
nature and get involved. Currently, refuge Friends groups and
volunteers do approximately 20 percent of all work on refuges. In 2011,
these 1.5 million hours equated to roughly 8 volunteers for every 1
refuge employee, or the equivalent of almost 650 full-time employees.
Without staff to oversee volunteers, their commitment and passion is
lost, as is their desperately needed contribution to the NWRS.
Funding increases in fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010
allowed for meaningful progress toward properly patrolling and
enforcing laws on the NWRS's 150 million acres, maintaining recreation
and education programs for the public, sustaining high water quality,
completing habitat restoration projects, and more, although our new
marine monuments comprising one-third of the NWRS largely remain a
major unfunded need. Cutting O&M funding back to fiscal year 2008
levels would result in the elimination of several hundred staff
positions and loss of important wildlife management, education, and
hunting and fishing programs. The way to keep from reversing recent
progress is to fund the NWRS at $495 million in fiscal year 2013.
On behalf of our more than 15 million members and supporters, CARE
thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to offer comments on the
fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill and we look forward to meeting with you to discuss
our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
On behalf of Chief Gregory E. Pyle, of the Great Choctaw Nation of
Oklahoma, I bring greetings to the distinguished Members of the
Committee. I am Mickey Peercy, the Executive Director of Health
Services. I appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony to the
subcommittee on our top budget priorities for fiscal year 2013 in the
Indian Health Service.
The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma is the third-largest Native American
tribal government in the United States, with more than 208,000 members.
The Choctaw Nation territory consists of all or part of 10 counties in
southeast Oklahoma, and we are proudly one of the State's largest
employers. The Nation operates numerous programs and services under
Self-Governance compacts with the United States, including but not
limited to:
--a sophisticated health system serving more than 33,000 patients
with a hospital in Talihina, Oklahoma;
--eight outpatient clinics;
--referred specialty care and sanitation facilities construction;
--higher education;
--Johnson O'Malley program;
--housing improvement;
--child welfare and social services;
--law enforcement; and
--many others.
Appropriations for Indian Country remain severely deficient for
each of these programs, and it is simply not acceptable for such
programs to be further debilitated by budget cuts. Thus, it is
essential that programs impacting Indian Country be exempted from any
sequestration for fiscal year 2013 and forward.
In my testimony today, I will focus on Indian health and related
programs, appropriations which are critical in order to address the
health disparities of Native Americans as compared to other Americans.
The current funding levels have created a system of rationed healthcare
and perpetuate these health disparities for Native people.
Joint Venture--Increase to $90 Million
The Joint Venture program, although a relatively small program,
remains the most innovative, timely, and cost-effective means within
the Indian Health Service (IHS) to acquire new or replacement health
facilities for Indian Country. The IHS Joint Venture program
demonstrates the shared commitment of Tribal Nations and the IHS in
providing additional health facilities within the Indian health system
and the staff necessary to support the facilities. This strategy has
been especially effective in the Oklahoma City area, allowing us to
replace some antiquated facilities and extending healthcare to
underserved tribal citizens in our communities. However, the need for
adequate health facilities remains great. We request that funds
continue to be appropriated for the Joint Venture program on an annual
basis, including the associated contract support costs and adequate
operational funds.
Contract Health Services--Increase of $200 Million
Contract Health Services (CHS) remain a high priority for the
Choctaw Nation and many other tribes in the Nation. CHS funds all of
the referrals from tribal and IHS facilities for specialty care that
cannot be delivered at the tribal/IHS clinic or hospital site.
Referrals are often deferred or denied, due to lack of funds, despite
the determination of medical need by our health providers. The Oklahoma
City area and the Choctaw Nation suffer some of the highest deferral/
denial rates of CHS cases in the Nation. For example, denied or
deferred cases in our health system resulted in some of our patients
not receiving necessary diagnostic tests, cancer treatment or neurology
services last year.
Contract Support Costs--Increase of $100 Million More Than Fiscal Year
2013 President's Request
One of the most important appropriation issues facing Indian
Country is the underfunding of contract support costs (CSC), which
negatively affects nearly every single Tribal Nation. This issue is
especially significant for Self-Governance/Self-Determination Tribes
because it protects direct service operations from sharing in overall
funding reductions and limitations. Every dollar in unfunded contract
support costs is a direct reduction in healthcare or other services to
our tribal citizens.
CSC appropriations go directly to the Tribal Nations at the local
level, with immediate positive impact on healthcare and other critical
programs. CSC funds mandatory costs for which the Federal Government is
legally and contractually responsible to provide. Failing to adequately
fund CSC defeats the very program that has most improved health
conditions for American Indian and Alaska Natives.
Tribal programs have significantly increased the quality and level
of services in our health systems compared to direct service programs.
Since contract support costs are fixed costs that a contractor must
incur, tribes are required to either:
--reduce funds budgeted for critical healthcare or other services
under contract to cover the shortfall;
--divert tribal funds to subsidize the Federal contract (when such
tribal funds are available); or
--use a combination of these two approaches.
For every $1 million that the Choctaw Nation would be required to
divert from direct patient care to cover contract support costs, the
Nation's health system must forego an estimated 5,800 patient visits.
The reported CSC shortfall is nearly $5.5 million annually for the
Choctaw Nation alone. The President's budget request for fiscal year
2013 includes only a $5 million increase in IHS CSC funds for all 567
tribes in the country, an amount insufficient to fund even the Choctaw
Nation's shortfall for 1 year. This current budget request is woefully
inadequate to not only address the present shortfall, but to prevent
the shortfall from growing in future years. We urge you to consider the
total unfunded need for CSC, which we estimate for fiscal year 2013,
will approach $100 million within the IHS.
Special Diabetes Program for Indians--Support 5-Year Reauthorization at
$200 Million/Year
The Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SPDI) was authorized in
1997 in response to an alarming and disproportionate high rate of type
2 diabetes in American Indian and Alaska Native people. Tribal advocacy
has contributed greatly to changing the course of this once devastating
health menace in Indian Country. Continued innovation and increased
funding are required to further arrest the disparity and achieve
equity. SDPI funding has been at $150 million since it was reauthorized
in 2004. During this time nearly 400 Indian Health Service, Tribal, and
Urban (I/T/U) Indian health programs have assisted in developing
innovative and culturally appropriate strategies, vital resources and
tools to prevent and treat diabetes. Congressional funding remains the
critical factor in the battle against diabetes which translates into
documented improvements in blood glucose control, reduced amputation
rates and decreased cases of kidney failure, just to name a few of the
maladies associated with this disease. The Choctaw Nation has been an
aggressive soldier in the fight against diabetes and we ask this
subcommittee to support the crusade to ensure the continuation of the
SDPI. We also request that you urge your colleagues on the Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee to increase funding for the SDPI program,
which is administered by IHS. Without the SDPI, the epidemic status of
Type 2 diabetes will once again be a serious life-changing disease to
future generations of our people.
Indian Health Care Improvement Fund--Request $45 Million Increase
Overall funding for the IHS remains at less than 60 percent of
need; using the benchmark of the Federal employee benefit package.
Deplorably, IHS average funding per patient remains less than that
expended on Federal inmates. In addition to the well-documented
disparate funding between the IHS and other federally funded health
programs, funds among the IHS areas are distributed inequitably. The
Oklahoma City area, specifically, suffers a funding level even below
that of the average within the IHS. In order to address such inequities
and resulting health disparities, the Indian Health Care Improvement
Fund (IHCIF) was created to direct funding to the most severely
underfunded programs first. Tribal Nations have previously recommended
that the Federal Government implement a time-limited plan to bring all
IHS Operating Units to the 80-percent level, and the Choctaw Nation
supports that position.
In addition, the Choctaw National supports these National Indian
Program Priorities
Mandatory Costs--Provide $304 Million Increase To Maintain Current
Services.--Mandatory cost increases are necessary to maintain
the current level of services. These ``mandatories'' are
unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, pay
costs, phasing in staff for recently constructed facilities,
and population growth.
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Programs--Provide $40 Million
Increase.--Alcohol and Substance Abuse Programs (ASAP) and
community-based prevention activities are an integrated part of
behavioral health programs needed to reduce the incidence of
alcohol and substance abuse in American Indian and Alaska
Native communities and to address the special needs of Native
people dually diagnosed with both mental illness and drug
dependency. Youth Region Treatment Centers are also funded by
this line item.
Funding for Implementation of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act.--Implementation of the IHCIA remains a top priority for
Indian Country. IHCIA provides the authority for Indian
healthcare, but does not provide any funds to IHS. The American
healthcare delivery system has been revolutionized while the
Indian healthcare system waited for the reauthorization of the
IHCIA. Resources are needed to implement all provisions of the
IHCIA.
Office of Tribal Self-Governance--Increase $5 Million to the IHS
Office of Tribal Self-Governance.--In 2003, the Congress
reduced funding for this office by $4.5 million, a loss of 43
percent from the previous year. In each subsequent year, this
budget was further reduced due to the applied congressional
rescissions. As of 2012, there are 337 Self-Governance (SG)
Tribes managing approximately $1.4 billion in funding. This
represents almost 60 percent of all federally recognized tribes
and 33 percent of the overall IHS funding. The Self-Governance
process serves as a model program for Federal Government
outsourcing, which builds tribal infrastructure and provides
quality services to Indian people.
We also support the testimony presented by the National Indian
Health Board and the National Congress of American Indians.
In closing, on behalf of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, and Chief
Gregory E. Pyle, thank you for the honor to provide this testimony and
we respectfully urge your consideration and support of these program
funding requests in the fiscal year 2013 budget for the IHS.
______
Prepared Statement of the Civil War Trust
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide written testimony. My name is James Lighthizer,
and I am the president of the Civil War Trust. I come before you today
to respectfully request that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies fund the Civil War
Battlefield Preservation Program (CWBPP), financed through the Land and
Water Conservation Fund in the Department of the Interior, at its
authorized amount of $10 million.
I would like to start by providing a little information about our
organization. The Civil War Trust is a 55,000-member nonprofit
organization--the only national one of its kind--dedicated to
preserving America's remaining Civil War battlefields. To date, the
Trust has permanently protected more than 32,000 acres of hallowed
ground in 20 States, most of it outside National Park Service (NPS)
boundaries.
I write to you today regarding the highly effective Federal land
conservation program that has made much of our success possible: the
Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program (CWBPP). This authorized
competitive matching grants program, operated through the National Park
Service (NPS) American Battlefield Protection Program office, requires
a 1-to-1 Federal/non-Federal match, although on many occasions the
Federal dollars are leveraged much more than 1-to-1. The program has
successfully promoted cooperative partnerships between State and local
governments and the private sector to preserve targeted, high-priority
Civil War battlegrounds outside NPS boundaries. Since it was first
funded in fiscal year 1999, the program has been used to protect more
than 17,500 acres of our Nation's hallowed ground.
Battlefield Lands Are Our Shared American Heritage
These battlefield lands are an irreplaceable part of our shared
national heritage. These lands are consecrated with the blood of brave
Americans who fought and died to create the country we are today. By
preserving these hallowed grounds, we can rightfully honor all who made
the ultimate sacrifice, whether it was on the rolling fields of
Gettysburg or the sandy beaches of Fort Wagner.
Development threatens to erase these sacred sites; living history--
our shared history--will consequently fade into distant memory. The
private sector organizations engaged in battlefield preservation--and
we are just one among many nonprofit battlefield preservation groups--
are competing with developers to acquire this land. Once these hallowed
grounds are lost, they are lost forever.
We estimate that 30 acres of battlefield lands are lost every day.
These lands, when preserved, serve as outdoor classrooms to educate
current and future generations of Americans about this defining moment
in our Nation's history. In addition, preserved battlefields are
economic drivers for communities, bringing in tourism dollars that are
extremely important to State and local economies.
With the sesquicentennial commemoration of the Civil War underway,
now is the opportune time to reaffirm our national commitment to the
protection of these hallowed grounds. Throughout the sesquicentennial,
millions are expected to learn about our Nation's unique history by
visiting Civil War sites around the country. This anniversary provides
the perfect opportunity to promote preservation of Civil War
battlefields.
Origins of the Program
In 1990, the Congress created the Civil War Sites Advisory
Commission (CWSAC), a blue-ribbon panel composed of lawmakers,
historians and preservationists. Its goal: determine how to protect
America's remaining Civil War battlefields. In 1993, the Commission
released a study entitled ``Report on the Nation's Civil War
Battlefields.'' The report identified the 384 most historically
important Civil War battlegrounds and further prioritized them
according to preservation status and historic significance. Eighteen
years later, this landmark report and a recent update conducted by NPS
remain our guide for targeting only the most historically significant
remaining Civil War battlefields.
In addition to creating a prioritized list of battlefield
preservation targets, the Commission also recommended that the Congress
establish a Federal matching grant program to help the nonprofit sector
save high-priority Civil War battlefields. The Commission's proposal
for a Federal matching grant program was the genesis of the Civil War
Battlefield Preservation Program.
Congressional Funding and First Successes
Five years after the ``Report on the Nation's Civil War
Battlefields'' was released, the Congress acted upon the Commission's
recommendation by setting aside $8 million over a 3-year period from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund for Civil War preservation
matching grants. Grants were competitively awarded through the American
Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP), an arm of NPS. Funding was
solely for acquisition of properties outside NPS boundaries at
battlefields identified in the 1993 report. Land could be purchased
from willing sellers only; there was--and there remains--no eminent
domain authority.
Thanks to the new program, there began an unprecedented and almost-
immediate surge in Civil War battlefield preservation. The $8 million
appropriation generated $24 million for land acquisition by encouraging
State and private investment in battlefield land protection. The
program inspired the Virginia and Mississippi legislatures to
appropriate $3.4 million and $2.8 million, respectively, to meet the
Federal match. The Civil War Trust alone contributed $4 million in
private sector funds to meet the match.
As a result of the non-Federal funds generated by the program,
battlefields like Virginia's Brandy Station and Manassas received a new
lease on life. In addition, other sites such as Prairie Grove in
Arkansas, Champion Hill in Mississippi, and Bentonville in North
Carolina--just to name a few--were substantially enhanced. Largely
because of the success of those first 3 years, the Congress
appropriated an additional $11 million for the program in fiscal year
2002.
Authorization of the Program
The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program was first authorized
through the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002. Supporters
on Capitol Hill felt that authorization of the program would convey to
the Department of the Interior congressional intent regarding the
program's goals and objectives. The bipartisan bill formally tied the
program to the 1993 CWSAC report, creating a Federal conservation
program with a highly focused, prioritized list of acquisition targets.
It also provided for an annual appropriation of up to $10 million per
year--the level originally recommended by the Commission in 1993. The
Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act was passed with the unanimous
consent of both the House and Senate in the fall of 2002, and was
signed into law by President Bush on December 17, 2002 (Public Law 107-
359). Authorization has provided funding predictability for the
program's non-Federal partners, encouraging continued private-sector
involvement in battlefield preservation.
Program's Continued Successes and Reauthorization
Since the program was first funded in fiscal year 1999, Civil War
Battlefield Preservation Program grants have been used to protect
17,500 acres of hallowed ground in 14 States. Among the many
battlefields that have benefited from this program are:
--Antietam;
--Maryland;
--Averasboro, North Carolina;
--Chancellorsville, Virginia;
--Chattanooga, Tennessee;
--Corinth, Mississippi;
--Harpers Ferry, West Virginia;
--Mill Springs, Kentucky; and
--Prairie Grove, Arkansas.
The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program was reauthorized as
part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (H.R. 146),
which President Obama signed into law on March 30, 2009 (Public Law
111-11).
Urgent Need for Funding
We thank the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies for providing $9 million for the
Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program in fiscal year 2012. This
appropriation has allowed for the preservation of many historically
significant lands at battlefields such as:
--Bentonville;
--North Carolina;
--Franklin, Tennessee;
--Gettysburg, Pennsylvania;
--New Market Heights, Virginia;
--South Mountain, Maryland; and
--Perryville, Kentucky.
To build off the successes of the program in fiscal year 2012, we
respectfully ask the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies to fund the Civil War Battlefield
Preservation Program at its authorized amount of $10 million. We
recognize that these are difficult economic times and appreciate the
constraints on this subcommittee as you work to draft an appropriation
bill that meets the needs of the agencies and programs under your
jurisdiction. However, we believe that now, as we commemorate the 150th
anniversary of the conflict that shaped our Nation, is the opportune
time to provide robust funding for the Civil War Battlefield
Preservation Program.
Funding at this level will allow for the continued success of the
program and the preservation of key battlefield lands that will serve
as lasting, tangible legacies for the sesquicentennial. In addition,
with time rapidly running out to forever protect these hallowed
grounds, funding for this program will soon no longer be necessary. We
estimate that in the next 10 years the remaining Civil War battlefield
lands will be either paved over or protected. That is why we must act
now in order to preserve as much key battlefield land as possible
before time runs out.
Conclusion
There is no question that the Civil War was a defining moment in
our country's history. For 4 long years, North and South clashed in
hundreds of battles that reunited our Nation and sounded the death
knell for slavery. More than 625,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians
perished as a result of the war.
Preserved battlefields not only honor the memory of our Civil War
ancestors, but all of our Nation's brave men and women in uniform.
Further, preserved battlefields serve as outdoor classrooms to teach
new generations of Americans about the significance of the Civil War--
and remind them that the freedoms we enjoy today came at a terrific
price.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope you and your subcommittee will
consider our request to provide funding of the Civil War Battlefield
Preservation Program at its authorized level of $10 million. We look
forward to working with you and other subcommittee members on
battlefield protection and other historic preservation issues. Thank
you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
Waters from the Colorado River are used by approximately 35 million
people for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate
approximately 4 million acres in the United States. Natural and man-
induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates environmental and
economic damages. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has estimated
the current quantifiable damages at about $300 million per year. The
Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
(Program) in 1974 to offset increased damages caused by continued
development and use of the waters of the Colorado River. Modeling by
BOR indicates that the quantifiable damages would rise to more than
$500 million by the year 2030 without continuation of the Program. The
Congress has directed the Secretary of the Interior to implement a
comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado
River from lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
BLM funds these efforts through its Soil, Water and Air Program. BLM's
efforts are an essential part of the overall effort. A funding level of
$5.2 million for general water quality improvement efforts within the
Colorado River Basin and an additional $1.5 million for salinity
specific projects in 2013 is requested to prevent further degradation
of the quality of the Colorado River and increased downstream economic
damages.
EPA has identified that more than 60 percent of the salt load of
the Colorado River comes from natural sources. The majority of land
within the Colorado River Basin is administered by BLM. In implementing
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974, the Congress
recognized that most of the salts in the Colorado River originate from
federally owned lands. Title I of the Salinity Control Act deals with
the United States commitment to the quality of waters being delivered
to Mexico. Title II of the act deals with improving the quality of the
water delivered to U.S. users. This testimony deals specific with title
II efforts. In 1984, the Congress amended the Salinity Control Act and
directed that the Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive
program for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from
lands administered by BLM. In 2000, the Congress reiterated its
directive to the Secretary and requested a report on the implementation
of BLM's program (Public Law 106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity
Coordinator to coordinate BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin
States to pursue salinity control studies and to implement specific
salinity control practices. With a significant portion of the salt load
of the Colorado River coming from BLM administered lands, the BLM
portion of the overall program is essential to the success of the
effort. Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts will result in
significant additional economic damages to water users downstream.
Concentrations of salt in the Colorado River cause approximately
$300 million in quantified damages and significantly more in
unquantified damages in the United States and result in poor water
quality for United States users. Damages occur from:
--a reduction in the yield of salt-sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins; and
--increased use of imported water for leaching and cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum is charged with reviewing the
Colorado River's water quality standards for salinity every 3 years. In
so doing, it adopts a Plan of Implementation consistent with these
standards. The level of appropriation requested in this testimony is in
keeping with the adopted Plan of Implementation. If adequate funds are
not appropriated, significant damages from the higher salt
concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the United
States and Mexico.
In summary, implementation of salinity control practices through
BLM has proven to be a very cost-effective method of controlling the
salinity of the Colorado River and is an essential component to the
overall Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. Continuation of
adequate funding levels for salinity within the Soil, Water and Air
Program will prevent the water quality of the Colorado River from
further degradation and significant increases in economic damages to
municipal, industrial and irrigation users.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2013 funding for the
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) associated
with the subactivity that assists title II of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-320). This longstanding
successful and cost-effective salinity control program in the Colorado
River Basin is being carried out pursuant to the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act and the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500).
The Colorado River Board of California (Board) is the State agency
charged with protecting California's interests and rights in the water
and power resources of the Colorado River system. In this capacity,
California participates along with the other six Colorado River Basin
States through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum),
the interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin
States' salinity control efforts. In close cooperation with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and pursuant to requirements of
the Clean Water Act, the Forum is charged with reviewing the Colorado
River water quality standards every 3 years. The Forum adopts a Plan of
Implementation consistent with these water quality standards. The level
of appropriation being supported in this testimony is consistent with
the Forum's 2011 Plan of Implementation. If adequate funds are not
appropriated, significant damages associated with increasing salinity
concentrations of Colorado River water will become more widespread in
the United States and Mexico.
EPA has determined that more than 60 percent of the salt load of
the Colorado River comes from natural sources. Due to geological
conditions, much of the lands that are controlled and managed by BLM
are major contributors of salt to the Colorado River system. Past
management practices have led to human-induced and accelerated erosion
processes from which soil and rocks have been deposited in various
stream beds or flood plains. As a result, salts are dissolved and enter
the Colorado River system causing water quality problems downstream.
Through passage of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in
1974, the Congress recognized that much of the salts in the Colorado
River originate on federally owned lands. Title I of the Salinity
Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to efforts related to
maintaining the quality of waters being delivered to Mexico pursuant to
the 1944 Water Treaty. Title II of the Act deals with improving the
quality of the water delivered to U.S. users. In 1984, the Congress
amended the Salinity Control Act and directed that the Secretary of the
Interior develop a comprehensive program for minimizing salt
contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by BLM. In
2000, the Congress reiterated its directive to the Secretary and
requested a report on the implementation of BLM's program (Public Law
106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to coordinate
BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin States to pursue salinity
control studies and to implement specific salinity control practices.
With a significant portion of the salt load of the Colorado River
coming from BLM-administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall
program is essential to the success of the entire effort.
The BLM's budget justification document for fiscal year 2013 has
stated that the BLM continues to implement on-the-ground projects,
evaluate progress in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and report
salinity control measures in order to further the Plan of
Implementation associated with the Federal Salinity Control Program in
the Colorado River Basin. The BLM budget, as proposed in the BLM budget
justification document, calls for six key performance goals within the
BLM's Soil, Water, and Air Management Program. One of the goals is to
reduce saline runoff from public lands into the Colorado River system
by 10,000 to 20,000 tons of salt from new projects. Additionally, the
BLM budget justification document reported a cumulative salt-loading
reduction from ongoing BLM efforts in 2011 that totaled 126,000 tons
per year. The Soil, Water and Air Management Program subactivity is
responsible for reducing the discharge of salts to waters of the
Colorado River Basin to ensure usable water supplies to tens of
millions of downstream users of which nearly 20 million are located in
southern California.
The Congress has charged Federal agencies, including the BLM, to
proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
BLM's rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
effective salinity control measures available. These measures
significantly complement programs and activities being considered for
implementation by Reclamation through its Basin-wide Program and by the
USDA through its on-farm Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
The 2011 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council
report states that the funding from BLM's Soil, Water and Air Program
has been generally expended on studies, research, and implementation.
These studies and research have successfully identified several
different tools which could be used to reduce salinity contributions to
the Colorado River from publicly administered lands. BLM's efforts are
now transitioning toward implementation of salinity control. During the
past several years proposals for implementation of salinity control
specific efforts have exceeded more than $1.5 million. The Advisory
Council's 2011 report recommends that BLM make at least $1.5 million
available annually for salinity-specific activities in addition to the
$5.2 million expended under the Soil, Water and Air Program for general
improvements within the Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River Board
supports the Advisory Council's recommendation and urges the
subcommittee to specifically designate $1.5 million for the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program.
Over the 28 years since the passage of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act, much has been learned about the impact of salts
in the Colorado River system. Currently, the salinity concentration of
Colorado River water causes about $300 million in quantifiable damages
in the United States annually. Economic and hydrologic modeling by
Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages could rise to more
than $500 million by the year 2030 without the continuation of the
Salinity Control Program. For example, damages can be incurred related
to the following activities:
--A reduction in the yield of salt-sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling and reuse of the
water due to groundwater quality deterioration; and
--Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
In addition, the Federal Government has made significant
commitments to the Republic of Mexico and to the seven Colorado River
Basin States with regard to the delivery of quality water pursuant to
the 1944 Water Treaty. In order for those commitments to be honored, it
is essential that in fiscal year 2013, and in future fiscal years, that
the Congress continue to provide adequate funds to BLM for its salinity
control activities within the Colorado River Basin.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water resource to the nearly 20 million residents of southern
California, including municipal, industrial, and agricultural water
users in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego, and Ventura Counties. The protection and improvement of Colorado
River water quality through an effective salinity control program will
avoid the additional economic damages to users in California and the
other States that rely on Colorado River water resources.
______
Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is pleased to share its view on
the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs's (BIA) fiscal
year 2013 budget. We have specifically identified three funding needs
and one allocation recommendation:
--$7.7 million, an increase of $3,054,000 more than the President's
request for Columbia River Fisheries Management within the
Rights Protection Implementation account to meet the base
program funding needs of the Commission and the fisheries
programs of its member tribes, specifically to implement
Federal court-ordered management obligations, including efforts
for species listed under the Endangered Species Act;
--$4.8 million, an increase of $436,000 more than the President's
request, for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty within the
Rights Protection Implementation account to implement new
obligations under the recent agreement adopted by the United
States and Canada under the Treaty;
--$328 million for Public Safety and Justice, Criminal Investigations
and Police Services--of which $718,000 supports enforcement of
Federal laws at in-lieu and treaty fishing sites on the
Columbia River. This supports the President's request; and
--We request that the subcommittee direct the BIA to allocate Rights
Protection Implementation accounts at the 2008 percentages
unless or until account holders receive a rationale or
justification for a variance.
CRITFC was founded in 1977 by the four Columbia River treaty
tribes:
--Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation;
--Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon;
--Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and Nez Perce
Tribe.
CRITFC provides coordination and technical assistance to these
tribes in regional, national, and international efforts to protect and
restore our shared salmon resource and the habitat upon which it
depends. Our collective ancestral homeland covers nearly one-third of
the entire Columbia River Basin in the United States.
In 1855, the United States entered into treaties with the four
tribes \1\ whereupon we ceded millions of acres of our homelands to the
United States. In return, the United States pledged to honor our
ancestral rights, including the right to fish. Unfortunately, a
perilous history brought the salmon resource to the edge of extinction
with 12 salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia Basin listed
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Treaty with the Yakama Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951;
-- Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12
Stat. 963;
-- Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945;
-- Treaty with the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the CRITFC tribes are leaders in fisheries restoration and
management working with State, Federal, and private entities. CRITFC's
member tribes are principals in the region's efforts to halt the
decline of salmon, lamprey, and sturgeon populations and rebuild them
to levels that support ceremonial, subsistence, and commercial
harvests. To achieve these objectives, the tribes' actions emphasize
``gravel-to-gravel'' management including supplementation of natural
stocks, healthy watersheds, and collaborative efforts.
The programs in this testimony are carried out pursuant to the
Indian Self-Determination and Assistance Act. Our programs are
integrated as much as possible with State and Federal salmon management
and restoration efforts.
COLUMBIA RIVER FISHERIES MANAGEMENT WITHIN RIGHTS PROTECTION
IMPLEMENTATION
We are succeeding. The salmon, returning in greater numbers, tell
us so. But along with success, management issues increase the
complexity, requiring greater data collection and more sophisticated
analyses. Funding shortfalls prohibit the achievement of tribal self-
determination goals for fisheries management, ESA recovery effort,
protecting nonlisted species, conservation enforcement and treaty
fishing access site maintenance. We are seeking an increase of
$3,054,000 more than fiscal year 2012 for a new program base of
$7,712,000 for Columbia River Fisheries Management.
The BIA's Columbia River Fisheries Management line item is the base
funding that supports the fishery program efforts of CRITFC and the
four member tribes. Unlike State fish and game agencies, the tribes do
not have access to Dingell-Johnson/Pittman-Robertson or Wallop-Breaux
funding. The increase will be directed to support the core functions of
the fisheries management programs of the Commission's member tribes.
In 2008 CRITFC and its member tribes successfully concluded lengthy
negotiations resulting in three landmark agreements:
--the Columbia Basin Fish Accords with Federal action agencies
overseeing the Federal hydro system in the Columbia Basin; \2\
--a Ten-Year Fisheries Management Plan with Federal, tribal and State
parties under United States of America v State of Oregon; and
--a new Chinook Chapter of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.\3\
These agreements establish regional and international commitments
on harvest and fish production efforts, commitments to critical
investments in habitat restoration, and resolving contentious issues by
seeking balance of the many demands within the Columbia River basin.
While through these agreements the tribes have committed to substantial
on-the-ground projects with some additional resources from the
Bonneville Power Administration, the overall management
responsibilities of the tribal programs have grown exponentially
without commensurate increases in BIA base funding capacity. For
example, the tribes' leadership in addressing Pacific Lamprey declines
is this species' best hope for survival and recovery. The tribes are
also addressing unmet mitigation obligations, such as fish losses
associated with the John Day and The Dalles dams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The Nez Perce Tribe is not a Columbia Basin Fish Accord
signatory.
\3\ See ``Salmon Win A Triple Crown'' at http://www.critfc.org/
text/wana_109.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compounding the challenges in implementing tribal fish management
agreements are the impacts that climate change will have on the
interior Columbia Basin and the tribe's treaty resources. The
University of Washington Climate Impact Group predicts new challenges
to salmon management due primarily to thermal effects and runoff timing
changes. The CRITFC is being asked to develop mitigation and adaption
strategies on behalf of our member tribes. CRITFC and its member tribes
currently have insufficient funds to do the technical work and allow
policy-level participation in the co-management arena.
The funding provided through the BIA to support tribal fishery
programs is crucial to the tribes' and CRITFC's ability to successfully
carry out tribal rights protection, including these agreements, by
providing sound technical, scientific and policy products to diverse
public and private forums. Lost purchasing power through rising costs,
inflation and lack of pay-cost adjustments to tribal funding has
further challenged us to deliver these essential services.
U.S./CANADA PACIFIC SALMON TREATY UNDER RIGHTS PROTECTION
IMPLEMENTATION
For tribal participants in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the U.S.
Section has identified a program need of $4.8 million for BIA.
The United States and Canada entered into the Pacific Salmon Treaty
in 1985 to conserve and rebuild salmon stocks, provide for optimum
production, and control salmon interceptions. The treaty established
the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) as a forum to collaborate on
intermingled salmon stocks. The U.S. Section of the PSC annually
develops a coordinated budget for tribal, State and Federal programs to
ensure cost and program efficiencies. The Congress increased funding in
2000 in order to implement the 1999 Agreement but funding has
significantly eroded since then. In 2008, the United States and Canada
adopted a new long-term Treaty agreement after nearly 3 years of
negotiations. Both parties agreed to significant new management
research and monitoring activities to ensure the conservation and
rebuilding of the shared salmon resource.
The $4.8 million provides for direct tribal participation with the
Commission, panels and technical committees. The funding enables the
tribes to assist in Treaty implementation and facilitates management
protecting trust resources. This funding maintains tribal resource
assessment and research programs structured to fulfill required Treaty
implementation activities. The fiscal year 2012 recommended level for
this program is an increase of $436,000 more than the President's
request and $600,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Our
request correlates to the U.S. Section's recommendation.
The tribal management programs provide needed beneficial and
technical support to the U.S. Section. The Pacific Salmon Commission
relies heavily on the various technical committees established by the
Treaty. The work of these Committees is integral to the task of
implementing fishing regimes consistent with the Treaty and the goals
of the Parties. Numerous tribal staff appointed to these committees and
all of the tribal programs generate data and research to support their
efforts. For example, indicator stock tagging and escapement monitoring
provides key information for estimating the parties' annual harvest
rates on individual stocks, evaluating impacts of management regimes
established under the Treaty, and monitoring progress toward the
Chinook rebuilding program started in 1984.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND POLICE SERVICES
Public safety continues to be a high priority for CRITFC and our
tribes. Our conservation and criminal enforcement officers are the
cornerstone of public safety in the popular and heavily used Columbia
Gorge area patrolling 150 miles of the Columbia River, including its
shorelines in Oregon and Washington. In this area we are the primary
provider of enforcement services at 31 fishing access sites developed
pursuant to Public Law 87-14 and Public Law 100-581 for use by treaty
fishers. CRITFC's officers have obtained BIA Special Law Enforcement
Commissions to aid our efforts protecting and serving tribal members
and Federal trust properties along the Columbia River. We are grateful
for the support of the BIA Office of Justice Services in obtaining the
SLECs. We are also very pleased that the BIA has created OJS District 8
and housed it in Portland. Beginning in February 2011, CRITFC entered
into a Public Law 93-638 contract with BIA for enforcement services
along the Columbia River. That contract provides funding for two
enforcement positions.
It's important that CRITFC build its enforcement capacity more than
the level of the two officers currently funded by the BIA Office of
Justice Services. Our immediate priority is to add two officers.
Funding for two additional officers would cost $313,560 plus indirect.
Full funding for this project would be a total budget of $716,053 plus
indirect which would support four officers, a sergeant and a
dispatcher.
In summary, through combined efforts of the four tribes supported
by a staff of experts, we are proven natural resource managers. Our
activities benefit the region while also essential to the U.S.
obligation under treaties, Federal trust responsibility, Federal
statutes, and court orders. We ask for your continued support of our
efforts. We are prepared to provide additional information you may
require on the Department of the Interior's BIA budget.
______
Prepared Statement of Dance/USA
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Dance/
USA is grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of
our members across the United States. We urge the Committee to
designate a total of $155 million to the National Endowment for the
Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2013. This testimony is intended to
highlight the importance of the Federal investment in the arts to
sustaining a vibrant cultural community to our national character.
Dance/USA, the national service organization for not-for-profit
professional dance, believes that dance is essential to a healthy
society, demonstrating the infinite possibilities for human expression
and potential, and facilitating communication within and across
cultures. Dance/USA sustains and advances professional dance by
addressing the needs, concerns, and interests of artists,
administrators, and organizations. By providing services and national
leadership, Dance/USA enhances the infrastructure for dance creation,
education and dissemination. To fulfill its mission, Dance/USA offers a
variety of programs, including data research and regional professional
development, and works with organizations within and outside the arts
field with whom common goals are shared. Dance/USA's membership
currently consists of more than 450 ballet, modern, ethnic, jazz,
culturally specific, traditional and tap companies, dance service and
presenting organizations, artist managers, individuals, and other
organizations nationally and internationally. Dance/USA's member
companies range in size from operating budgets of under $100,000 to
more than $50 million.
The NEA makes it possible for everyone to enjoy and benefit from
the performing arts. Before the establishment of the NEA in 1965, the
arts were limited mostly to a few big cities. The Arts Endowment has
helped to strengthen regional theater, opera, ballet and other artistic
disciplines that Americans now enjoy. NEA funding provides access to
the arts in regions with histories of inaccessibility due to economic
or geographic limitations. The Endowment embodies the ideal that no one
should be deprived of the opportunity to have art in their lives. The
Arts Endowment has helped the arts become accessible to more Americans,
which in turn has increased public participation in the arts.
Despite diminished resource, the NEA awards more than 1,000 grants
annually to nonprofit arts organizations for projects that encourage
artistic creativity. These grants help nurture the growth and artistic
excellence of thousands of arts organizations and artists in every
corner of the country. NEA grants also preserve and enhance our
Nation's diverse cultural heritage. The modest public investment in the
Nation's cultural life results in both new and classic works of art,
reaching the residents of all 50 States.
NEA grants are instrumental in leveraging private funding. On
average, each $1 from an NEA grant generates at least $8 from other
sources. Government cultural funding plays a catalytic leadership role
that is essential in generating private support for the arts.
The NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of every
community. The return of the Federal Government's small investment in
the arts is striking. The nonprofit arts industry generates $166.2
billion annually in economic activity, supports 5.7 million full-time
equivalent jobs, and returns $12.6 billion to the Federal Government in
income taxes. Measured against direct Federal cultural spending of
about $1.4 billion, that's a return of nearly nine to one. Few other
Federal investments realize such economic benefits, not to mention the
intangible benefits that only the arts make possible. Even in the face
of tremendous cutbacks in recent years, the NEA continues to be a
beacon for arts organizations across the country.
NEA GRANTS AT WORK
NEA grants are awarded to dance organizations through its core
programs:
--Art Works;
--Challenge America Fast Track Grants; and
--Federal/State Partnerships.
The following are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on
dance programs from the NEA's 2012 Art Works Program:
Alabama Dance Council
Birmingham, Alabama
$10,000
To support the presentation of the 2012 statewide Alabama Dance
Festival that will feature performances by Ronald K. Brown's Evidence:
A Dance Company and Brazz Dance Theater, showcases of Alabama dance
companies, pre-professional and professional master classes,
professional dance development workshops, summer intensive auditions,
and dance education workshops.
Ballet Hispanic of New York
New York, New York
$20,000
To support the creation and presentation of a new work by artistic
director Eduardo Vilaro. The work, titled Reina, will be inspired by
the music of Celia Cruz, the Queen of Salsa.
Chicago Dancing Festival
Lombard, Illinois
$10,000
To support the presentation of local and national dance companies
as part of the 2012 Chicago Dancing Festival. Activities include
performances, open rehearsals, open company classes, and moderated
lecture-demonstrations.
Nai-Ni Chen Dance Company
Fort Lee, New Jersey
$10,000
To support dance performances and education and outreach activities
based on the ancient legends and folklore of the Chinese dragon. The
project includes curriculum guides for students and teachers.
Ragamala Dance
Minneapolis, Minnesota
$20,000
To support the creation and presentation of a new work, titled 1001
Buddhas, inspired by the 12th-century Sanjusangendo temple in Kyoto,
Japan, famous for its 1001 life-sized statues of Kannon, the Buddhist
Goddess of Mercy.
San Francisco Ballet Association
San Francisco, California
$70,000
To support the creation and presentation of new works by several
choreographers including:
--Yuri Possokhov;
--Wayne McGregor;
--Mark Morris; and
--Christopher Wheeldon.
The project includes audience engagement activities such as
matinees for students and seniors, reduced-price tickets, pre-
performance discussions, podcasts, and lectures.
Trey McIntyre Project
Boise, Idaho
$15,000
To support the creation and presentation of a new work, by
choreographer Trey McIntyre. The dance will be the third piece in an
autobiographical trilogy and is inspired by the 1970's show Free to Be
You and Me.
THE NONPROFIT PROFESSIONAL DANCE COMMUNITY
America's dance companies perform a wide range of styles and
genres. These include both classical and contemporary ballet, classical
and contemporary modern, as well as jazz, tap, cross-disciplinary
fusions and traditional to modern work rooted in other cultures. More
than two-thirds of America's professional dance companies are less than
45 years old; as an established art form with national identity and
presence, dance has burst onto the scene almost entirely within living
memory. And yet, American can boast some of the greatest dance
companies of the world and can take credit for birthing two indigenous
dance styles--tap and modern dance.
One key to this spectacular achievement has been the creation of a
national marketplace for dance. When the National Endowment for the
Arts instituted its Dance Touring Program in the 1970s, great dance
became accessible to every community in America. What used to be a
handful of professional companies and a scattering of ``regional''
dance has become a national treasure spread across cities and through
communities, schools and theaters in all 50 States. Based on data from
almost 300 nonprofit dance companies from across the United States,
Dance/USA estimates that dance companies:
--Employed more than 12,800 people in a mix of full-time and part-
time positions;
--Paid approximately $316 million in wages and benefits;
--Earned $178.9 million, or 30 percent of their income, from
performances;
--Received $235.7 million, or 47 percent of their income in
contributions (including public support, corporate
contributions, foundation support, and individual donations);
--Generated more than $585 million in economic activity across the
United States.
CONCLUSION
Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending
Federal tax dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered
from a 40-percent budget cut in the mid-nineties and found its budget
further decreased by $22 million in the past 2 years, leaving its
programs seriously underfunded. We urge you to continue toward
restoration and increase the NEA funding allocation to $155 million for
fiscal year 2013.
On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request.
______
Prepared Statement of Defenders of Wildlife
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record. Founded in
1947, Defenders has more than 1 million members and supporters and is
dedicated to the conservation of wild animals and plants in their
natural communities.
Wildlife and its habitat are valuable national assets. Even in the
face of dire fiscal realities, investments in the protection of
wildlife and habitat are a wise choice for our Nation. Wildlife related
recreation is a $122 billion a year industry.\1\ Moreover, protecting
wildlife and its habitat also supports healthy natural systems that
provide clean air and water, food, medicines and other products. The
value of benefits provided by natural habitats in the United States is
estimated at more than $2 trillion per year.\2\ Defenders appreciated
the successful efforts of the Senate Appropriations Committee to
protect wildlife programs from deep cuts both in the Senate bill and in
H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations bill. Defenders opposes cuts
to crucial programs that conserve wildlife and habitat, and we support
the modest but crucial increases in the President's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural
Resources Conservation and Historic Preservation in the United States
www.nfwf.org/Content/ContentFolders/NationalFishandWildlifeFoundation/
HomePage/ConservationSpotlights/
TheEconomicValueofOutdoorRecreation.pdf.
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
We urge the subcommittee to do as much as possible to protect the
accounts of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), our Nation's premier
wildlife conservation agency. We strongly support the following modest
increases in the President's request and oppose one disappointing
decrease:
Renewable Energy.--A crucial $4 million increase associated with
renewable energy development that includes $1.5 million for Endangered
Species Program Consultation, $750,000 for Conservation Planning
Assistance, $750,000 for Migratory Bird Management and $1 million for
the Office of Law Enforcement. This increase will help to ensure siting
of renewable energy projects in a way that prevents harm to species
such as golden eagles, seabirds, bats and desert tortoise.
Cooperative Recovery.--A praiseworthy new initiative to implement
recovery actions for species listed under the Endangered Species Act on
National Wildlife Refuges and surrounding lands. The $5.4 million
increase includes $2.5 million for Refuges, $883,000 for Partners for
Fish and Wildlife, $800,000 for Fisheries Population Assessment,
$770,000 for Adaptive Science and $400,000 in the Endangered Species
program. This initiative will support more efficient efforts across
landscapes to recover threatened and endangered species.
Endangered Species.--
--A $1 million increase to support consultations on pesticides that
may impact listed species including the development of
protocols to determine safe levels of exposure. This increase
is vital to facilitate likely needed consultations on several
hundred pesticides out of at least 739 pesticide cases
identified by the Environmental Protection Agency that are
scheduled for review by 2022.
--A $1.6 million increase for listing species. This funding will
support progress in listing more than 250 candidate species,
many of which have awaited protection for years.
--A $12.3 million increase for the Cooperative Endangered Species
Fund to provide assistance to States to protect threatened and
endangered species.
--A $998,000 reduction for the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration
Program that assists livestock owners co-existing with wolves.
In light of the recent delisting of wolves in the Northern
Rockies and Western Great Lakes and potential expansion of
wolves into California, it is important to continue this
valuable program which is intended to both compensate ranchers
for livestock losses due to wolves and to implement proactive,
nonlethal methods to prevent these losses. We urge restoration
of this funding.
National Wildlife Refuge System.--A net increase of $9.1 million
for National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Operations and Maintenance
in the request includes not only the $2.5 million for Cooperative
Recovery but also $3 million for baseline inventory and monitoring of
refuge resources, $3.6 million for Challenge Cost Share projects with
partners and volunteer groups, $1 million for law enforcement, and $1.4
million for priority operations. Even with the increase, the request is
still $8 million less than the fiscal year 2010 level, even though
refuges need an annual increase of a least $8 million just to keep fuel
in trucks and pay for rising utilities and other costs. Moreover, in
2011, devastating disasters including tornadoes, wildfires, hurricanes,
an earthquake, and a tsunami caused more than $190 million in damages
to the Refuge System, an amount that totals nearly 40 percent of its
budget that will put the System at further risk without supplemental
disaster funding.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science.--Threats
to the conservation of our natural resources are increasingly large-
scale and complex. Combined with decreasing financial resources, there
is a need to work more effectively and efficiently across
jurisdictional boundaries. This comprehensive initiative is helping the
natural resource management agencies improve landscape-level
coordination of conservation efforts and provide science and technical
capacity to tackle today's complex environmental problems. We oppose
any cuts to this activity.
Environmental Contaminants.--A $1.3 million increase in this
program that has been flat since 2001 to help expedite and complete
more restoration activities for Natural Resource Damage Assessment and
Restoration cases.
International Affairs.--An $83,000 increase which is the fiscal
year 2012 level with fixed costs to sustain vital efforts to provide
crucial capacity building, education, and training for priority species
and habitats of global concern and for the growing permitting, research
and monitoring workload for species subject to trade, including native
U.S. species.
Office of Law Enforcement and Migratory Bird Management.--In
addition to the increases requested for these two programs related to
renewable energy development, Defenders wishes to underscore their
vital importance for wildlife conservation in our Nation. In fiscal
year 2011, the Office of Law Enforcement's 143 inspectors processed
approximately 167,000 declared shipments of wildlife and wildlife
products worth more than $2.7 billion and the 219 special agents
investigated nearly 13,000 cases, from breaking up smuggling rings to
working with states to protect U.S. game species from poaching. The
Migratory Bird Management program is working to reverse precipitous
declines in U.S. bird populations including native Hawaiian birds,
ocean birds, coastal shorebirds, arid lands birds, and grassland birds.
Other Key Grant Programs.--In addition to the increase for the
Cooperative Endangered Species Fund referenced above, we support the
President's request for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund,
$9.98 million, for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, $3.8 million,
and for the State and Tribal Wildlife grants, $61.3 million.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) are crucial to the conservation of wildlife and habitat in the
United States, yet their resources are not adequate to meet significant
challenges. A top priority for Defenders is ensuring that renewable
energy development on these lands proceeds in a balanced way that
maintains the ecological integrity of our public lands and waters,
conserves wildlife habitat and populations, and contributes to agency
efforts to successfully recover our most imperiled wildlife. We urge
strong oversight to ensure that any energy development is done in an
environmentally sensitive fashion. Given their large land ownerships it
is imperative that both participate fully in landscape level
conservation and management efforts.
United States Forest Service Integrated Resource Restoration/
Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management.--The budget has again
proposed merging a number of accounts, including Wildlife and Fisheries
Habitat Management, into an integrated budget. However, Defenders
supports continuing Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) as a 3-year
pilot as directed by the Congress in the final fiscal year 2012 Omnibus
appropriations bill so that the agency can demonstrate its ability to
adequately protect habitat for fish and wildlife under the consolidated
program. We urge no less than the fiscal year 2012 level of $140
million for Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management. Even at that
level, the program would be nearly $25 million less than the fiscal
year 2001 inflation adjusted level.
United States Forest Service Land Management Planning/Inventory and
Monitoring.--The budget has again proposed merging these two programs
into a single line item. As with IRR, we are concerned about such a
consolidation unless the agency can demonstrate its ability to carry
out its responsibilities under these two programs, especially given
that in the coming year, USFS will finalize and begin to implement a
new forest planning rule that requires sufficient funding for critical
inventory and monitoring activities, including the assessments that
will be fundamental to the implementation of the new planning rule. We
urge no less than the fiscal year 2012 level for each of these two
programs:
--$39.9 million for land management planning; and
--$161.7 million for inventory and monitoring.
United States Forest Service Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program.--We support the administration's request of $40
million for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
(CFLRP), a unique program that was established specifically to create
job stability, achieve reliable wood supply, restore forest health, and
reduce the costs of fire suppression in overgrown forests.
United States Forest and Rangeland Research.--Defenders supports
the administration's request of $292.8 million for United States Forest
and Rangeland Research (FS R&D). Within FS R&D our highest priority is
the Wildlife and Fish Research and Development program that supports
science-based fish and wildlife management on National Forest System
lands and beyond such as grappling with the question of how changes in
snow pack will impact wolverines and other climate vulnerability
assessments.
Bureau of Land Managment Sage Grouse.--A critically needed increase
of $15 million in the BLM Wildlife Management program for sage grouse
conservation in 10 western States includes $10 million for amendments
to Resource Management Plans, $2.5 million for on-the-ground habitat
restoration, and $2.5 million for inventory, monitoring and mapping.
Almost half of all sagebrush habitat has been destroyed and this loss
has been compounded by fragmentation of the remaining sage-grouse
habitat. During the 42 years between 1965 and 2007, population decline
was estimated at 3.1 percent each year. This modest funding increase is
desperately needed to support a broad effort to stop this iconic bird's
decline and avert the need for listing under the Endangered Species
Act.
Bureau of Land Managment Renewable Energy.--An increase of $7.1
million for renewable energy includes support for regional land use
planning studies and environmental reviews of potential wind energy
zones. These studies will help to identify future renewable energy
zones that will avoid areas with potential natural resource conflicts,
including wildlife conflicts (especially sage grouse, golden eagles,
desert tortoise, or other sensitive species).
Bureau of Land Managment Resource Management Planning.--Another
crucial increase is $4.7 million for Resource Management Planning in
this program that has been cut by nearly 25 percent since fiscal year
2010 and needed to help address 47 plans under revision and another 45
that need revision.
Bureau of Land Managment Challenge Cost Share.--Defenders supports
a total of $7.5 million, same as the fiscal year 2012 level for
proactive wildlife and habitat conservation projects on the ground with
partners.
u.s. geological survey
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides the basic science
necessary for conservation of fish, wildlife and habitat. We urge
support for the following increases in the request:
Ecosystems.--A $16.6 million increase that includes $1 million
for research on White Nose Syndrome that is devastating bat
populations. The base program also supports crucial scientific
efforts needed to avoid harm to birds, bats, desert wildlife,
and other species that could be impacted by the development of
wind and solar energy.
Climate and Land Use Change.--A $500,000 increase for the
National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center/DOI Climate
Science Centers and a $6.5 million increase in Science Support
for DOI Bureaus to address scientific needs in planning for
adaptation to climate change.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Finally, each day, 6,000 acres of open space in the United States,
including wildlife habitat, is lost to fragmentation and destruction.
Once these lands are lost, they can never be recovered. Defenders
supports the requested increase of $104.7 million for Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF). A portion of the LWCF total, about $108
million, is for an Interior-Forest Service collaborative interagency
land acquisition program to protect strategic landscape-scale projects
that at the same time meet core agency acquisition priorities. This
innovative initiative will help to bring larger conservation benefits
and build resilience across landscapes with scarce dollars. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify.
______
Prepared Statement of the Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School,
Navajo Nation
REQUEST SUMMARY
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Ervin
Chavez, School Board President of the Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community
School (DCGS) on the Navajo Reservation in Bloomfield, New Mexico. With
me is Faye BlueEyes, Finance Director, who will be presenting our
testimony on behalf of the DCGS School Board. We will focus on three
areas of particular concern to our school in the fiscal year 2013
funding requests for the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). The DCGS
requests the following, all under the BIE budget category:
--Provide $109.8 million in facilities operations and $76 million in
facilities maintenance as recommended by the National Congress
of American Indians in its budget requests;
--Support requested $2 million increase, at a minimum, for Tribal
Grant Support Costs; provide $72.3 million to fully fund;
--Restore $4.4 million in reductions to the Indian School
Equalization Program Formula Funds account.
BACKGROUND
DCGS is a tribally controlled grant school is located in
Bloomfield, New Mexico, approximately 170 miles northwest of
Albuquerque, within the boundaries of the Navajo Indian Reservation.
DCGS is primarily funded through appropriations received from the BIE,
and pass-through funding from the Department of Education. Our school,
which has been in continuous service since 1968, operates a K-8
educational program and a dormitory program for students in grades 1-
12. Residential students in grades 9-12 attend the local public school.
There are 109 students currently enrolled in our academic program, and
67 students are housed in campus dormitories. Our all-Navajo Board
operates the DCGS through a Grant issued by the BIE under the Tribally
Controlled Schools Act. The DCGS mission is to make a difference in the
educational progress of our students and we believe that all of our
students are capable of achieving academic success. DCGS, however, has
struggled with chronic underfunding of virtually each and every one of
its educational and related programs. We describe below the impacts of
the underfunding in several key areas.
Funding for Facilities Maintenance in the Amount of $76 Million and
Facilities Operations in the Amount of $109.8 Million.--Facilities
Maintenance funds are intended to provide for the preventative,
routine, and unscheduled maintenance for all school buildings,
equipment, utility systems, and ground structures. There are numerous
studies that attest to the fact there is close correlation between poor
or inadequate facility conditions and poor student and staff
performance. And it is documented fact that 63 of the 181 schools for
which BIE is responsible are rated in ``poor'' condition on the
Bureau's ``Education Facility Condition Index (FCI) for fiscal year
2013'', the same number as in fiscal year 2012. Without a significant
increase in facilities maintenance funding, there is little doubt there
can be no measurable progress in addressing the ever-growing deferred
maintenance backlog of at least $967 million (according to the 2011
draft No Child Left Behind School Facilities and Construction
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Report). The report also acknowledged
that persistent underfunding of Facilities Maintenance contributes to
more rapid deterioration of the aging buildings.
The DCGS is, unfortunately, one of the ``poor'' rated schools and
with an FCI of 0.4001, it is among the poorest-rated facilities. From a
practical standpoint, this means that we are not able to provide a
safe, healthy learning environment for our students and staff.
Realistically, some of the health and safety problems at DCGS include
the closure of the restrooms servicing our junior high classrooms due
to leaking sewer lines. Whereas the required industry standard for
plumbing today is PVC piping, our 40-plus-year-old buildings have
galvanized pipes that have become so rusted, corroded and contain
sediment experts estimate only about one-quarter inch diameter of the
pipes remain open. Repairs are also difficult because extensive
corrosion makes any disturbance of the pipes makes it susceptible to
crumbling. Adding to the sewer problems is that the sewage lagoon
servicing the DCGS is not the adequate size for our complex, thus
requiring weekly cleanouts, meaning our already over-burdened
facilities have to send out one staff member to manually hose out each
of the sewage cells in the lagoon.
The age of the facilities also impacts the water lines, which are
also very corroded and contain so much sediment that we must provide
bottled drinking water for the students (an additional cost that most
public schools do not face). We also have issues with an outdated
electrical transformer for which parts are no longer available and
insufficient internal electrical wiring that must be replaced to avoid
further electrical fires.
Most public schools have readily available, reliable Internet
access. The DCGS, on the other hand, has for years relied on a
satellite link to support the educational technology needs of the
students. The Internet access was very unreliable--depending on weather
conditions and other reasons that were not able to be fully determined
by the provider--which more often than not resulted in frustrating
students trying to do research and/or cancelling academic lessons. We
pleaded with the BIE to assess and address the problem or at least
facilitate rewiring the facilities to accommodate better IT access but
sadly that tech support has been so lacking for more than 6 years that
we have turned to the Navajo Nation Technology Department (NNTD) for
assistance. Sadly we are placing blind faith that through the Federal
E-rate program we will be able to recoup the installation payment we
had to pay upfront for the NNTD to begin work and to also fund the
additional work to complete the technology upgrades. Even with the
limited work that has been completed, the students are already seeing
noticeable improvements in Internet availability.
Despite our best efforts to maximize the limited facilities
maintenance funds for upkeep of our buildings, there is only so much
that our five-member facilities staff can do. The BIE has estimated
$7.7 million would be needed to fix all that is on the DCGS deferred
maintenance backlog, and the replacement cost would be $19.1 million.
The BIE's fiscal year 2013 request for facilities maintenance is nearly
level funding again ($50.9 million), which means that once again there
will not be enough to make a significant dent in the maintenance
backlog of DCGS or any of the other schools.
Facilities Operations funding is for the ongoing operational
expenses like electricity, heating fuels, communications, ground
maintenance, refuse collection, water and sewer service, etc. However,
the facilities operation expenses are currently funded at approximately
46 percent of need. In light of the escalating costs of these essential
services--especially the cost of electricity and heating costs--it is
evident the BIE's fiscal year 2013 request of $58.6 million (level
funding) is still grossly inadequate.
When the facilities operations and maintenance costs are not funded
at a realistic level, our schools are not able to address the small,
preventable problems to keep them from becoming bigger and more
expensive to fix, or we cannot even perform some needed maintenance.
Further, in emergency situations, school funding must be diverted from
other programs to meet these needs. For the health and safety of our
students and staff, we support the NCAI-recommended $76 million for
facilities maintenance and $109.8 million in facilities operation
funding.
Funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs in the Amount of $72.3
Million.--Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC), formerly known as
Administrative Costs Grants, are funds provided to tribally operated
schools to cover the administrative or indirect costs associated with
the operation of a school. Currently, 125 of the 183 BIE-funded schools
are operated by tribes or tribal school boards, with another three BIE-
operated schools possibly being converted to grant status in fiscal
year 2013. TGSC funding is applied to the costs of payroll, accounting,
insurance, background checks, and other legal, reporting and record-
keeping requirements, including the preparation of required annual
audits. TGSC are appropriated in a lump sum and then awarded to
individual schools after application of a complex statutory formula
that divides the available funding--not the statutorily required
amount--among eligible recipients. In fiscal year 2012, the funding
available for TGSC met only 63.7 percent of the need of the schools,
which is less than the BIE estimated rate for fiscal year 2012. This
means that at 100 percent of TGSC need, DCGS should have received
nearly $700,000; instead, we received only $445,000. What happens when
there is a $250,000 shortfall? At DCGS we have consolidated internal
controls, streamlined checks and balances, and scaled back
significantly our management staff. For example, our business office
now has only two full-time staff to handle all the DCGS business-
related functions, such as process payroll for 90 on a bi-weekly basis;
complete all the accounting; complete all tax reporting requirements;
process account payables-requisitions-purchase orders, and ensure
conformance with all audit requirements.
For fiscal year 2013, the BIE requests a $2 million increase, which
they estimate will provide a TGSC rate of 65 percent of need. The DCGS
is very concerned this projected percentage is being over reported.
Consider that the BIE does not request separate start-up funds for
newly converting schools but they report there may be as many as three
in fiscal year 2013. With no start-up funds, the additional school
conversions will consume an inordinate amount of the already limited
TGSC, thus further limiting the funds available to the ongoing grants/
contracts.
The increase sought by the administration not only falls well short
of the schools' actual support cost needs, it fails to make even
minimal progress in promoting fairness or equity with respect to the
Government's support costs paid for other Indian programs. As a result
of contract support cost (CSC) litigation brought by tribes for BIA and
IHS failures to fully fund CSC, in all other BIA program areas except
education, growth has been tremendous. In fact, for the period covering
fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2012, the nonschool BIA CSC account has
grown by an astounding $73.9 million, which raised the percentage of
CSC need paid from 75 to nearly 100 percent. In contrast, the TGSC
funding during the same period increased by a mere $2.8 million, and
that was in the last 2 fiscal years; with the TGSC rate rising from 61
to 63.7 percent during that period. The schools should not have to
spend years before the courts litigating their being short-changed by
the BIE. The Congress should fix the problem and fully fund TGSC at
$72.3 million for the indirect cost requirements of current tribally
controlled schools, and provide $2 million in start-up funds for newly
converting schools.
Restore $4.4 Million to Indian School Equalization (ISEP) Formula
Funds Account.--The fiscal year 2013 budget request proposes a $4.4
million (or 1 percent) reduction in ISEP formula funds due to a 1-
percent decline in student population. The Bureau, however, fails to
recognize that schools still have costs that are not directly tied to
the number of students enrolled; in essence a minimum operating costs
to keep our doors open. For instance, our electrical bill is not based
on the number of students served, and the buses must cover their routes
whether there is 1 student or 50 students on that route. Further, as we
have testified, many of the accounts that support School Operations are
seriously underfunded so that we must constantly utilize our education-
program (ISEP) funds to offset nonacademic costs such as student
transportation, maintenance, administrative functions to name a just a
few. Despite our best efforts to stretch each and every dollar, in
school year 2012-2013 DCGS will be forced to reduce the number of
student school days and instead operate on providing the requisite
number of contact hours for each grade level.
CONCLUSION
It is widely acknowledged that investments in education have a
direct economic impact as well as benefits to the individual. Studies
have also shown that reductions in education expenditures have
negatively impacted employment rates. With our native students coming
from some of the hardest hit areas in these times of economic downturn,
we ask the Congress to provide the levels of education funding that
will enable us to provide a quality education in safe and secure
environment for our students. We are grateful for any assistance you
can provide.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition
The following testimony is submitted on behalf of the Federal
Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC), a 501(c)(6) trade association,
representing purchasers of United States Forest Service (USFS) and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) timber across the country with members
in more than 24 States, more than 650 member companies representing
350,000 workers and about $19 billion in payroll.
The FFRC supports sustainable management of the National Forests
and BLM lands to produce clean water, enhance wildlife habitat, produce
forest products including timber and biomass, support rural economic
development, and to reduce the threats of catastrophic wildfires and
insect outbreaks. Our members come from every link on the forest
products value chain, from loggers to landowners and from large pulp
and paper facilities to forest bioenergy plants. Our member companies
are frequently located in rural areas, which have higher than average
unemployment, poverty, and population loss compared to their States'
averages.
Many of our member companies rely on the National Forests and BLM
lands to provide a consistent and sustainable timber supply. Forest
products companies also represent the lowest cost, and most effective,
tool for Federal land managers to improve the health of our public
lands. Increased management and forest products outputs would provide a
much-needed economic boost to rural America, creating thousands of
jobs, as well as increasing the pace of forest restoration on our
public lands, particularly the National Forests. The health of the
National Forests, the economic health of our member companies, and the
health of the communities where we live and work, are inextricably
linked.
Increasing the Pace of Forest Restoration.--Last month, the
Secretary of Agriculture announced an initiative to accelerate the pace
of forest restoration on the National Forests. While we applaud the
administration for recognizing the urgency of the forest health threat
on the National Forests, we are concerned that the initiative does not
go either far, or fast, enough. Some of my member companies have faced
situations where the USFS is proposing management projects which either
fail to address pressing forest health concerns, like the pine beetle
epidemic in the Rockies, or which don't go as far as local
collaborative groups would like to go, such as in the Northeast
Washington Forest Vision project around the Colville National Forest.
Even in these extremely challenging wood markets, some FFRC member
companies have been frustrated by the Forest Service's lack of
commitment to sell adequate log supplies. The result is idled
investments, reduced shifts at sawmills, jobs lost to foreign
competition, and a failure to position the USFS to help sustain or
enhance a value-added, manufacturing industry that can capture greater
domestic and international market share. Our member companies are
extremely competitive in the global market, and only need a fairly
priced raw material to capture more of those markets. The time
available to capture these opportunities is limited, and we urge you to
reward the USFS's recent initiative by investing in more aggressive in
management of the National Forests.
We have worked--and will continue to work--closely with the
leadership in the USFS and USDA to find ways of reducing overhead and
making the forest products and fuels reductions program more efficient.
We believe some of the steps taken by the USFS in their February 2,
2012 report will help achieve these efficiencies. However, other
authorities, like allowing the USFS to use designation by description
on regular timber sales, much as they do on current Stewardship
contracts, will help reduce unit costs even further.
Investing in Land Management.--We are very thankful to the
subcommittee for including national direction to the USFS to increase
timber outputs from 2.4 to 3 billion board feet in 2012. We urge the
subcommittee to continue raising the bar for the agency and set a goal
of 3.5 billion board feet for fiscal year 2013. The current annual
harvest from the National Forests represents less than 10 percent of
annual forest growth, and less than half the allowable sale quantity
under existing forest plans. In many regions, the USFS is falling short
of its own management goals; including in reacting to the pine beetle
outbreak in the Rockies and in managing aspen habitat in the Lake
States. Stepping up management, through formal collaboratives where
they exist and normal timber programs elsewhere, will help address
pressing forest health concerns while helping bolster employment in
rural communities where unemployment is frequently near 20 percent and
poverty is well more than State averages. Investing in the USFS timber
program is a very effective job creator, generating 16.5 new direct and
indirect jobs per 1 million board feet harvested.
While we appreciate the support for forest management, we urge the
subcommittee to make new investments in the National Forest Timber
Management line item this year. This program has not received an
increase since 2008, and due to inflation it has lost about 5 percent
of its purchasing power. Further, extraordinarily high overhead rates
have further eroded the program's effectiveness. To help keep the
program pointed in the right direction, we urge the subcommittee to
invest $371 million, an increase of $36 million more than the current
fiscal year to achieve a fiscal year 2013 target of 3.5 billion board
feet.
Forest Roads, Hazardous Fuels Reduction.--It is also urgent that
the subcommittee restore funding which has been cut since 2010 from the
Capital Improvement and Maintenance Account, as well as the Wildland
Hazardous Fuels Reduction program. These two programs are vital to
maintaining access to the National Forests and in helping to reduce the
massive, 90-million-acre backlog of lands which urgently need hazardous
fuels reduction. The work cannot be done economically without the
ability to use the USFS road system. We continue to oppose a blanket
moratorium on new roads, because this arbitrarily restricts the agency
from implementing needed management, and also prohibits the USFS from
replacing poorly located or damaged roads with new roads which are
engineered and located properly.
We appreciate the efforts of the subcommittee to remove the
arbitrary requirements for hazardous fuels reduction work in the
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), but we were troubled that the
President's budget continues to focus the USFS's efforts there. A
greater percentage of lands in need of fuels reduction are outside of
the WUI, and mechanical thinning allows the USFS to take advantage of
the wood products infrastructure to reduce treatment costs. Extensive
USFS research shows that mechanical thinning (which included removing
useable wood fiber) followed by prescribed fire is the best approach to
significantly reduce threats from wildfire and forest pests.
Reducing National Environmental Policy Act Costs.--The President's
Council on Environmental Quality issued a memo on increasing the
efficiency and effectiveness of environmental reviews required by the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in December. The USFS has told
the Congress that complying with NEPA and other environmental laws
costs them $356 million annually, which is more than the agency spends
on timber management, or Research, or State and Private Forestry.
Saving even a portion of these expenses would free up resources to
actually manage forests and reduce the threat of wildfire and insect
outbreaks. We urge the subcommittee to direct the USFS and CEQ to take
more aggressive steps to reduce NEPA costs than the comparison study of
two landscape restoration projects approved on February 9.
Timber purchasers across the country report that USFS personnel
frequently conduct exhaustive NEPA analysis, only to propose and
implement small-scale land management projects which do not meet the
objectives the agency set out to meet. Examples include leaving higher
than called for stand densities, or dropping entire units from proposed
sales even though doing so leaves forest stands susceptible to insects
and mortality. The USFS's February 2 report on increasing the pace of
forest restoration touches on this subject, but we believe direction
from this subcommittee would help reinforce the urgency of directing
the resources to management rather than paperwork.
When National Forests in the Lake States are up to 75 percent
behind on their management goals for early successional habitat, and
the National Forests in the Rocky Mountains are falling woefully behind
in dealing with a massive, 41-million-acre-and-growing pine beetle
outbreak, finding some way of reducing NEPA costs is urgently needed.
Land Acquisition.--Considering the fiscal situation facing the
Nation and the backlog of both forest management and roads and
facilities maintenance needs on the National Forests, we recommend no
funding for the National Forest System Land Acquisition line item. It
makes little sense to increase the size of the National Forest System
at a time when the agency has a demonstrated backlog in maintenance and
land management. We recommend that the $59 million recommended by the
administration be redirected to the land management priorities
recommended above.
Bureau of Land Management Forest Management.--The President's
fiscal year 2013 budget includes a sharp reduction in funding for the
BLM Public Domain Forest Management Program. The President's budget
proposes to reduce BLM PD Forest Management funding by nearly 40
percent, which will result in reduction of 40 percent of associated
FTEs, 50-percent reduction in biomass volume, and 80 percent reduction
in Stewardship Contracts. This would mean the BLM would drop from
offering 123 million board feet in 2012 to offering 19 million board
feet, a decline of more than 85 percent of the public domain
timberlands. FFRC supports funding for BLM PD Forest Management Program
at no less than the fiscal year 2012 level of $9.7 million. Aggressive
action is also needed to offer regeneration harvests from the O&C lands
in Oregon that meet the needs of local mills. This will necessitate
funding at or near fiscal year 2011 levels, coupled with strong
direction to the agency to fulfill its statutory duty under the O&C Act
to produce a sustainable flow of timber for local economies.
Alaska.--The timber industry in Alaska faces several challenges
stemming from years of controversy over the management of the Tongass
National Forest. FFRC members depend upon supplies of timber from this
forest, and have been hard pressed as the Forest Service has placed
complete restrictions on harvest in roadless areas. Current efforts
billed as ``restoration'' forestry have instead focused on a particular
approach to fisheries management and on a transition to harvesting
second growth timber that will not meet the local industries needs for
decades. Steps must be taken to offer a timber sale program that
complies with the National Forest Management Act and can sustain the
local value added industry in order to save the capacity to manage the
very small percent of the Tongass that is open to any harvest. Current
policies of avoiding all litigation risk will surely cause the death of
the local industry in southeast Alaska, leaving the region dependent on
a less diversified, tourism-based economy.
Forest Health and Forest Restoration.--2011 demonstrated that the
poor health of our National Forests and other Federal Forests impacts
everyone, from the industries that depend on useable wood fiber to
casual weekend visitors to the Forests. The large fires in Arizona and
New Mexico last year forced the closures of popular campgrounds,
destroyed dozens of recreational cabins, and forced cancellations of
Fourth of July events at popular mountain resorts. Many miles of forest
roads and several campgrounds in Arizona remain closed. The large-scale
beetle infestation in the Black Hills has forced local campground
owners to spend more than $100,000 annually to remove beetle killed
trees and spray others in an effort to stop beetles from spreading off
of the National Forests. The Pagami Creek fire in Minnesota disrupted
popular hiking and canoeing areas in an around the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area. Campers, hikers, hunters, and skiers all want to visit
healthy, green, and growing forests.
In each of these cases, wood using industries, from start-up
biomass plants to family run sawmills to internationally competitive
pulp and paper facilities, stand ready to help the USFS and BLM to
actively manage the public lands they oversee. Opportunities to expand
this management, and the benefits that come from it, abound nationwide.
We thank you for your support for our efforts to manage these lands and
help our rural communities in the process.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of State Humanities Councils
The Federation of State Humanities Councils respectfully requests
that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies allocate $154.255 million for the
National Endowment for the Humanities and $44 million for the State
humanities councils for fiscal year 2013.
As full partners of the NEH, councils receive their core funding
through the Federal/State Partnership line of the NEH budget and use
that funding to leverage additional funds from foundations,
corporations, private individuals, and State governments. In 2011,
every Federal dollar the councils awarded through grants to local
institutions leveraged, on average, $5 in local contributions. Councils
further extend their resources by forming programming partnerships with
organizations and institutions throughout their States.
We are requesting a funding increase for fiscal year 2013 for the
work of the council because cuts over the past 2 years have had serious
consequences for the communities and institutions the councils serve. A
recent survey by the Federation of State Humanities Councils revealed
that councils have had to shrink their grants programs significantly,
even though requests for council funding have increased due to the
troubled economy. These reductions in turn have led to fewer dollars
leveraged and therefore even less funding for local organizations and
communities.
Our communities and our Nation as a whole will benefit from
increased funding to the State councils, in part because State
humanities council programs serve critical needs. Dozens of councils,
for example, support family literacy programs, which make a significant
difference in the lives of participants--low-income families, immigrant
families, or simply families that need help to engage with words and
ideas. Thousands of families have benefited from the Prime Time
program, developed by the Louisiana Endowment for the Humanities and
now active in a dozen other States throughout the Nation. In 2011, the
Nebraska Humanities Council's Prime Time program reached 325 families
in six communities. More than 1,800 free books were distributed through
the program, and 100 new library cards were issued. Of the
participating families, 89 percent said that as a result of the program
they now spend more time reading as a family. Connecticut's Family Read
program, operating primarily in the State's urban areas, fosters a
culture of literacy in many public schools and community-based agencies
where it is most needed, helping to address an achievement gap that is
among the largest in the Nation.
Council programs also serve other critical needs. The Literature
and Medicine program, created by the Maine Humanities Council and now
offered by 26 other councils, improves patient care and enables
overtaxed medical personnel to find the renewed energy and inspiration
to continue in the profession. By expanding into VA hospitals, the
program provides invaluable resources for caregivers of returning
veterans. The Missouri council has gone directly to the veterans
themselves with a program that offers creative writing workshops and
mentoring for veterans.
Thirty-one organizations in the State of New York can attest that
councils serve critical needs. After Hurricanes Irene and Lee hit last
year, the New York Council for the Humanities swiftly distributed funds
from an NEH Chairman's Discretionary Grant to provide relief to small
cultural organizations in the affected area, prompting one museum
director to observe, ``The council's response reflects an understanding
of how best to serve the urgent needs of cultural institutions.''
Council funding ensures that humanities programming is widely
available to the general public. Councils reached 5,700 communities
across the Nation in 2011, including rural towns, suburban communities,
and urban neighborhoods. Councils supported programs in every
congressional district and served hundreds of thousands of students,
teachers, healthcare professionals, seniors, veterans, and many more.
Council programs help communities and institutions not adequately
served through other means. In rural communities, council programs are
often the only cultural resources available. For more than 25 years the
Idaho Humanities Council has offered the ``Let's Talk About It''
reading and discussion program, which now totals 75 scholar-led
programs annually and is especially popular with small libraries
lacking the resources to plan and seek funds for their own programs.
The program's outreach to small communities is so powerful that it
attracted the attention of a corporate sponsor that has provided about
one-third of the program's cost for the past decade. ``Montana
Conversations'' provides up to 200 programs annually for communities
with populations of 2,000 or less. The South Dakota council reports
that in their sparsely populated State, ``libraries, cultural centers,
and museums often serve entire communities that stretch for miles, and
these are the very institutions in need of the programming support that
the South Dakota council can provide.''
But it is not just rural States that face these issues. In
California, where libraries have had to cut many services, the council
joined forces with the California Center for the Book to create
California Reads, a reading and discussion program. The council awarded
more than $400,000 to 52 library jurisdictions serving 65 percent of
the State. The project not only encouraged civic conversation
throughout the State, but also offered a much-needed boost to
libraries. In State after State, where cuts in State budgets are slowly
starving both Government and private institutions, councils have been
compelled to step in and try to help fill the gap.
Council programs also serve communities whose stories and issues
have too long been overlooked. The Oklahoma Humanities Council
supported ``Carry the Fire'', a Native Humanities forum hosted by the
Chickasaw Nation Division of Arts and Humanities to create a dialogue
among tribal members, students, and the general public. The Forum
explored issues important to the tribal community but unknown to many
members of the public, such as comparisons of indigenous humanities to
the humanities in general, the importance of the study of the
humanities to Native people and others, and indigenous thinking and
learning styles.
In Wyoming, the council has made a special effort to engage those
who have been left out of the mainstream conversations. Last summer the
council launched the dialogue series ``Government, God, Google, and
Guns'' as part of the broader program, ``Civility Matters,'' which
involved sending a traveling tent to summer festivals and interviewing
Wyomingites on civility issues. They learned that civility also
includes listening to all voices in a democracy, so this year the
council launched ``Giving Voice,'' a program that will reach out to
youth, individuals and families below the poverty line, and those
struggling with mental health.
Council programs improve the quality of K-12 education. One of the
many casualties of the poor economy has been State support for the
educational structure. Councils have significantly lessened the impact
of cuts on teachers and students. The Teacher Enrichment Program in
Texas addresses the dual, interconnected problems of teacher training
and teacher retention. Heeding studies that suggest that many teachers
abandoned the profession in part because they felt ill prepared to
teach their subjects, and recognizing the high cost of teacher
turnover, the council created teacher institutes designed to provide
intensive, deep-content enrichment using top-quality faculty. The
council pays particular attention to early-career teachers working in
low-performing schools--another example of councils stepping in where
the need is greatest and no one else is providing help.
Many councils offer teacher institutes, providing what is typically
the only professional development in the humanities offered in their
States. But councils also improve K-12 education in other ways. Several
councils sponsor National History Day, which was recently awarded a
National Humanities Medal by the President. The Maryland Humanities
Council, for example, has been the State affiliate of National History
Day since 1999, involving more than 18,400 students in 18 jurisdictions
in 2011. The skills that students develop through Maryland History Day
have been shown not only to strengthen students' performance in other
subject areas, including reading, math, and science, but also to
prepare students for college and their future careers.
Council programs contribute to the civic health of their
communities. Using texts and discussion techniques steeped in the
humanities, councils allow community members to engage in dialogue with
each other about both local and global problems. From Maryland to
Indiana to Nebraska to Washington, councils bring a humanities
perspective to discussions of community problems that allow for
respectful airing of diverse viewpoints and movement toward possible
solutions. Councils also engage citizens in the civic life of their
communities by supporting thousands of reading and discussion groups.
The Vermont Humanities Council's ``Vermont Reads'' program, now in its
10th year, has enabled thousands of Vermonters to explore themes and
ideas generated through the shared experience of reading. This
intergenerational program, which draws on the expertise of teachers,
librarians, and community leaders, not only is a catalyst for
meaningful discussion of important themes but also it has a lasting
impact on how children and adults understand ``community'' and how they
experience reading as a lifelong activity.
Councils extend resources through partnerships. Councils worked
with an estimated 9,800 organizations in 2011. These included museums,
libraries, schools, universities, senior centers, veterans' hospitals,
churches, social service agencies, corporations and local businesses,
chambers of commerce, State tourism offices, radio and television
stations, and many more.
Councils also fostered lasting partnerships among the groups with
whom they worked. The Minnesota Humanities Center's traveling exhibit,
``Why Treaties Matter,'' which explores relationships between Dakota
and Ojibwe Indian Nations and the U.S. Government, demonstrates
collaboration in many directions. The council developed the exhibit in
consultation with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council and the National
Museum of the American Indian, and they have worked with dozens of
agencies in Minnesota to create programming around this important
topic. One host institution said that ``Partnering with the Minnesota
Humanities Center on `Why Treaties Matter' isn't just about putting an
exhibit up for a month. It's about working with local organizations to
increase our capacity to engage audiences and provide multiple
interpretive experiences and opportunities. Getting the exhibit is
great, but it's this interaction and education that continues to shape
our institutions well after the month is over.''
And finally, funding allocated to councils makes good economic
sense. Councils protect local economies through their support for
struggling organizations that have seen other funding sources decline
or disappear. In addition, every Federal dollar awarded by councils
leverages, on average, more than $5 for programs carried out by local
organizations. Even when grants are modest, council support has helped
small organizations save programs, staff positions, and even
organizations themselves.
Council funding and programming yield other economic benefits. The
many council-sponsored book festivals that take place throughout the
country are an undeniable economic boon for their host cities. The
annual Virginia Festival of the Book, created nearly two decades ago by
the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, has seen increases in
audience, partners, participating authors, and programs each year. The
Director of Economic Development of the City of Charlottesville
estimates the economic impact of the Festival at more than $1 million.
The Museum on Main Street tours, conducted through a partnership
with the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service, enliven
small-town economies by attracting audiences to the exhibits and
accompanying programs that are sometimes larger than the populations of
the towns themselves. Councils also provide support for cultural
heritage tourism efforts to draw additional visitors--and their
dollars--to local economies. Last year the Rhode Island Council for the
Humanities provided a grant to the Rhode Island Marine Archaeology
Project (RIMAP) for ``Rhode Island in the Revolution: A Heritage
Tourism Project,'' which expanded existing knowledge of the State's
Revolutionary War history by creating four heritage trails. The council
has continued its work with RIMAP to expand its reach and impact, with
plans to add digital applications to allow them to market their tours
to the public and to Rhode Island schools.
The State humanities councils invigorate their State's cultural
institutions, K-12 education, civic health, and local economies. By
partnering with more than 9,800 local organizations, the councils
achieve a five-fold return on their Federal funding. The councils
ensure that this Federal investment benefits the public as a whole--
citizens in every congressional district and 5,700 communities in 2011.
In ways both intangible and concrete, the humanities programs made
possible by the Federal funding to the councils simply make our States
better places to live.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
I am Karen R. Diver, Chairwoman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa. We appreciate having the opportunity to provide you
with testimony on fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the Indian
programs funded through the U.S. Department of the Interior and Indian
Health Service (IHS). The Fond du Lac Band provides health, education,
social, and other governmental services to approximately 6,700 Indian
people living on or near our Reservation in northeastern Minnesota.
These programs are essential to our ability to educate our children,
care for our elderly and infirm, prevent crime, and protect and manage
natural resources.
Bureau of Indian Education: Education
We urge the Congress to increase funding for Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE) Elementary/Secondary School Programs. The Fond du Lac
Band relies on BIE funding for the operation of the Band's pre-K
through grade 12 Ojibwe School. The Ojibwe School serves approximately
340 students most of whom are tribal members or descendants of tribal
members. Most of our students come from very low income households, as
illustrated by the fact that more than 90 percent of our students
qualify for free or reduced rate lunches. But although American Indian
students are the most at-risk group of students in our Nation, the BIE
Elementary/Secondary School Programs have been historically
underfunded. We ask that BIE Elementary/Secondary School Program
funding be increased as follows:
Indian School Equalization Program Funding.--We urge the Congress
to provide $431 million for Indian School Equalization Program
(ISEP) Formula funds. These are the primary source of funding
for our school, covering salaries for teachers, teacher aides,
reading and math specialists, language and culture teachers,
administrative personnel and school governance (School Board
costs). While the President's proposed budget would reduce ISEP
funds to offset other funding increases, ISEP should not be
reduced as it is critical to the ability of tribal schools to
recruit and retain qualified teachers and to cover shortfalls
in other budget areas, such as transportation, facilities and
maintenance.
Tribal Grant Support Costs.--We urge the Congress to provide $72.3
million to fully fund Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC). The
funds are critical to maximizing tribal self-determination and
ensuring effective program administration. We rely on TGSC to
help pay for accounting, payroll, insurance, background checks,
legal and record-keeping requirements. Inadequate funding of
TGSC forces our school to use ISEP and other funds to meet
these important needs.
School Facility Operations and School Facility Maintenance.--We
urge the Congress to provide $109.8 million in facilities
operations and $76 million in facilities maintenance. Facility
funding is used to keep our building in safe condition, pay for
preventative and unscheduled maintenance for our school
building, and cover insurance and increasing utility costs,
e.g., electricity, heating and cooling, water and sewer.
Increased funding for school facility operations and school
facility maintenance is needed as past funding has not kept
pace with the cost of school operations or the growing backlog
of Indian schools and facilities needing repair.
School Construction and Repair.--We urge the Congress to provide
$263.4 million for BIE school construction and repair. Research
studies continue to document a link between inadequate facility
conditions and poor performance by students. Inadequate support
for school repairs will cause the unmet needs for construction
and repair to continually increase. Not addressing these
critical infrastructure needs will only jeopardize student and
staff safety.
Student Transportation.--We urge the Congress to provide $73
million for student transportation. Flat funding levels mean
that there is no mechanism for replacing buses that need
replacing, nor any way to keep pace with rising fuel costs.
Without an increase in funding for student transportation, the
costs to maintain, repair, and replace buses and cover rising
fuel costs must be paid out of education program funds.
Bureau of Indian Affairs: Public Safety and Justice
We support the President's proposal to increase Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) funding for law enforcement. We also ask the Congress to
increase the Band's base funding by $2 million for court operations and
law enforcement, and provide a one-time appropriation of $8 million to
allow us to expand the facility that houses our law enforcement
department--a facility that is completely inadequate for that purpose.
We continue to face massive unmet needs for law enforcement. The
Fond du Lac Band had to assume responsibility for law enforcement after
the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the State lacked jurisdiction to
enforce traffic laws on roads within Indian reservations, State v.
Stone, 572 N.W.2d 725 (Minn. 1997). Over the years, we have done this
using a combination of tribal and available Federal funds and by
cooperative agreements with local law enforcement agencies. But those
sources do not meet our needs. We face huge demands on our Law
Enforcement Department due to the insurgence of methamphetamine,
alcohol, illegal prescription drug use, and gang-related activities on
our Reservation. Prescription drug abuse is an epidemic. Increasing
numbers of our elders and others are the victims of more frequent
assaults and robberies that are drug related. Our law enforcement
officers are responding to a growing number of drug overdoses and
deaths, as well as juvenile offenses involving drugs, alcohol, thefts,
assaults and burglaries. They also respond to a wide range of other
matters, including, for example, reports involving domestic disputes,
disturbances, disorderly conduct, property damage, theft, medical
emergencies, fire, neglected children, runaways, suicide threats, as
well as numerous traffic-related matters. In 2011 alone, our Law
Enforcement Department responded to close to 4,900 incidents and
requests for assistance.
To address these problems, we need to increase our law enforcement
staff so we can ensure effective law enforcement coverage 24/7. This is
especially important because the Band needs to implement a community
policing model under which the Band operates neighborhood stations at
the different community centers within the Reservation. But we do not
have sufficient funds to hire the number of officers we need. We
currently employ 13 patrolmen, 1 investigator, 1 school resource
officer (assigned to the Ojibwe School), a Chief of Police, and 3
administrative staff. To the extent possible we schedule three officers
per shift, but we do not have sufficient funds to do this around the
clock. In fact, to effectively patrol the Reservation we should have 4
officers working each shift and a second investigator, for a total of
20 officers. Fewer officers on duty means serious safety issues for
both officers and the people we need to protect. The large number of
calls for police assistance also means that we need more than one
investigator and, with our limited staff we cannot implement proactive
measures, such as education and outreach programs.
Federal funding is also vital for law enforcement equipment. We
have only six vehicles--three patrol cars, and one vehicle each for the
use of the K-9 officer, investigator and school resource officer. Much
of the Fond du Lac Reservation is rural, and there are many dirt roads
as well as minimum maintenance roads. As a result, the vehicles take
some punishment and, with a patrol area of approximately 136 square
miles, the mileage covered by each patrol vehicle adds up very quickly.
Budget limitations make it difficult to repair and replace patrol cars
in a timely manner.
In addition to this, the Band has a substantial need for a a new
facility for our law enforcement department. The Department is still
housed in a six-room building, which we share with the Band's housing
program. It has neither room for investigative interviews, nor office
space for specialty positions such as investigators. The evidence room
and reception area are all completely inadequate for law enforcement
purposes and, with the increased number of calls we are receiving, are
becoming more inadequate each day. A new building with a garage, along
with a larger evidence room, storage room for record-keeping, and a
training room for officers, is essential.
Bureau of Indian Affairs: Natural Resources
We very much appreciate the funding for BIA Natural Resource
programs that the Congress has provided in past years as well as the
proposed increases for these programs contained in the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget. Natural resources are vitally important to our
tribal members, as they provide the foundation for our culture, meet
subsistence needs, and provide employment. The Fond du Lac Band's right
to access natural resources within and outside our Reservation was
reserved by Treaties with the United States in 1837, 1842, and 1854 and
reaffirmed by the courts. In connection with these Treaty rights, the
Band is responsible for managing natural resources and for enforcing
Band conservation laws that protect those natural resources by
regulating tribal members who hunt, fish and gather those resources
both within and outside the Reservation. Funding is essential for that
work. Fond du Lac routinely partners with State, Federal, and tribal
organizations to conduct research and management activities. We request
that $2 million be added to our base budget for Resource Management
programs, as funds for this program have not been increased since 1991.
We urge the Congress to at least maintain current funding levels
for all Federal programs that support the conservation and restoration
of natural resources. Specifically, we request that the Congress fund
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's State and Tribal Wildlife Grant
Program, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and all BIA programs
related to natural resources and land management at the levels
indicated in the President's budget request.
Additionally, as a member of the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife
Commission, the Fond du Lac Band supports the Commission's request for
BIA funding of $6.367 million and EPA funding of $1.2 million to
continue its longstanding treaty rights protection and implementation
program on behalf of its member tribes.
Bureau of Indian Affairs: Human Services
We urge the Congress not to cut funding for Human Services
programs. Although some of the cuts are due to administrative
streamlining, increased funding is needed to address the impact that
the methamphetamine epidemic has on not only public health and safety,
but also on child protection, child welfare and foster care services.
Increased funding for social services and Indian Child Welfare Act
programs is essential if tribes are to have any realistic hope of
protecting Indian children, preventing domestic violence, and fostering
Indian families.
Indian Health Service
We fully support the President's proposed increase in funding for
the Indian Health Service (IHS) and appreciate the commitment that the
administration and the Congress have made to address the funding needs
for healthcare in Indian country. The President's proposed increase is
essential to address the high rates of medical inflation and the
substantial unmet need for healthcare among Indian people. Indians at
Fond du Lac, like Indians throughout the Nation, continue to face
disproportionately higher rates of diabetes and its associated
complications, than the rest of the population. Heart disease, cancer,
obesity, chemical dependency and mental health problems are also
prevalent among our people. While other Federal programs, like Medicare
and Medicaid, have seen annual increases in funding to address
inflation, the budget for the IHS has never had comparable increases,
and, as a result, IHS programs have consistently fallen short of
meeting the actual needs. All Indian tribes should receive 100 percent
of the Level of Need Formula (LNF), which is absolutely critical for
tribes to address the serious and persistent health issues that
confront our communities. The Band serves approximately 7,129 Indian
people at our clinics, but the current funding level meets only 42
percent of our healthcare funding needs.
As the epidemic of prescription drug abuse grows across the
country, the IHS needs resources to expand its treatment and community
education capacity. Additional funding for the Methamphetamine, Suicide
Prevention Initiative should be made available to tribes and the IHS so
that this ``new sickness'' can be addressed. Best practices in pharmacy
inventory and prescription monitoring need to be modeled and replicated
throughout Indian Country. Related to this is the fact that more and
more Government agencies are expecting local units of governments,
including tribes, to address these problems and the increasing number
of individuals who become homeless as a result of them, through the
operation of supportive housing. But Fond du Lac, like most tribes,
lacks the financial resources to establish new program initiatives,
like supportive housing, without assistance from the Federal
Government. We urge the Congress to support programs through the IHS or
the BIA that would fund supportive housing for tribes in every area of
the country.
In sum, the needs at Fond du Lac and throughout Indian Country
remain massive. Congress's support on these funding issues is essential
to our ability to maintain vitally important programs and improve the
delivery of services to Band members.
Miigwech. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife
Refuge
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge (Friends of
Balcones) and its membership, thank you for your strong support for the
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The Friends of Balcones
appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2013
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. We are
specifically requesting an allocation of $700 million for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), including $150 million for the NWRS.
The meaningful funding increases in fiscal years 2008-2010 allowed
NWRS to emerge from years of chronic funding shortfalls. But
unfortunately, those substantial gains are undermined by more than $17
million in cuts to NWRS's funding in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 that
equate to a larger loss of more than $41 million when annual increases
in refuge fixed costs are factored in. Consequently, we support the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget request of $495 million because it
will maintain existing management capabilities. Should across-the-board
sequestration cuts of 9-10 percent take effect in fiscal year 2013, the
impacts to NWRS would be devastating and could force FWS to close or
end major programs at more than 130 refuges.
We respectfully request the subcommittee support all of the funding
allocations requested by the National Wildlife Refuge Association as
detailed and explained in their testimony letter. All of the
allocations are critical to the health of the NWRS but the one that
will impact the Balcones Canyonlands NWR the most is the allocation of
$700 million for LWCF, including $150 million for the NWRS. Balcones
Canyonlands Refuge, although 20 years old, is only slightly more than
50-percent complete. The Friends of Balcones urges you to fund the LWCF
at $700 million so we can continue to buy land toward our goal of
46,000 acres. Out of that amount, we are requesting $5 million from
LWCF for 2013. Completing the Refuge is anticipated to cost more than
$87 million in today's dollars, so acting now is especially important
for monetary reasons and because of the intense pressure from urban
expansion that is occurring within the Refuge acquisition boundary.
We feel a sense of urgency to complete the land acquisition for the
Refuge. Twenty years after the creation of the Refuge and just more
than 23,000 acres are protected! Austin Texas is a short drive from the
Refuge and is among the top 10 fastest-growing cities in the United
States. That rate of development will impact the ability of the FWS to
complete the Refuge if something isn't done quickly.
Balcones Canyonlands Refuge is located in the Texas Hill Country
northwest of Austin, Texas and resides in Burnet, Travis, and
Williamson counties. The Refuge was formed in 1992 to conserve habitat
of the endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler as a step toward recovery and
eventual delisting of the species. In addition to the Golden-cheeked
Warbler, the Refuge serves to protect the habitat of the endangered
Black-capped Vireo and numerous other wildlife species.
State-sponsored biological studies show that to stabilize and
sustain these endangered songbirds, Balcones Canyonlands needs a total
of 46,000 acres of habitat. It presently has some 23,000 acres. The
Refuge augments a similarly named Preserve in Austin, comprised of
nearly 30,000 acres and operated by the city and Travis County. The two
parts were established for the same purpose and together are intended
to provide habitat needed to enable recovery of these species.
In addition to the recovery of these endangered species, Balcones
Canyonlands Refuge is a source of eco-tourism for the surrounding area.
Over the longer term, the Balcones Refuge is expected to become a major
draw for birders interested in viewing the endangered Warbler and
Vireo, for which this area provides unique habitat. As you likely know,
the Texas Hill Country is very special, and the Balcones Canyonlands
National Wildlife Refuge is one of the best places to experience the
beauty and uniqueness of this Texas landscape. The Refuge has been
described as one of the Last Great Places by the Nature Conservancy and
as an ``Important Bird Area'' by two national conservation groups based
on its ``global importance'' to the endangered Warbler and Vireo. When
completed, Balcones Canyonlands will be a step toward providing
additional accessible public outdoor areas, identified as a critical
need in a study by Texas Parks and Wildlife.
There are many willing sellers within the acquisition boundary of
the Refuge. All we need is money to move forward immediately! An
appropriation of $5 million will fund purchase of the 350-acre 3 Creeks
Ranch (second phase of this acquisition) and 1,000 acres of the Sunset
Ranch, one of the last remaining large tracts of land with high quality
Golden-cheeked Warbler habitat left within the Refuge acquisition
boundary. The rolling hills and steep canyons on this ranch provide
nesting habitat for the Golden-cheeked Warbler and potential for Black-
capped Vireo habitat management. The purchase of this large tract will
also protect habitat for additional endemic species in the Hill Country
as well as the unusual Karst topography of the Edwards Plateau. The
ranch is situated near other Refuge property which makes it even more
valuable as we attempt to protect large contiguous tracts of land. The
properties have been appraised, and the sellers are willing. These
acquisitions would be a significant step toward the long range goal of
completing the Refuge. As mentioned earlier, acting now is particularly
important, as the window of time is closing rapidly as a result of
urban expansion, and the opportunity for protecting these species is at
risk.
The Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge is a
nonprofit, volunteer organization. Our mission is to support, complete,
and enhance Balcones Canyonlands Refuge and to promote the Refuge's use
for recreational, educational, and scientific purposes. Our membership
is drawn primarily from Central Texas communities situated near the
Refuge. Our members care passionately about preserving our natural
heritage and fulfilling our organization's mission of completing the
Refuge. Because of all the reasons listed above, we strongly recommend
that you allocate $700 million for LWCF and set aside $5 million from
the LWCF for Balcones Canyonlands Refuge for fiscal year 2013.
In closing, thank you for considering our request of $700 million
for LWCF. Your actions in support of our request will significantly
improve our chances and the chances of other Refuges in similar
situations to create fully functioning Refuges that are a testament to
America's amazing natural heritage. We are entrusted with the
protection of our wild spaces for the benefit and enjoyment of current
and future generations. Anne Frank wrote the following:
``The best remedy for those who are afraid, lonely or unhappy is to
go outside, somewhere where they can be quiet, alone with the heavens,
nature and God.
Because only then does one feel that all is as it should be and
that God wishes to see people happy, amidst the simple beauty of
nature. I firmly believe that nature brings solace in all troubles.''
Please help us provide places of solace for all Americans. We very
much appreciate your attention to this matter and thank you for the
opportunity to present this statement to the subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Rachel Carson NWR
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee, I am Bill
Durkin, President of the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife
Reserve in Maine. I have been a member of the Friends of Rachel Carson
NWR for the past 20 years. The group was founded in 1987; we are a
small group of about 200 members. This time of the year all of the
letters go out to the Congress asking for support of the refuge. I have
given numerous written statements over the years and we really
appreciate your support in the past. This year, our refuge is not
requesting any appropriations directly for Rachel Carson National
Wildlife Refuge; this is a request for general funding of the National
Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). I thank you all for your consideration.
--We are requesting an overall funding level of $495 million in
fiscal year 2013 for the operations and maintenance budget of
the NWRS, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
This would be level funding from fiscal year 2012. All of the
refuges are in dire need of staffing and upkeep. Refuges
provide unparalleled opportunities to hunt, fish, watch
wildlife, and educate children about the environment. Without
increased funding for refuges, wildlife conservation and public
recreation opportunities will be jeopardized.
--Refuges are vital places for the American people to connect with
nature and get involved. Currently, refuge Friends and
volunteers do approximately 20 percent of all work on refuges.
In 2011, these 1.5 million hours equated to roughly 8
volunteers for every 1 Refuge System employee. Without staff to
oversee volunteers, their commitment and passion is lost, as is
their desperately needed contribution to the System. We request
$80 million for Visitors Services for the NWRS.
--The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is our Nation's premier
Federal program to acquire and protect lands at national parks,
forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails,
and recreational facilities. These sites across the country
provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through
recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving
wildfire management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife
and fisheries to climate change. For all these reasons, LWCF
needs to be funded at the $700 Million level. Created in 1965
and authorized at $900 million per year (more than $3 billion
in today's dollars), the LWCF is our most important land and
easement acquisition tool. The President has included
meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2013
budget, and I support the administration's commitment to fully
funding the program in the near future. This wise investment in
the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to the
American people and to our great natural and historical
heritage.
The LWCF should be fully funded at $900 million annually--the
congressionally authorized level. LWCF is good for the economy, it is
good for America's communities and their recreational access and it is
critical for our public lands.
The Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge is named in honor of one
of the Nation's foremost and forward-thinking biologists. After
arriving in Maine in 1946 as an aquatic biologist for the FWS, Rachel
Carson became entranced with Maine's coastal habitat, leading her to
write the international best seller The Sea Around Us. This landmark
study, led Rachel Carson to become an advocate on behalf of this
Nation's vast coastal habitat and the wildlife that depends on it, the
refuge that bears her name is dedicated to the permanent protection of
the salt marshes and estuaries of the southern Maine coast. This year,
we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of Rachel Carson's
publication of her historic book, Silent Spring.
I again extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing
commitment to our NWRS and respectfully request the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee allocate
$495 million for the Refuge System's fiscal year 2013 Operations &
Maintenance (O&M) budget, $80 million for Visitors Services of the
NWRS, and fund the LWCF at the $700 million level.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony in support of protecting wildlife and its habitat. Enjoy your
next walk out on a National Wildlife Refuge.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge, Inc.
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the
fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. The Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge is a
nonprofit volunteer organization that works to support the 26,400-acre
refuge established in southwest Florida to protect the critically
endangered Florida panther and its habitat.
Refuge managers at the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge are
challenged by a variety of funding shortfalls to fully carry out
habitat restoration, invasive species control, prescribed burning,
baseline and updated inventories, education/interpretation, acquisition
of outparcels and expansion, law enforcement, as well as technical
assistance and collaborative efforts across boundaries with private
land owners. For example, as a result of cuts to the refuge's fire
budget, several fire technician vacancies have not been filled, which
significantly limits burning the desired acreage to maintain and
restore habitat for the Florida panther, its prey and the many other
species found within its natural community.
Understanding the difficult economic realities, we respectfully
request a funding level of $495 million for the Operations and
Maintenance accounts of the National Wildlife Refuge System for fiscal
year 2013 that would essentially maintain the Refuge System at a flat
funding level, given increasing fixed operating costs.
On behalf of our members and supporters, the Friends of the Florida
Panther Refuge thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to offer
comments on the fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill and we appreciate your full consideration
of the aforementioned funding level.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of
Rhode Island
On behalf of the 150 members of the Friends of the National
Wildlife Refuge of Rhode Island as well as our hundreds of volunteers
I, as Chairman of the Friends, write urging you to provide $495 million
of funding for the refuge system in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
Background on Rhode Island Friends Group
In Rhode Island there are five national wildlife refuges
encompassing more than 2,000 acres which present visitors with very
different experiences ranging from the woodlands of the Ninigret NWP
located in Charlestown to a more coastal experience at Sachuest Point
NWR in Middletown, just north of Newport. Trustom Pond NWR in South
Kingstown is unique in that it encompasses a coastal pond, the only one
in our State totally free of shoreline development. The Friends group
serves all three of these refuges as well as the Block Island NWR and
John Chafee at Pettaquamscutt Cove NWR. Each refuge has its own unique
characteristics. Staffing due to the budget constraints has been an
issue and the Kettle Pond (Ninigret) Visitors Center and Sachuest Point
Visitors Center as well as the Trustom Pond Contact Station are only
open on a daily basis due to our dedicated volunteers. Last year more
than 17,000 volunteer hours were recorded helping out at these
locations as well as doing other maintenance and other tasks on the
refuges.
Budget Request for Operations and Maintenance
We request that the Committee provide $495 million in fiscal year
2013 for Refuge System Operations and Maintenance which is about the
same level as provided in fiscal year 2012. Refuges need more than that
but given the current economic and fiscal situation, it is unrealistic
to expect the significant additions needed to properly maintain the
refuges and staffing and management capabilities. The Cooperative
Alliance for Refuge Enhancement estimates that the Refuge System needs
at least $900 million in annual funding to properly administer its 150
million acres and remains committed to aiming for this goal.
The Refuges are vital places for wildlife--ours are all along the
Atlantic Flyway and provide resting and nesting places for more than 80
bird species as well as other wildlife. The Refuges are also places for
the American people to connect with nature and get involved. Currently,
refuge Friends and volunteers do approximately 20 percent of all work
on refuges. In 2011, these 1.5 million hours equated to roughly eight
volunteers for every one Refuge System employee. Without staff to
oversee volunteers, their commitment and passion is lost, as is their
desperately needed contribution to the System. We request $80 million
for Visitors Services for the NWRS.
Land and Water Conservation Fund
We also request that the Congress fund the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $700 million. This Fund, which was created
in 1965 and authorized at $900 million per year (more than $3 billion
in today's dollars), is our most important land and easement
acquisition tool. With more than 8 million acres still unprotected
within existing refuge boundaries, and the need to establish key
wildlife corridors and connections between protected areas, the LWCF is
more important than ever. Here in Rhode Island there are opportunities
to acquire land adjoining existing refuges to further protect the land
and wildlife. Land prices are now at levels not seen in years and the
opportunities to acquire may never happen again so it is urged that the
LWCF be funded. We also request that the Congress support the new
Collaborative Conservation requests of the Departments of the Interior
and Agriculture, bringing together several Federal agencies around a
common goal.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Potomac River Refuges
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
Friends of the Potomac River Refuges and its 136 members, we would like
to thank the subcommittee for their strong support of the National
Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and for giving us the opportunity to
submit testimony. We are a nonprofit volunteer organization whose
purpose is to promote conservation, awareness, and appreciation of the
wildlife and habitats of the Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge
Complex and to provide assistance to Refuge programs. We urge you to
show your continued support of the National Wildlife Refuge System by
approving the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request of $495
million for the operations and maintenance of the world's premier
system of public lands and water set aside to conserve America's fish,
wildlife, and plants. This level of funding will maintain existing
management capabilities.
Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge Complex
The refuges that comprise the Potomac River National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR) Complex are approximately 25 miles from Capitol Hill in
northern Virginia. They border the Occoquan River as it meets the
Potomac River. The complex is made up of three refuges:
--Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck NWR;
--Occoquan Bay NWR; and
--Featherstone NWR.
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck NWR is in Fairfax County, Virginia
and is the oldest and largest refuge within the Complex containing
2,277 acres. Residents of the Mason Neck Peninsula saw the need to
preserve bald eagle habitat and worked with Fish and Wildlife Service
to create the first national wildlife refuge specifically created for
the protection of bald eagles. The newest refuge in the complex is
Occoquan Bay NWR, which was 640 acres of military surplus lands, that
now provides essential habitat for more than 200 species of birds and
has been designated by Audubon as an Important Bird Area. The smallest
refuge in the complex is Featherstone NWR containing 325 acres of marsh
and riverine habitat important to both waterfowl and eagles.
In addition to providing critical habitat for wildlife in an urban
environment the refuges are places where residents and visitors can
enjoy nature and experience the diversity of plants and animals.
Visitors enjoy birding, photography, hiking, hunting, and even biking
and kayaking. Students, whether from surrounding school districts or
those schooled at home, come to the refuges to observe environmental
concepts and gain an appreciation for environmental stewardship. Many a
scouting merit badge has been earned learning about wildlife and
volunteering on a refuge.
Current Challenges and Needs
Even though there were meaningful funding increases to the NWRS in
fiscal years 2008-2010 the Potomac River Refuges still struggle with
the impacts of budget cuts in fiscal year 2006. At that time the staff
was reduced from eight to six full-time employees.
Effects of Fiscal Year 2006 Cuts.--As a result of those budget cuts
two positions were eliminated and have not been replaced. Biological
programs have been generally suspended and maintenance has been
curtailed. Research and investigation on the refuge by graduate and
local universities have mostly been eliminated since there is no staff
available to oversee the programs. Some habitat management is
continuing, however monitoring of the treatments and management actions
are not being conducted.
Maintenance of the 6 miles of trails, 9 miles of roads, and other
facilities has been reduced and delayed. When storm events wash debris
or drop trees across trails or roads they may remain obstructed for
weeks reducing the public's access to the refuge. Maintenance that is
deferred continues to be added to the NWRS's $2.5 billion deferred
maintenance backlog.
Law Enforcement.--The presence of a law enforcement officer has
improved safety. Prior to his arrival the refuges were plagued with
prostitution, homeless camps, poaching, drugs, gangs, and illegal
trespass. These refuges are in an urban area and so they will never be
crime free, but the presence of law enforcement has greatly reduced
illegal activities and improved safety for visitors and wildlife. The
International Association of Chiefs of Police did an analysis of the
NWRS's law enforcements needs in 2005. The Association recommended a
force of 845 full-time officers yet the NWRS only has 246 officers to
protect resources and visitors on the 150-million-acre System. We ask
that you budget $39 million for Refuge Law Enforcement.
Visitor Services.--While more than 1.8 million people live within
20 miles of these refuges in the Washington Metropolitan Area, services
for potential visitors are very limited. The refuges lack the
facilities to greet and orient visitors. For years the Potomac River
Refuges have been on the Service's short list for a visitor/
administration building, yet nothing has happened. NWRS has almost $1
billion worth of construction needs. Staff is currently housed in an
office park miles away from the refuges. Without facilities and
staffing the Service is only able to reach approximately 1 percent of
the surrounding population. Visitor enhancements will provide greater
efficiencies and economic impacts. Refuges that offer a board range of
programs generate more visits, create more jobs, and provide more
income to the local communities.
Volunteer Programs.--Refuges need the staffing and facilities to
draw visitors in, entice them to volunteer, and become stewards of the
refuge and their communities. Friends groups and other volunteers
contribute nearly 20 percent of all the work hours on refuges. At
Potomac, volunteers are picking up trash, mowing, presenting
interpretive programs, organizing festivals, and assisting staff. Could
we do more? Yes, but there are obstacles that prevent volunteer
programs from reaching their full potential. Without staff to oversee
and interact with volunteers, projects are not done and volunteer
retention is difficult. NWRS needs to invest $80 million in visitor
services in order to capitalize on the opportunities to involve the
public in fulfilling its mission.
Challenge Cost Share Program.--The Challenge Cost Share program has
allowed our Friends organization to leverage our time and funds to help
our local refuges complete small-scale projects. We, along with other
partners, have constructed overlooks and sun shelters, created
interpretive signs, hosted festivals, equipped environmental education
programs, and removed invasive species. In 2011 the cost share program
was shelved while reforms could be made. We ask that you re-establish
the Challenge Cost Share program and provide $3.6 million in funding.
The Tale of Two Refuges
Sequestration
The Friends of the Potomac River are very concerned about the
devastating impact across-the-board sequestration cuts of 9-10 percent
in fiscal year 2013 will have on our refuges and the entire NWRS. If
sequestration occurs refuge management estimates there will just enough
funds to pay salaries and utilities. The impacts will affect wildlife
and visitors.
Impacts on Wildlife.--Managing the habitat will be staff's first
goal, however management will not be as effective. The deer population,
which is managed through hunts, will explode. The increased browsing of
the forest floor reduces biodiversity and decreases forest
regeneration. This will affect creatures from chipmunks to the bald
eagles. Invasive animal and plant species will consume native species
and acres of habitat. The Northern Snakehead and other non-native
species will have more opportunity to consume and displace native
species. Mason Neck NWR has the largest blue heron colony in the Mid-
Atlantic. Mile-A-Minute, a very aggressive herbaceous plant, has been
found there and left unchecked it could smother trees that the rookery
depends upon. The grasslands at Occoquan Bay NWR must be burn or mowed
for nesting grassland birds. The burn program was eliminated with the
loss of the biologist, and now the mowing program is in jeopardy.
Impact on Visitors.--If sequestration goes into effect all refuge
led visitor service programs will be eliminated. The part-time visitor
service intern will be released. There will be no ranger led programs,
youth fishing events, festivals at Mason Neck NWR, or scouting
programs. The Fall Festival that the Friends organize will be suspended
because the entire staff is involved the event and there will be no
overtime funds to pay them.
Access to the refuges will be reduced. Trails and roads that are
obstructed by storm events will be closed. There will be no extended
hours during the summer or weekends. Regular trail and road maintenance
will be deferred. Vaulted toilets will be cleaned every few weeks
instead of weekly and portable toilets will be closed.
Friends and other volunteers will not be able to compensate for all
of these loses. To assist with managing the habitat, volunteers need
oversight and training, but there will be no funds to pay for the
training. The Friends organization is willing to expand our
interpretive programs; the challenge will be access, safety, and the
quality of wildlife viewing.
Opportunities To Embrace
The Potomac River Refuges are the epitome of an urban wildlife
refuges. Residential and industrial developments border the refuges.
The surrounding land uses create additional stresses for the refuges
such as stormwater runoff, illegal trespass, and invasive species. But
the surrounding communities provide these refuges and the entire Refuge
System with the exceptional opportunity to engage the public and
increase their awareness of the NWRS and its role in conservation.
In 2011, NWRS created a vision to guide the management of the
System during the next decade and beyond. The new vision seeks to make
wildlife conservation more relevant to the public and engage them in
the NWRS. With 80 percent of Americans now living in urban or suburban
areas, the System is placing special emphasize on helping urban America
connect with and understand the benefits of its wildlife heritage.
What better place to engage the American people than at the Potomac
River Refuges? Increasingly the population has become more racially and
ethnically diverse; in Prince William County less than one-half of the
population is reported as non-Hispanic and of one race. These refuges
have the potential of embracing all Americans and sharing with them our
wildlife heritage.
In Summary
Wildlife Refuges matter to your constituents. Last fall, on a cold
rainy day, we hosted a festival on Occoquan Bay NWR. A young mother and
her four children came and all of them looked unprepared for the
weather. The oldest boy gave me a dollar saying, ``My mother wants you
to have this.'' The family was living in homeless shelter, but that did
not stop this wonderful woman from showing her appreciation for the
natural heritage we all share and demonstrating to her child how
important it is to support it. I hope all of us will follow her
example.
Our members realize that our country is facing difficult economic
times and we must all share in the challenges of the recovery. We thank
you for the meaningful funding increases allowed the NWRS in fiscal
year 2008-2010 that provided stability to our refuges. We respectfully
ask you to support the following funding allocations for the National
Wildlife Refuge System that will allow the NWRS to maintain existing
management capabilities:
--$495 million for the operations and maintenance accounts of the
NWRS including:
--$39 million for refuge law enforcement;
--$80 million for visitor's services;
--$3.8 million for Challenge Cost Share; and
--$37 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service construction account.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of the Refuge Headwaters
Chair and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the Friends of
the Refuge Headwaters (FORH), I am writing regarding the fiscal year
2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
and the impact this bill will have on the Refuge we support: the Upper
Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (Upper Miss
Refuge). We are very proud to be part of the National Wildlife Refuge
System and ask that you support the President's funding proposals for
programs in the NWRS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Below I will begin by briefly describing FORH, the Upper Miss
Refuge, and use of the Refuge by 3.7 million visitors per year. With
respect to the Upper Miss Refuge in particular, I will explain the
importance of the following allocations:
--$495 million for Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of the NWRS. This
includes $80 million for Visitor's Services, and $39 million
for Refuge Law Enforcement.
--$700 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). This
includes $150 million for the NWRS.
--$3.8 million in fiscal year 2013 for Challenge Cost Share (CCS).
The Refuge System has endured significant cuts during the last 2
fiscal years, the cuts reduced an already austere budget, and they have
negatively impacted the people who use the Upper Miss Refuge and who
deeply care about it, as well as the wildlife that is the reason for
the Refuge's existence. I will illustrate this to you below, and show
how additional cuts will have harmful consequences out of proportion to
any money saved by carrying them out. Finally, I will describe how
deeply people care about the Upper Miss Refuge and their commitment to
paying for its proper management.
The Friends of the Refuge Headwaters
The Friends of the Refuge Headwaters is an all-volunteer group that
began in 1997. Our mission is to support the Refuge's goals of
sustaining diverse and abundant wildlife as well as providing
compatible recreation, education, and interpretation to the public. Our
current activities include sponsoring public outings for fishing,
birding, canoeing, planting trees, removing invasive species, surveying
Refuge users, holding public events with expert speakers, monthly
meetings, and advertising and communicating through print, electronic,
and social media. We also seek and write grants to aid the Refuge and
these grants often require challenge cost shares at rates of 10-20
percent. That is why it is so important to provide sufficient funding
for challenge cost shares in the fiscal year 2012 budget: these dollars
will then be multiplied 5-10 times.
The Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
The Refuge winds through 261 miles of the Upper Mississippi River
across four States:
--Minnesota;
--Wisconsin;
--Iowa; and
--Illinois.
It comprises 240,000 acres of bottomland forests, wooded islands,
marshes, backwaters, and upland prairies. It has more than 300 species
of birds, more than 100 species of fish, and more than 50 species of
mammals, as well as 250 bald eagle nests and 5,000 heron and egret
nests. The Refuge is part of one of the four major waterfowl migration
flyways in the United States, where birds must find reliable food,
water, and resting places: during fall migration you can find hundreds
of thousands of waterfowl using the Refuge on a single day.
But the Upper Miss Refuge is not just for wildlife. It's also a
paradise for people. Minnesota is known as the land of 10,000 lakes and
there are just as many lakes in Wisconsin, but not the part of
Minnesota and Wisconsin where I live. We live in the land of the land
of the Mississippi River, and thankfully, the land of the Upper
Mississippi National Wildlife and Fish Refuge.
Public Use of the Upper Miss Refuge
So I will now describe for you how much people use this Refuge and
how deeply they care about it. That's not hard for me to do, because
I'm one of them. I'm out on the Refuge a lot and for many reasons. I
fish year-round, from my boat, shore, or ice, and in the fall I hunt on
the Refuge. You'll find my wife and I on backwaters or pools in our
canoe or kayaks, sometimes with friends, exploring and observing
wildlife. We take walks through the bottomland forest or upland
prairie, on trails, on ice-covered channels in the winter, or on
levees. We walk or drive to observation platforms to watch birds. We
often join with friends to take one or more boats to an island shore
for a picnic. On a warm summer day we may swim at the riverside bathing
beach directly across the river from Winona.
People like us make 3.7 million visits per year to the Refuge to
hunt, fish, watch wildlife, boat, canoe, camp, or just walk. That's
because the Refuge is not put away behind a fence or distant from the
cities that dot the river. It's our backyard. That's why it's so
heavily used by families, schools, colleges, youth groups such as Boy
Scouts and Girl Scouts, and many others. If you drive through my town--
Winona, Minnesota--or through other towns and cities along the river,
you'll see boats on trailers parked in side-yards, driveways, and often
on the street. They're fishing boats with rod holders and trolling
motors, pleasure boats with picnic and swimming gear, or hunting boats
painted camo and surrounded by a cattail fence, or airboats used by
trappers. Inside our garages, in the backyard, or on the side of the
house you'll find canoes and kayaks.
Any week of the year that you go out into the Refuge, you'll find
people:
--a couple of dozen anglers in boats and on shore at a pool below a
dam (the Refuge receives more than 1 million visits annually
for fishing);
--a group of boats pulled up on the sandy beach of an island to swim
and picnic on a summer day (more than 1.3 million visits for
such activities);
--bunches of duck hunters heading out from landings on a fall morning
(300,000 waterfowl hunters); or
--birdwatchers lining the sides of an observation platform (300,000
visit to observe wildlife or for education).
And they're not just in the easy-to-reach places. You've canoed far
back into a remote maze of islands, pulled your ice-fishing sled as far
down a channel as you can stand, or stalked through the forest with
your gun until you may be lost. And you think you're alone. Around the
corner comes another person, maybe doing the same thing you are, but
just as likely there for another reason. But they wouldn't be there if
the Refuge was not.
The Austerity in Which the Upper Miss Refuge Operates
The Refuge is understaffed for many positions and has been for
years. For example, four law enforcement officers patrol 261 miles of
river and 240,000 acres throughout four States with more than 3.7
million visitors. That is an impossible task. Not only is that level of
enforcement inadequate for the safety and protection of visitors and
wildlife, but it is a threat to the officers themselves. The officers
patrol alone and are often far from other enforcement agencies. Imagine
how it feels to cruise toward an isolated island beach at night to
confront 100 intoxicated people--and you're alone. For another example,
two Rangers and four Visitor Services Coordinators plan and carry out
activities with thousands of visitors and must often simply say no to
requests for programs from schools, youth groups, and many others.
Other key positions are simply vacant. The Refuge has 51,000 acres
of floodplain forest but no Forester, getting guidance instead from the
Corps of Engineers Forester. Yet those same forests are declining due
to invasive insects, plants, and trees such the Emerald Ash Tree Borer
beetle, Buckthorn shrub, Oriental Bittersweet vine, and Black Locust
tree. There is likewise no Fisheries Biologist, a position that
provides a crucial link to States. Thus the Refuge has little or no say
in fish management, fishing tournaments, commercial fishing, fishing
seasons, fishing methods, or even catch limits, though fishing is an
extremely popular activity on the Refuge and has large impacts on it.
Even in the face of an advancing threat like Asian Carp, which have
caused severe harm to fish populations and injuries to boaters, the
Refuge can do little. In addition, there is no Private Lands Biologist
to reach out to adjacent private landowners and help them restore fish
and wildlife habitat on their lands through both FWS and USDA programs.
In other cases lack of funding means the Refuge cannot carry out
its obligations. Currently the Refuge has authorized $2.25 million for
land acquisition through the LWCF and has land acquisitions waiting for
either appraisals, signed purchase agreements, or final closing to
fulfill its obligations for these funds. In sum, the Refuge cannot
carry out its own goals and this underscores the need to increase the
operations and maintenance budget.
Consequences of the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Budget Cuts for the Upper
Miss Refuge
The fiscal year 2011 and 2012 cuts have had many negative
consequences, but I will mention just two. First, the Refuge has
reduced the number of people it hired seasonally, most of whom are
young people taking part in the Student Temporary Experience Program
(STEP). As a result, high school and college students lost an important
path for gaining direct on-the-job experience. Second, the Refuge has
reduced its outreach programs for the general public at weekend and
evening events, most often within the communities adjacent to the
Refuge. Not only does this mean less education, interpretation, and
recreation for children and adults, but it also means fewer volunteer
opportunities on the Refuge, fewer contacts between Refuge staff and
volunteers and local citizens and leaders, and a decrease in tourists
who support local economies.
Consequences of a 10-Percent Budget Reduction for the Upper Miss Refuge
The Refuge is understaffed and absorbed cuts in fiscal year 2011
and 2012. To carry out a further cut of 10 percent, the Refuge would
eliminate special hunts for the disabled, youth, and others requiring
special accommodations. All weekend environmental education and
interpretation programs would be eliminated. Visitor centers would not
provide weekend or evening hours for the public. In addition, there
would be reductions in environmental education programs for schools,
weekend outreach/interpretation programs regarding fish and wildlife
and other refuge programs, restoration projects with State and other
Federal agencies, oversight of trust species (bald eagle, endangered
species), and law enforcement including search and rescue operations,
drug enforcement and accident investigations, hunting and fishing
contacts, refuge trespassing, and habitat destruction. Clearly, these
actions will have harmful consequences for wildlife and for the people
who use the Refuge, and they can be avoided.
Economic Benefits of the Upper Miss Refuge
The authors of an economic study that is now 8 years old \1\ found
that the Refuge generated more than $19 million annually in
expenditures and economic value, $98 million in economic output, 1,266
jobs with an income of $21.4 million, and Federal, State and local
taxes of $10.4 million. Given the importance of Refuge to the economies
in four States and in the lives of the several million people who use
it, the budgets for the two refuges is remarkably small. So funding of
the Refuge has huge leverage. That's one of the reasons why reducing
the budget will have such large negative consequences and increasing
the budget would have similarly large positive consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Caudill, J. 2004a. The Economic Effects of the Upper
Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge: Baseline and
Effects of Alternatives. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington,
Virginia. 32 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Commitment to the Upper Miss Refuge
The people who use it have strong feelings about the Upper Miss
Refuge. We truly care, because it's a big part of our lives. That
Refuge is part of our regional heritage, just as the National Wildlife
Refuge System is part of our national heritage. We also have strong
expectations for it. We want it taken care of so that it's there not
just for us, but also for our children and grandchildren and beyond.
When people in this region learned last month that all three species of
Asian carp had been caught in the river in one day by commercial
fishermen, we were scared, depressed, and to be honest, angry. Because
those fish threaten the Refuge that we care about so much, we saw that
threat coming years ago, and there was a failure to address it.
We're also willing to pay for management of the Refuge. In 2008, by
statewide referendum, Minnesotans voted by a large margin to increase
our sales tax by three-eighths of 1 percent for three decades. 80
percent of the new revenues are dedicated to protecting, restoring, and
improving wildlife habitat, surface waters and ground water, and parks
and trails. Iowans passed a similar amendment in 2010, but are waiting
on their Legislature to put their wishes into action. I'm confident the
voters of Wisconsin would do the same if they had the opportunity, as
would the voters of many other States. We Americans care deeply about
our lands, waters, and wildlife. Doing so is a proud part of our
history, as evidenced by more than a century of commitment to our
National Wildlife Refuge System. We ask that you carry on this
tradition.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
Refuges, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the 152
members of the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges,
including Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Passage Key NWR,
and Pinellas NWR, I would like to thank you for your commitment to the
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) through increased funding over
the past few years. We realize that in this time of budget cuts, it may
be difficult to justify increasing the NWRS funding, but once the
Refuges start to decline it will cost many times more than these small
increases to return them to a condition that will fulfill their
mandates. We respectfully request that you consider the following in
your appropriations:
--Fund the National Wildlife Refuge System $495 million in fiscal
year 2013, essentially keeping level funding from fiscal year
2012;
--Fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $700 million
for fiscal year 2013;
--Fund Visitor Services for the NWRS at $80 million for fiscal year
2013; and
--Support $3.8 million in fiscal year 2013 for Challenge Cost Share
(CCS).
The Tampa Bay Refuges are located at the mouth of Tampa Bay on the
west central gulf coast of Florida. The budget increases in the past
few years have meant increased management, protection, and restoration
of the Refuges and the ability to better meet the Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) goals. In 2008 the Tampa Bay Refuges (TBRs) had
one staff person who was split duty manager/law enforcement. Because of
the incremental increases to the Refuge budgets over the last few
years, the TBRs have a full-time manager and a law enforcement officer
every weekend during the summer nesting season. Due to those past
increases in budget and personnel the TBRs are able to do long range
planning for big picture issues such as erosion and increased public
use. With decreases in budget, these will fall by the wayside and the
wildlife will have a degraded or useless habitat. Egmont Key NWR has
the Fort Dade Guardhouse that has been restored and will become the
visitor center. The Refuge has grant money to fund the first phase of
the displays. If the budgets are cut, staff may not have time to
oversee construction of the center displays or to keep the center open
to the public. This will compromise outreach and education goals for
the TBRs. The TBR's have made small steps to begin to control the
invasive plants and animals that threaten the native species. If there
are budget cuts there will be less money for facilities maintenance
which will then cost more to restore in the future. If the TBRs were to
again lose ground on their budgets they may not be able to meet many of
their CCP goals. Please consider keeping the operations and management
budget at $495 million for fiscal year 2013.
The Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges (FTBNWR) was
incorporated and became a 501(c)(3) in 2008 to better assist the Tampa
Bay National Wildlife Refuges with volunteers and fundraising. In 2011
FTBNWR was able to provide 3,800 hours of volunteer hours to assist the
refuge staff with exotic invasive control, refuge cleanups, and
education. FTBNWR has been able to raise funds to remove invasive
raccoons on the Pinellas Refuges that prevent birds from nesting and
eat eggs laid by the Terrapin turtles that reside there. The Friends
also started an Education Program to provide outdoor environmental
educational programs at our local schools for grades K-5 and also
environmental field trips to nearby preserves to teach our fourth and
fifth graders about the NWRS and the environment. We also provide bird
stewards on Egmont Key NWR during the summer nesting season to enhance
the visitors experience on the refuge through education and an up close
look at the birds through spotting scopes. Our refuges do not have
enough staff to provide these education programs so we have stepped up
as volunteers. Our volunteers are passionate about the Refuge System
and donate their time, money, and expertise to protect them.
--The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) estimates
that the NWRS needs a budget of at least $900 million annually
in operation and maintenance funding in order to properly
administer its 150 million acres as mandated in the Refuge
Improvement Act. The current budget is far short of the amount
actually required to effectively operate and maintain the
Refuges. In this time of tightening budgets, we respectfully
request that you keep the NWRS budget at the same level as
fiscal year 2012 ($495 million) so that the Refuges do not
backslide even further in protecting these valuable lands and
ecosystems.
--LWCF was created in 1965 and authorized at $900 million. We ask
that you fund the LWCF at $700 million for fiscal year 2013.
These funds are used for land acquisition to protect wildlife
and their habitats. With the effects of a changing climate, it
is more important now than ever to establish key wildlife
corridors between protected areas so wildlife can migrate to
more suitable habitat as their historic ones changes. These
landscape level conservation efforts through conservation
easements and land purchases are the best way to protect the
diversity of flora and fauna. The price of real estate is low
at this time and the $700 million can go much further in
protecting habitats than it can in a higher market. When we
start to lose species due to lack of food, water, shelter, or
space, we are changing the balance of nature. We urge you to
fund the LWCF at $700 million for fiscal year 2013. The LWCF is
not funded by taxpayer money.
--The refuges give the American people places to connect with nature
and get involved. In 2011 refuge Friends and volunteers
contributed 1.5 million hours of work for the refuge system.
This is about eight volunteers for every one refuge system
employee. These Friends and volunteers do approximately 20
percent of all work on refuges for free. Without a refuge
system employee to guide them, the volunteers can't perform
these valuable free services. We request $80 million for
Visitors Services for the NWRS.
--Please support the Challenge Cost Share (CCS) with $3.8 million in
fiscal year 2013. Partners are the key to successful
conservation. The Federal Government doesn't need to foot the
bill alone. Through programs that leverage Federal dollars
(such as the CCS program), partner organizations such as our
Refuge Friends groups can get matching dollars from other
entities to give the American taxpayers more for their dollars.
Projects such as trails, education, boardwalks, and habitat
restoration give the American public places to connect with
nature and relax.
The Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges is one of
230 Friends groups who support the National Wildlife Refuges. The
interest in our NWRS is significant and we are proving it with our
donated time and funds.
In conclusion, the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
Refuges believes NWRS can meet its important conservation objectives
only with strong and consistent funding leveraged by the valuable work
of refuge staff and volunteers. We again extend our appreciation to the
subcommittee for its ongoing commitment to our NWRS. We encourage you
to approve a $495 million for the fiscal year 2013 NWRS operations and
maintenance budget managed by FWS and to approve $700 million for
fiscal year 2013 for the LWCF land acquisition budget as well as
funding refuge Visitor Services at $80 million and the CCS at $3.8
million.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Virgin Islands National Park
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2013
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial public benefits
including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural, historical and recreation heritage. As LWCF is funded from
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these
funds should go to their intended and authorized use as a conservation
offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
As part of the LWCF request in fiscal year 2013, the National Park
Service (NPS) included $2.738 million for the acquisition of land at
Virgin Islands National Park. I am pleased that this funding was
included in the request and urge the Congress to provide necessary
funds for LWCF for this important project.
Virgin Islands National Park, located on the island of St. John, is
a tropical paradise preserved for the enjoyment and edification of the
public. Beautiful white sand beaches, protected bays of crystal blue-
green waters, coral reefs rich in colorful aquatic life, and an on-
shore environment filled with a breathtaking variety of plants and
birds make St. John a magical place for visitors. More than 800 species
of trees, shrubs, and flowers are found in the park, and more than 30
species of tropical birds breed on the island, which was designated a
Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations in 1976. St. John is also home
to two species of endangered sea turtles, the hawksbill and the green.
In addition, the park contains archeological sites indicating
settlement by Indians as early as 770 B.C. The later colonial history
of St. John is also represented by remnants of the plantations and
sugar mills established by the Danes in the 18th and 19th centuries.
One of St. John's most popular eco-campgrounds sits on a cliff
overlooking Maho Bay and its pristine white sand beaches. The bay's
campgrounds create memorable vacations in the beautiful setting of St.
John without sacrificing the delicate ecosystem of the island. Few
places on Earth match the breathtaking beauty of Maho Bay. Its crystal
waters and soft white beaches are rimmed by a lush forested slope
rising 11,086 feet. Hundreds of tropical plant species and more than 50
species of tropical birds fill these lands on the island of St. John,
at the heart of the American paradise of Virgin Islands National Park.
Just offshore are seagrass beds, green and hawksbill turtles, and
magnificent coral reefs. This fragile area contains large nesting
colonies of brown pelicans, as well as the migratory warblers and terns
that winter on St. John. In addition to its natural treasures, the
largest concentration of historic plantations and ruins on the island
is found within this area.
Maho Bay is an important destination for visitors to St. John. The
popular Maho Bay Camps are adjacent to the lands being acquired by NPS,
and protection of Estate Maho Bay is key to maintaining the character
and appeal of this area. Visitors to Maho Bay often come back again and
again because of the unspoiled natural beauty of these lands. The
Department of the Interior recently reported that in 2010 visitors to
Virgin Islands NP spent more than $61 million in the surrounding
community. This spending supported 1,084 local jobs. Major U.S. air
carriers bring an average of 11,000 visitors to St. Thomas/St. John
each week. Overall, tourism accounts for 80 percent of the U.S. Virgin
Islands' GDP and employment.
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2013 is the final phase of
a 205-acre acquisition of land overlooking Maho Bay within the Virgin
Islands National Park boundaries. The property offers spectacular views
of the bay and extends the amount of publicly owned beachfront at Maho
Bay. This property, known as Estate Maho Bay, is extremely important
because it connects the southern and northern sections of the national
park and will preserve significant natural and cultural resources. The
land was historically used during the plantation era for agricultural
activities such as sugar cane, coconut, and cotton cultivation. With
increasing growth and investment throughout the Caribbean--including
places not far from the unspoiled beauty of St. John--these vulnerable
lands have become the focus of intense development threats. In recent
years, more than one investor has envisioned private development along
these shores, which would jeopardize the unique character of Maho Bay
and the visitors' experience of the park.
Estate Maho Bay was originally 419 acres owned by 11 interests,
only 3 of which had been acquired by NPS. Following years of litigation
and negotiation, The Trust for Public Land (TPL), using philanthropic
support in the form of a loan, obtained seven of the remaining
interests. A partition of the property was approved. NPS received 114
acres as its share, and approximately 100 acres will remain in private
hands, although most of these will have strict covenants to prevent
incompatible building and uses. TPL is in the process of conveying the
remaining 205 acres to the Virgin Islands National Park. In fiscal year
2013, 74 acres will remain for NPS to acquire.
Recognizing the need to protect this unique property, over the past
3 years the Congress and two different presidential administrations
have allocated a total of $6.75 million to the Park Service for Estate
Maho Bay. This year, $2.25 million is needed from the LWCF to complete
the purchase of the property. TPL will convey these lands to NPS at a
significant discount made possible by private donations. The estimated
value of the 205 acres is $18.6 million.
The 205-acre Estate Maho Bay project has been made available to NPS
for $9 million. The appraised value of these lands is $20.5 million,
more than twice the purchase price. An additional 18 acres of land on
Mamey Peak, overlooking the ongoing Estate Maho Bay project, have been
donated by The Trust for Public Land to the Virgin Islands National
Park. Because of the generosity of TPL's donors, NPS is receiving 223
acres valued at more than $29.5 million for only $9 million, truly a
remarkable example of the public-private partnerships that NPS seeks to
promote.
This acquisition will ensure continued public access to the beach,
protect ecologically and historically significant land from
development, and connect two separate sections of the national park. In
fiscal year 2013, a total of $2.25 million is needed from the Land and
Water Conservation for NPS to complete the acquisition of this
outstanding property in Virgin Islands National Park.
In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the LWCF of $450
million, as proposed in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget,
including critical funding for Virgin Islands National Park. I want to
thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and I appreciate your
consideration of this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am submitting
testimony on behalf of Friends of Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge.
(Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge is the Headquarters for the 9
refuges in the Long Island National Wildlife Complex in New York.) We
ask that you fund the National Wildlife Refuge System operations and
maintenance (O&M) accounts at $495 million in the fiscal year 2013;
which is essentially level funding from fiscal year 2012. We estimate
that refuges would need at least $527 million in fiscal year 2013 to
maintain management capabilities from fiscal year 2010; this request
would only maintain status quo at current funding levels. The current
Federal salary freeze still leaves Refuges needing at least $8 million
to absorb other fixed costs. The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement (CARE) estimates that the Refuge System needs at least $900
million in annual funding to properly administer its 150 million acres
and remains committed to accomplishing this goal. It is of the utmost
importance that our Nation protects and enhances our National Wildlife
Refuge System for future generations.
Economically, according to the Banking on Nature report produced by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2006, Federal spending on refuges
offers a 4 to 1 return to local economies. Every $1 you appropriate
generates $4 in local economic activity and in many cases it's much
more. This makes an fiscal year 2013 appropriation of $495 a ``win-
win'' for the habitat and wildlife, for educational opportunities, for
visitors and for the local economies of the communities surrounding our
refuges.
Friends of Wertheim NWR feels that the National Wildlife Refuge
System deserves $495 million in Federal funding for fiscal year 2013
because U.S. Fish and Wildlife is the Federal agency charged with
conserving, protecting and enhancing the Nation's fish, wildlife and
plants for the continuing benefit of the American people. Another top
priority of the Service is connecting people with nature: ensuring the
future of conservation. While there is no doubt that our public lands
need to be managed through community partnerships/community resources,
the Federal Government should be the catalyst in making this happen.
When the funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System is
compared to the entire national spending it is not even a ``blip on the
radar screen''. The National Wildlife Refuge System is one of our
``National Treasures'' and the dedicated Refuge staff, Friends and
volunteers do much with very little. Only by being ``faithful
stewards'' of all of the National Wildlife Refuges in the United States
will we ensure that they will be here for our children and our
children's children. This is why we ask that you support our National
Wildlife Refuge System with adequate funding, $495 million for fiscal
year 2013.
Friends of Wertheim NWR also ask that you:
--Provide $80 million in funding for Refuge System Visitor Services
programs. Visitor Services funding pays for many Friends and
volunteer programs. Currently, refuge Friends and volunteers do
approximately 20 percent of all the work on refuges. Staff is
needed to oversee the volunteers. The $80 million in funding
will allow all of the Friends groups to remain effective
stewards of our refuge and offer programs to get more people
outdoors in nature.
--Please support $3.8 million for Challenge for Cost Share (CCS).
Partners are the key to successful conservation; no Federal or
State agency can do it alone. Therefore, we support programs
that leverage Federal dollars such as the CCS Program. Partner
organizations such as the Friends groups leverage these funds
and it gives taxpayers more ``bang for their buck'' for
projects like trails, boardwalks and habitat restoration.
--We ask that you fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at
$700 million. LWCF was created in 1965 and authorized at $900
million per year; which would be more than $3 billion in
today's dollars. LWCF is our most important land and easement
acquisition tool. There are more than 8 million acres still
unprotected within existing refuge boundaries and there is a
need to establish key wildlife corridors and connections
between protected areas making LWCF more important than ever.
Last but not least, please support the new Collaborative
Conservation requests of the Department of the Interior and
Agriculture, bringing together several Federal agencies around a common
goal.
On behalf of Friends of Wertheim NWR thank you for your
consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America
The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges the Congress to fully
fund the fiscal year 2013 request for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
and restore cuts in the request to key programs, including the Mineral
Resources Program, the Water Resources Research Act, and the National
Water Quality Assessment Methods Development and Monitoring program. As
one of our Nation's key science agencies, the USGS plays a vital role
in understanding and documenting mineral and energy resources,
researching and monitoring potential natural hazards, monitoring
effects of climate change, and determining and assessing water
availability and quality. These issues are truly some of society's
greatest challenges. Despite the critical role played by the USGS,
funding for the Survey has stagnated in real dollars for more than a
decade. Given the importance of the many activities of the Survey that
protect lives and property for natural hazards, stimulate innovations
that fuel the economy, provide national security, and enhance the
quality of life, sustained, steady growth in Federal funding for the
Survey is necessary for the well being of our Nation.
The Geological Society of America, founded in 1888, is a scientific
society with more than 25,000 members from academia, government, and
industry in all 50 States and more than 90 countries. Through its
meetings, publications, and programs, GSA advances the geosciences,
enhances the professional growth of its members, and promotes the
geosciences in the service of humankind. GSA encourages cooperative
research among Earth, life, planetary, and social scientists, fosters
public dialogue on geoscience issues, and supports all levels of earth
science education.
Broader Impacts of the U.S. Geological Survey
The USGS is one of the Nation's premier science agencies.
Approximately 70 percent of the USGS budget is allocated for research
and development. In addition to underpinning the science activities of
the Department of the Interior, this research is used by communities
across the Nation to assist in land use planning, emergency response,
natural resource management, engineering, and education. USGS research
addresses many of society's greatest challenges, including natural
hazards, mineral and energy resources, climate change, and water
availability and quality.
--Natural hazards--including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic
eruptions, floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes--are a
major cause of fatalities and economic losses worldwide. Recent
natural disasters provide unmistakable evidence that the United
States remains vulnerable to staggering losses. 2011 was a
record year for natural disasters in the United States, with 12
separate $1 billion weather/climate disasters, breaking the
previous mark of $9 billion weather/climate disasters in 1
year, which occurred in 2008. The combined historic and recent
geologic records demonstrate that several areas in the United
States will continue to experience major earthquake and/or
volcanic activity in the future. An improved scientific
understanding of geologic hazards will reduce future losses
through better forecasts of their occurrence and magnitude, and
allow for better planning and mitigation in these areas. GSA
urges the Congress to increase funding for the USGS to
modernize and upgrade its natural hazards monitoring and
warning systems and support the proposed increases for early
warning systems in the budget request.
--Energy and mineral resources are critical to national security and
economic growth. Improved scientific understanding of these
resources will allow for their more economic and environmental
management and utilization. USGS is the sole Federal
information source on mineral potential, production, and
consumption. USGS assessments of mineral and energy resources--
including those that have recently become of greater and
greater importance (such as unconventional natural gas and
geothermal resources)--are essential for making informed
decisions about the Nation's future. Therefore, we are greatly
concerned about the proposed $5 million cut in mineral
resources and its effect on the ability of our Nation to safely
develop new resources.
--Many emerging energy technologies--such as wind turbines and solar
cells--depend on rare Earth elements and critical minerals that
currently lack diversified sources of supply. China accounts
for 95 percent of world production of rare Earth elements
(USGS, 2010). The increases proposed for rare Earth research at
USGS will help ease our dependence on these foreign sources.
--Improved understanding of geologic processes across Earth's history
can increase our confidence in the ability to predict future
climate States and long-term ecological changes and thus
enhance the prospects for mitigating or adapting to adverse
impacts. USGS research on climate impacts is used by the
Department of the Interior and local partners to make informed
land-use decisions.
--The devastating droughts in 2011 reminded us of our dependence on
water. The availability and quality of surface water and
groundwater are vital to the well being of both society and
ecosystems. Greater scientific understanding of these
resources--and communication of new insights by geoscientists
in formats useful to decision makers--is necessary to ensure
adequate and safe water resources for the future. The
establishment of a National Groundwater Monitoring Network will
expand our understanding of this critical resource.
--The budget request proposes a $13 million increase at USGS for
hydraulic fracturing research as part of a joint effort with
the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection
Agency. The USGS would play a critical role in this endeavor to
better understand and minimize the environmental, health, and
safety impacts of hydraulic fracturing. The USGS research will
focus on better understanding induced seismicity, water
quality, and creating an atlas of shale resources.
Research in Earth science is also fundamental to training and
educating the next generation of Earth science professionals. A recent
study, Status of the Geoscience Workforce 2011, by the American
Geosciences Institute found:
``The supply of newly trained geoscientists falls short of
geoscience workforce demand and replacement needs. According to the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics there were a total of 262,627 U.S.
geoscientist jobs in 2008, and in 2018, the projected number of U.S.
geoscientist jobs will be 322,683, a 23 percent increase. These
projections do not include replacements due to attrition . . . With
this adjustment, aggregate job projections are expected to increase by
35 percent between 2008 and 2018 . . . . The majority of geoscientists
in the workforce are within 15 years of retirement age. Even in oil and
gas companies, which typically offer the highest salaries of all
geoscience employing industries, the supply of new geoscientists is
short of replacement needs. By 2030, the unmet demand for geoscientists
in the petroleum industry will be approximately 13,000 workers for the
conservative demand industry estimate.''
Science and technology are engines of economic prosperity,
environmental quality, and national security. Federal investments in
research pay substantial dividends. According to the National
Academies' report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' (2007),
``Economic studies conducted even before the information-technology
revolution have shown that as much as 85 percent of measured growth in
U.S. income per capita was due to technological change.'' Likewise, the
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by
Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, said: ``We must invest in education,
infrastructure, and high-value research and development to help our
economy grow, keep us globally competitive, and make it easier for
businesses to create jobs.'' Earth science is a critical component of
the overall science and technology enterprise. Growing support for
Earth science in general and the U.S. Geological Survey in particular
are required to stimulate innovations that fuel the economy, provide
security, and enhance the quality of life.
GSA supports the efforts of USGS, NASA, NOAA, and OSTP to examine a
future path forward for the Landsat satellites that maintains funding
for other key programs within USGS. The Landsat satellites have amassed
the largest archive of remotely sensed land data in the world, a
tremendously important resource for natural resource exploration, land
use planning, and assessing water resources, the impacts of natural
disasters, and global agriculture production.
Budget Shortfalls
GSA supports the fiscal year 2013 budget request for the U.S.
Geological Survey and the increases provided for key areas such as
hydraulic fracturing research, early earthquake warning, and
establishing a National Groundwater Monitoring Network. However, we are
concerned about cuts in some programs and ask that these areas be
restored. Some proposed cuts of concern in the budget request include:
--$6.5 million for Water Resources Research Act Program;
--$6 million for National Water Quality Assessment methods,
development, and monitoring;
--$5 million for the Cooperative Water Program interpretive studies;
--$5 million for the Mineral Resources Program;
--$3.3 million for hydrologic networks and analysis information
management and delivery; and
--$2 million for toxic substances hydrology methods development and
assessments.
We urge the Congress to support the fiscal year 2013 budget request
and restore these and other detrimental cuts. We recognize the
financial challenges facing the Nation, but losing irreplaceable data
can increase costs to society in the long term.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about USGS. GSA
is grateful to Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies for its leadership in strengthening
the USGS over many years. For additional information or to learn more
about the Geological Society of America--including GSA Position
Statements on water resources, mineral and energy resources, climate
change, natural hazards, and public investment in Earth science
research--please visit www.geosociety.org or contact Kasey White at
[email protected].
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission
Bureau of Indian Affairs Great Lakes Area Resource Management:
$6,367,000
Fiscal year 2013 requested allocation within the administration's
fiscal year 2013 Rights Protection Implementation request in the amount
of $32,645,000.
Agency/Program Line Item.--Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Operation of Indian Programs, Trust-Natural Resources
Management, Rights Protection Implementation, Great Lakes Area Resource
Management.
Funding Authorizations.--Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. 13; Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act, (Public Law 93-638), 25
U.S.C. 450f and 450h; and the treaties between the United States and
GLIFWC's member Ojibwe Tribes, specifically Treaty of 1836, 7 Stat.
491, Treaty of 1837, 7 Stat. 536, Treaty of 1842, 7 Stat. 591, and
Treaty of 1854, 10 Stat. 1109.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The rights guaranteed by these treaties, and the associated
tribal regulatory and management responsibilities have been affirmed by
various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Indian Affairs Contract Support: $228 Million
Agency/Program Line Item.--Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Operation of Indian Programs, Tribal Government.
Funding Authorization.--Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act, (Public Law 93-638), 25 U.S.C. 450f and 450h.
Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes Restoration: $300 million.
Tribal Need: $25 million. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission Need: $1.2 Million (Estimated Annual Need).
Agency/Program Line Item.--Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Programs and Management, Geographic Programs, Great Lakes
Restoration.
Funding Authorizations.--Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1268(c); and
treaties cited above.
GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION'S GOAL--A SECURE
FUNDING BASE TO FULFILL TREATY PURPOSES
For more than 25 years, the Congress has funded GLIFWC to meet
nondiscretionary treaty obligations and associated Federal court
orders. This funding has allowed GLIFWC to implement comprehensive
conservation, natural resource protection, and law enforcement programs
that ensure member tribes are able to exercise their treaty reserved
rights to hunt, fish, and gather throughout the ceded territories, and
that ensure a healthy and sustainable natural resource base to support
those rights. These programs also provide a wide range of public
benefits and assure full participation in management partnerships in
Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota.
GLIFWC and its member tribes would like to take this opportunity to
thank Congress, and specifically this subcommittee, for its strong
support of these treaty obligations. In fiscal year 2012, the Congress
increased its support for treaty rights protection and the
administration followed suit by more fully supporting these treaty
obligations in its fiscal year 2013 request. GLIFWC recently estimated
the full cost of its program at approximately $9,870,000, including:
--$5,434,000 provided in fiscal year 2012 through the RPI line item;
--approximately $1,800,000 provided by grants and other ``soft''
funding in fiscal year 2012; and
--$2,636,000 in unmet needs.
Funding at the proposed fiscal year 2013 level would begin to
address these unmet needs. For more detail, the three elements of this
fiscal year 2013 funding request are:
Bureau of Indian Affairs Great Lakes Area Management:
$6,367,000.--This program falls within the Rights Protection
Implementation (RPI) line item, which is proposed at
$32,645,000 in fiscal year 2013. Funds provided to GLIFWC under
the RPI program ensure that GLIFWC's member tribes continue to
comply with Federal court orders by ensuring effective
implementation of tribal self-regulatory and co-management
systems.
In previous fiscal years, GLIFWC has testified about chronic
underfunding of the Rights Protection Implementation line item
and the impacts of that underfunding on GLIFWC's programs. In
fiscal year 2010, the Congress recognized this threat and
provided a much-needed increase in support. Following
congressional lead, the administration has incorporated and
supplemented that increase in its fiscal year 2013 proposal.
The funding provided through the Great Lakes Area Resource
Management line item in fiscal year 2010 allowed GLIFWC to
restore some program cuts. Funding at the proposed fiscal year
2013 level would enable GLIFWC to meet even more of its program
needs, including funding for research and assessments of
threats to the ceded territories and for conservation
enforcement officers.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Contract Support: $228 Million.--GLIFWC
supports the $228 million proposed for Contract Support. This
amount would meet the needs identified in the most recent
Contract Support Shortfall Report to fully fund this account,
which provides funds to meet costs incurred in fulfilling
administrative requirements that are mandated when operating
programs, including costs for accounting, personnel
administration, and property management. Rectifying this
chronic underfunding will allow GLIFWC to direct scarce
resources toward restoring program cuts and service capacity.
Environmnetal Protection Agency Environmental Programs and
Management: $300 Million.--GLIFWC supports continued funding
for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) at no less
than the administration's proposed fiscal year 2013 level of
$300 million. It also recommends that at least $25 million be
provided to the BIA for tribes, to ensure they are able to
undertake local projects that contribute to the protection and
restoration of the Great Lakes.
Sustained funding for GLIFWC at approximately $1.2 million will
enable GLIFWC to retain jobs created through this program, to fully
implement projects it undertook to meet the goals of the GLRI, and to
meaningfully participate in the decisionmaking processes that will
affect the treaty rights of its member tribes.
Funding provided through the BIA should be made available under the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). In
2010, GLRI funding awarded through the ISDEAA was virtually the only
GLRI funding that was available before the 2010 field season. This
enabled tribes to begin project implementation much earlier and realize
substantial, early ``on-the-ground'' ecosystem benefits.
CEDED TERRITORY TREATY RIGHTS--GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE
COMMISSION'S GOAL'S ROLE AND PROGRAMS
Established in 1984, GLIFWC is a natural resources management
agency of 11 member Ojibwe Tribes with resource management
responsibilities over their ceded territory (off-reservation) hunting,
fishing and gathering treaty rights. These ceded territories extend
over a 60,000 square mile area that extends to Minnesota, Wisconsin,
and Michigan.
Through its staff of 65 full-time biologists, scientists,
technicians, conservation enforcement officers, policy specialists, and
public information specialists, GLIFWC's mission is to:
--ensure that its member tribes are able to exercise their Treaty-
protected rights to meet subsistence, economic, cultural,
medicinal, and spiritual needs; and
--ensure a healthy, sustainable natural resource base to support
those rights. GLIFWC is a ``tribal organization'' as defined by
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act,
governed by a Constitution that is ratified by its member
tribes and by a Board composed of the Chairs of those tribes.
justification and use of the requested funds
With the requested stable funding base, GLIFWC will:
Maintain the Requisite Capabilities To Meet Legal Obligations, To
Conserve Natural Resources, and To Regulate Treaty Harvests.--
Although it does not meet all GLIFWC's needs, sustained funding
at the fiscal year 2013 level would go a long way in
facilitating continued tribal compliance with various court
decrees and intergovernmental agreements governing the tribes'
treaty-reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights. It also
enhances GLIFWC's capability to undertake work and participate
in relevant partnerships to tackle ecosystem threats that harm
treaty natural resources, including invasive species, habitat
degradation and climate change.
Remain a Trusted Environmental Management Partner and Scientific
Contributor in the Great Lakes Region.--With the requested EPA
funding base, GLIFWC would maintain its role as a trusted
environmental management partner and scientific contributor in
the Great Lakes Region. It would bring a tribal perspective to
the interjurisdictional mix of Great Lakes managers \2\ and
would use its scientific expertise to study issues and
geographic areas that are important to its member tribes but
that others may not be examining.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GLIFWC currently participates on a regular basis in the
Binational Program to Restore and Protect Lake Superior, International
Joint Commission and SOLEC forums, the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative, and the implementation of agreements to regulate water
diversions and withdrawals under the Great Lakes Charter, Annex 2001.
\3\ With the requested fiscal year 2013 funds, GLIFWC would:
-- continue a ceded territory wild rice enhancement project;
-- facilitate tribal input and participation in the
implementation of the revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
-- continue to participate in the development and implementation
of the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan;
-- build upon its longstanding fish contaminant analysis and
consumption advisory program by testing additional species, testing in
a wider geographic range, and testing for chemicals of emerging
concern;
-- enhance its invasive species and animal disease prevention,
monitoring and mitigation programs, particularly given the potential
impacts of climate change, the recent discovery of viral hemorrhagic
septicemia (VHS) in Lake Superior and the potential migration of the
Asian Carp into the Great Lakes; and
-- enhance its capacity to protect ceded territory natural
resources by responding to development proposals such as those related
to mining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintain the Overall Public Benefits That Derive From Its
Programs.--Over the years, GLIFWC has become a recognized and
valued partner in natural resource management. Because of its
institutional experience and staff expertise, GLIFWC has built
and maintained numerous partnerships that:
--provide accurate information and data to counter social
misconceptions about tribal treaty harvests and the status
of ceded territory natural resources;
--maximize each partner's financial resources and avoid duplication
of effort and costs;
--engender cooperation rather than competition; and
--undertake projects and achieve public benefits that no one
partner could accomplish alone.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For example, on March 14, 2012, U.S. District Judge Barbara B.
Crabb sentenced Norberto Burciago to 10 years in Federal prison for his
involvement in a conspiracy to manufacture marijuana in the
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. The ``grow'' was discovered by
hunters, monitored by law enforcement, and raided by more than 200 law
enforcement officers from a dozen local, State, and Federal agencies,
including 9 officers from the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER RELATED APPROPRIATIONS CONCERNS
Support for the Bureau of Indian Affairs Conservation Law
Enforcement Officers.--GLIFWC supports BIA's proposal to provide
$500,000 in fiscal year 2013 to support conservation officers like
those employed by GLIFWC. This program will assist tribal conservation
enforcement programs in protecting and monitoring natural resources
both on and off-reservation.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland &
Waterfowl Initiative.--GLIFWC supports BIA funding of the Circle of
Flight Tribal Wetland & Waterfowl Enhancement Initiative for Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The Circle of Flight program is a
longstanding tribal contribution to the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan that has leveraged matching partnership funding on a 3
to 1 ratio. In 2010, this program was awarded a Department of the
Interior ``Partners in Conservation'' Award.
______
Prepared Statement of the Green Mountain Club
As Director of Conservation for the Green Mountain Club, the
nonprofit organization which maintains the Long Trail, the Nation's
oldest long-distance hiking trail, I appreciate the opportunity to
present this testimony in support of the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) in
the fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. The President's budget for this year recommended
$60 million for FLP. The FLP works with landowners, the States, and
other partners to protect critical forestlands with important economic,
recreation, water quality, and habitat resources through conservation
easement and fee acquisitions. The program has protected more than 2
million acres in 43 States and territories, consistently with a 50-
percent non-Federal cost share, double the required 25-percent cost
share. For several years this important conservation program has been
funded under the umbrella of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF), which as a whole received $450 million in the budget request.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation's premier
Federal program to acquire and protect lands at national parks,
forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and
recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the
public with substantial public benefits including promoting healthier
lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking water and
watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting wildlife and
fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also support jobs, tourism and
economic vitality across our communities.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in the Forest
Legacy Program will permanently pay dividends to the American people
and to our great natural, historic and recreational heritage. As LWCF
is funded from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, not taxpayer
dollars, these funds should go to their intended and authorized use as
a conservation offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and
gas resources.
As part of the FLP request in fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Forest
Service included an allocation of $2.72 million for the Northern Green
Mountains Linkage project in Vermont. I am pleased that this funding
was included in the request and urge the Congress to provide necessary
funds for FLP for this important project.
The Forest Legacy Program in Vermont seeks to achieve significant
conservation goals for the State by protecting the following types of
land:
--large contiguous and productive forest blocks;
--wildlife habitats dependent on large contiguous forest blocks;
--threatened and endangered species habitat;
--State fragile areas and undeveloped shoreline, significant
wetlands; and
--important recreational corridors.
Sustainable timber harvesting is also critical; the annual
contribution of forest products, forest-based manufacturing, and
forest-related recreation to Vermont's economy is more than $2.6
billion. All tracts are well suited for development of large estate
lots or subdivisions due to the extensive road frontage, gentle
terrain, scenic value, and proximity to ski resorts and urban areas.
The 5,768-acre Northern Green Mountains Linkage project is situated
on the spine of the Northern Green Mountains in Lamoille and Orleans
Counties, and will protect managed and productive timberland as well as
16 miles of streams, several rare species, and high-quality wildlife
habitat. Using fee and easement acquisitions, the project will link
68,300 acres of conserved lands, including lands the Green Mountain
Club has protected for the Long Trail, providing connectivity from the
Green Mountains north to Quebec and east to the Worcester Range. This
project will address the problem of forest fragmentation and associated
impacts on the timber economy, improve public access to recreation, and
secure wildlife habitat connectivity in Vermont's northern region by
permanently protecting critically located properties.
Vermont's Northern Green Mountains are one of the wildest and
largest forested landscapes remaining in all of New England. The
region, which follows the spine of the Green Mountains north from Mount
Mansfield to the Canadian border, encompasses sweeping tracts of forest
where moose, bobcat, black bear, and a myriad of rare and endangered
songbirds make their home. These mountains and their slopes are
remarkably diverse, containing all the major ecosystem types of the
region, from boreal forests, temperate mixed hardwoods, and alpine
meadows to floodplain forests and marshes. It is also a magnet for
hikers, skiers, backpackers, and other outdoor enthusiasts,
particularly those drawn by more than 65 miles of the Long Trail--the
Nation's oldest long-distance hiking path and the inspiration for the
Appalachian Trail, built by the Green Mountain Club between 1910 and
1930. Also snaking through the region is the increasingly popular
Catamount Trail, a skiing trail traversing the length of Vermont.
The Northern Green Mountains have long been recognized as a top
conservation priority by many of the region's small towns, such as Jay,
Westfield, and Hyde Park, which are now mobilizing to conserve the
places that define and sustain their communities. Two Countries One
Forest (2C1Forest), a Canadian-American coalition of 50 conservation
organizations, public agencies, and researchers, sponsored scientific
research to identify important wildlife corridors in the Northern
Appalachian Acadian ecoregion. In 2007, 2C1Forest chose the Northern
Green Mountains-to-Sutton Mountains linkage as one of their top five
conservation priorities. The area has also been identified as
significant in Vermont Fish & Wildlife's statewide assessment and
ranking of large forested blocks and associated linkage habitats. The
Northern Green Mountains are a crucial place for regional landscape
connectivity because they help tie the Adirondacks of New York, and the
central Appalachians of Massachusetts and points south to the Northern
Appalachians of Maine and Canada. In so doing they serve as an
important north-south corridor for wildlife, and because of their large
range in elevation, provide species with flexibility in their movement.
Projects like the Northern Green Mountains Linkage that maintain
connectivity on local, State, and regional scales are also critical to
support adaptation of wildlife species to climate change. These
corridors will facilitate species movement in response to shifts in
forest habitat, food availability, and snowpack. These forested tracts
also offer important climate adaptation value as habitat refugia for
cold-loving species whose habitats will be lost in other areas. The
Northeast Climate Impacts Synthesis Assessment Team projects that this
region will retain consistently cold winters and reliable snowpack
through the end of the 21st century, even under high carbon emission
scenarios. This is significant for a wide range of snow-dependent
species like snowshoe hare and marten, as these same projections
suggest that snowpack will largely disappear from New England to the
south of the project area. Protection of this area is also important
for adaptation of the eastern brook trout. Some of the parcels for
protection include important headwater streams to the Missisquoi River,
one of Vermont's important habitat areas for eastern brook trout.
Conserving these high elevation headwater streams will help maintain
flows and cooler water temperatures in the lower lying Missisquoi as
the climate warms in this area.
The 3,984 acres that will be conserved with fiscal year 2013 Forest
Legacy funding is made up of four separate parcels. Almost the entire
expanse--95 percent of the 1,748-acre Jay Brook tract in Westfield is
higher than 1,500 feet, providing critical wildlife habitat protection
and an important refugia to species adapting to climate change.
Protection of this land would conserve 3.6 miles of the Catamount Trail
and add an extra conserved buffer to 5.8 miles of The Long Trail, where
portions of the Long Trail State Forest are only 650 feet wide--an
inadequate buffer for the State's most well-known and well-loved trail.
The 1,478-acre Bullard Tract in Eden and Hyde Park provides a wide
linkage that connects lowland forest to previous Forest Legacy Program
investments around Green River Reservoir State Park (protected with
fiscal year 1999 funds) up to the ridgeline of the Green Mountains on
the Eden Forest property (protected with fiscal year 2009 and fiscal
year 2010 funds). The 553-acre Moffat property, half of which was
funded in fiscal year 2011, is part of a significant east-west corridor
of conserved forestland and contains significant wetlands and sugar
maple stands. Last, the 513-acre Westfield Mountain Tract is managed
for the production of maple syrup and high value timber and would be a
significant addition to a previously conserved block of forestland in
the Northern Green Mountains.
The vast majority of the land in the Northern Greens remains in
private hands, with thousands of acres available on the open market.
Threats from an expanding second-home industry (even in today's
uncertain economy), road construction, and changing forestry, and
farming practices put key blocks of forestland at risk and create
barriers to wildlife movement. Such changes also threaten the vibrant
rural culture and economy of the Northern Greens, with its mix of
small-scale community farms, forestry and recreation. A recent
explosion of development pressure in the Northern Green Mountains,
resulting from expanding ski resorts and the area's proximity to
greater Burlington and other population centers, has made this a ``now
or never'' moment to conserve key landscapes in this important habitat
and recreation area. According to census data, growth rates in Lamoille
and Orleans Counties are more than double the growth rate in Vermont as
a whole. In Vermont, only 21 percent of the Northern Green Mountains is
protected from development, compared to 45 percent of the central and
southern Green Mountains.
Forest Legacy Program funding in fiscal year 2011 secured the first
1,784 acres of the Northern Green Mountains Linkage project. A Forest
Legacy grant of $2.72 million in fiscal year 2013 for the remaining
3,984 acres would complete this important project. These Federal funds
are needed to ensure the protection of critical forest resources in
northern Vermont and will be matched by $950,000 of non-Federal
contributions for the acquisition of full fee and partial interests
through conservation easement.
In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund of $450 million, as proposed in the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget, including critical funding for the Forest
Legacy Program and the Northern Green Mountains Linkage project. I want
to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Vermont, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Illinois Lake Management Association
Dear Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the
Committee: The Illinois Lake Management Association (ILMA) encourages
the subcommittee to provide the most robust funding possible for the
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program in fiscal year 2013. This
program is the only one within the Federal Government with the singular
purpose of preventing Federal endangered species listings, and it is
achieving success as highlighted in the recent State Wildlife Grants
Success Stories Report (http://teaming.com/tool/state-wildlife-grants-
success-stories-report-2011). We also ask that the non-Federal match
requirement for States remain at 35 percent to help States who are
still struggling to recover from significant reductions in conservation
budgets to meet match requirements.
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program provides critical
capacity for State fish and wildlife agencies and their partners to
implement congressionally required State Wildlife Action Plans. The
program is used by States to conserve more than 12,000 fish and
wildlife species that have been identified as at-risk, including those
that are candidates for Federal endangered species listing. Despite the
success of the program, the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program
has been cut by one-third since 2010. The reduction in funding is
impacting States' ability to restore habitat, protect land, provide
incentives to private landowners, monitor, conduct research and
implement other measures needed to conserve declining fish and
wildlife.
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program supports
implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans that were developed
collaboratively by leading scientists, sportsmen, conservationists and
private landowners and identified the most effective and practical
means to prevent wildlife from becoming endangered. The Congress can
demonstrate its commitment to these plans by providing the Federal
share of support, leveraging millions in State and private matching
funds. This investment in conservation helps support jobs and the $730
billion outdoor recreation industry. The State and Tribal Wildlife
Grants program is modest compared to the scope of work it funds: The
recovery of some of our Nation's most imperiled fish and wildlife. We
hope the Senate Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies can provide the most robust funding possible for the program
in fiscal year 2013.
______
Prepared Statement of the Independent Tribal Courts Review Team
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and to address the
serious funding needs that have limited and continue to hinder the
operations of tribal judicial systems in Indian Country. I am the Lead
Judge representing the Independent Tribal Court Review Team. We thank
this subcommittee for the additional $10 million funding in fiscal year
2010. These funds were a blessing to tribes. Even minimal increases
were put to good use. It is the strong recommendation of the
Independent Tribal Courts Review Team that the Federal tribal courts
budget be substantially increased in fiscal year 2013 to support the
needs of tribal judicial systems.
Budget Priorities, Requests, and Recommendations
+$10 million increase for tribal courts more than the fiscal year
2010 enacted level
Fully fund all provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
+$58.4 million authorized under the Indian Tribal Justice Act of
1993, Public Law 103-176, 25 U.S.C. 3601 and re-authorized in year 2000
Public Law 106-559 (no funds have been appropriated to date)
The budget requests will support:
--Hiring and training of court personnel;
--Compliance with the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010;
--Salary increases for existing judges and court personnel;
--State-of-the-art technology for tribal courts;
--Security and security systems to protect court records and privacy
of case information;
--Tribal court code development; and
--Financial code development;
Background
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department of the
Interior provides funding to tribal governments to supplement their
justice systems including courts. Tribal courts play a ``vital role''
in Tribal Self-Determination and Self-Governance as cited in
longstanding Federal policy and acts of the Congress. Funding levels
from BIA to support tribal justice systems have not met the Federal
obligations.
For the past 6 years, the Independent Court Review Team has been
traveling throughout Indian Country assessing how tribal courts are
operating. During this time, we have completed approximately 84 court
reviews. There is no one with more hands-on experience and knowledge
regarding the current status of tribal courts than our Review Team.
We have come into contact with every imaginable composition of
tribe:
--large and small;
--urban and rural;
--wealthy and poor.
What we have not come into contact with is any tribe whose Court
system is operating with financial resources comparable to other local
and State jurisdictions.
Justification for Request
Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.--Tribal Courts make do with
underpaid staff, underexperienced staff, and minimal training. (We have
determined that hiring tribal members limits the inclination of staff
to move away; a poor excuse to underpay staff.)
Compliance with the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010.--To provide
Judges, Prosecutors, Public Defenders, who are attorneys and who are
bared to do ``enhanced sentencing'' in tribal courts.
Salary Increases for Existing Judges and Court Personnel.--Salaries
should be comparable to local and State Court personnel to keep pace
with the non-Tribal judicial systems and be competitive to maintain
existing personnel.
Tribal Courts Need State-of-the-Art Technology (software,
computers, phone systems, tape recording machines).--Many tribes cannot
afford to purchase or upgrade existing court equipment unless they get
a grant. This is accompanied by training expenses and licensing fees
which do not last after the grant ends.
Security and Security Systems to Protect Court Records and Privacy
of Case Information.--Most tribal courts do not even have a full-time
bailiff, much less a state-of-the-art security system that uses locked
doors and camera surveillance. This is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Tribal Court Code Development.--Tribes cannot afford legal
consultation. A small number of tribes hire on-site staff attorneys.
These staff attorneys generally become enmeshed in economic development
and code development does not take priority. Tribes make do with under-
developed Codes. The Adam Walsh Act created a hardship for tribes who
were forced to develop codes, without funding, or have the State assume
jurisdiction. (States have never properly overseen law enforcement in a
tribal jurisdiction.)
Financial Code Development.--We have rarely seen tribes with
developed financial policies. The process of paying a bond, for
example, varies greatly from tribe to tribe. The usual process of who
collects it, where it is collected and how much it is, is never
consistent among tribes.
Tribal Courts Review
There are many positive aspects about tribal courts. It is clear
that tribal courts and justice systems are vital and important to the
communities where they are located. Tribes value and want to be proud
of their Court systems. Tribes with even modest resources tend to
allocate funding to Courts before other costs. After decades of
existence, many tribal courts, despite minimal funding, have achieved a
level of experience and sophistication approaching, and in some cases
surpassing, local non-Indian Courts.
Tribal Courts, through the Indian Child Welfare Act, have mostly
stopped the wholesale removal of Indian children from their families.
Indian and non-Indian courts have developed formal and informal
agreements regarding jurisdiction. Tribal governments have recognized
the benefit of having law-trained judges, without doing away with
judges who have cultural/traditional experience. Tribal court systems
have appellate courts, jury trials, well-cared-for courthouses (even
the poorer tribes), and tribal bar listings and fees. Perhaps most
importantly, tribes recognize the benefit of an independent judiciary
and have taken steps to insulate Courts and Judges from political
pressure. No longer in Indian country are Judges automatically fired
for decisions against the legislature.
Our research indicates tribal courts are at a critical stage in
terms of need. Nationwide, there are 184 tribes with courts that
received $24.7 million in Federal funding in 2011. Assessments have
indicated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs only funds tribal courts at
26 percent of the funding needed. This is further documented in the BIA
budget book under the Tribal Priorities Allocation Account/Tribal
Courts reflecting only a $1 million increase ``to enhance the ongoing
daily operations of the Indian Affairs funded tribal courts and Courts
of Federal Regulations throughout Indian Country''. That's real bang
for the buck and certainly validates the adage ``you get what you pay
for''! The lack of investment in tribal courts is an atrocity given the
challenges and impediments they must endure to remain effective. tribes
who have economic development generally subsidize their tribal courts.
On the flip side, tribes who cannot afford to assist in the financial
operations of the court are tasked with doing the best they can with
what they have even at the expense of decreasing or eliminating
services elsewhere. This while operating at a disadvantage with already
overstrained resources and underserved needs of the tribal citizens.
The assessment suggests that the smaller Courts are both the busiest
and most underfunded.
The grant funding in the DOJ is intended to be temporary, but
instead it is used for permanent needs; such as funding a Drug Court
Clerk who then is used as a Court Clerk with Drug Court duties. When
the funding runs out, so does the permanent position. We have witnessed
many failed Drug Courts, failed Court management software projects (due
to training costs) and incomplete Code development projects. When the
Justice funding runs out, so does the Project.
As a directive from the Office of Management and Budget, our
Reviews specifically examined how tribes were using Federal funding. In
the last 6 fiscal years through fiscal year 2011 there were only two
isolated incidents of a questionable expenditure of Federal funds. It
is speculated that because of our limited resources, we compromise
one's due process and invoke ``speedy trials'' violations to save
Tribal Courts money. Everyone who is processed through the tribal
judicial system is afforded their constitutional civil liberties and
civil rights.
We do not wish to leave an entirely negative impression about
Tribal Courts. Tribal Courts need an immediate, sustained and increased
level of funding. True. However, there are strong indications that the
Courts will put such funding to good use.
There are tribes like the Fort Belknap Tribe of Montana whose Chief
Judge manages both offices and holds Court in an old dormitory that
can't be used when it rains because water leaks into the building and
the mold has consumed one wall. Their need exceeds 100 percent.
There are several courts where the roofs leak when it rains and
those court houses cannot be fixed due to lack of sufficient funds. The
Team took pictures of those damaged ceilings for the BIA hoping to have
additional funds for the tribes to fix the damaged ceilings.
Tribal Courts have other serious needs. Tribal Appellate Court
Judges are mostly Attorneys who dedicate their services for modest fees
that barely cover costs for copying and transcription fees. Tribal
courts offer jury trials. In many courts, one sustained jury trial will
deplete the available budget. The only place to minimize expenses is to
fire staff. Many tribal courts have defense advocates. These advocates
are generally not law trained and do a good job protecting an
individual's rights (including assuring speedy trial limitations are
not violated.) However, this is a large item in Court budgets and if
the defense advocate, or Prosecutor, should leave, the replacement
process is slow.
We feel it is our duty to come here on behalf of tribes to advocate
for better funding. Tribes ask us to tell their stories. They open
their files and records to us and say, ``We have nothing to hide''.
Tell the Congress we need better facilities, more law enforcement, more
detention facilities, more legal advice, better codes . . . the list
goes on and on. But, as we have indicated, it all involves more
funding. This Congress and this administration can do something great.
Put your money where your promises have been.
National Requests
We support the requests and recommendations of the National
Congress of American Indians. We support the increases for:
--contract support costs of $8.8 million;
--law enforcement of $30 million;
--10-percent increase more than 2012 for TPA; and
--an additional $10 million for tribal courts.
On behalf of the Independent Tribal Court Review Team, Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission
My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I serve as Executive Director of
the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, on whose behalf I am
appearing today. I appreciate the opportunity to present this statement
to the subcommittee regarding the views of the Compact's 24 member
States on the fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) within the Department of the
Interior. In its proposed budget, OSM is requesting $57.3 million to
fund title V grants to States and Indian tribes for the implementation
of their regulatory programs, a reduction of $11 million or 15 percent
less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. OSM also proposes to
reduce mandatory spending for abandoned mine lands (AML) program by
$180 million pursuant to a legislative proposal to eliminate all AML
funding for certified States and tribes.
The Compact is comprised of 24 States that together produce some 95
percent of the Nation's coal, as well as important noncoal minerals.
The Compact's purposes are to advance the protection and restoration of
land, water and other resources affected by mining through the
encouragement of programs in each of the party States that will achieve
comparable results in protecting, conserving and improving the
usefulness of natural resources and to assist in achieving and
maintaining an efficient, productive and economically viable mining
industry.
OSM has projected an amount of $57.3 million for title V grants to
States and tribes in fiscal year 2012, an amount which is matched by
the States each year. These grants support the implementation of State
and tribal regulatory programs under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and as such are essential to the full and
effective operation of those programs. Pursuant to these primacy
programs, the States have the most direct and critical responsibilities
for conducting regulatory operations to minimize the impact of coal
extraction operations on people and the environment. The States
accomplish this through a combination of permitting, inspection and
enforcement duties, designating lands as unsuitable for mining
operations, and ensuring that timely reclamation occurs after mining.
In fiscal year 2012, the Congress approved $68.6 million for State
title V grants. This continued a much-needed trend whereby the amount
appropriated for these regulatory grants aligned with the demonstrated
needs of the States and tribes. The States are greatly encouraged by
the significant increases in title V funding approved by Congress over
the past 3 fiscal years. Even with mandated rescissions and the
allocations for tribal primacy programs, the States saw a $12 million
increase for our regulatory programs more than fiscal year 2007 levels.
State title V grants had been stagnant for more than 12 years and the
gap between the States' requests and what they received was widening.
This debilitating trend was compounding the problems caused by
inflation and uncontrollable costs, thus undermining our efforts to
realize needed program improvements and enhancements and jeopardizing
our efforts to minimize the potential adverse impacts of coal
extraction operations on people and the environment.
In its fiscal year 2013 budget, OSM has once again attempted to
reverse course and essentially unravel and undermine the progress made
by the Congress in supporting State programs with adequate funding. As
States prepare their future budgets, we trust that the recent increases
approved by the Congress will remain the new base on which we build our
programs. Otherwise, we find ourselves backpedaling and creating a
situation where those who were just hired face layoffs and purchases of
much needed equipment are canceled or delayed. Furthermore, a clear
message from Congress that reliable, consistent funding will continue
into the future will do much to stimulate support for these programs by
State legislatures and budget officers who each year, in the face of
difficult fiscal climates and constraints, are also dealing with the
challenge of matching Federal grant dollars with State funds. In this
regard, it should be kept in mind that a 15-percent cut in Federal
funding generally translates to an additional 15-percent cut for
overall program funding for many States, especially those without
Federal lands, since these States can generally only match what they
receive in Federal money.
It is important to note that OSM does not disagree with the States'
demonstrated need for the requested amount of funding for title V
regulatory grants. Instead, OSM's solution for the drastic cuts comes
in the way of an unrealistic assumption that the States can simply
increase user fees in an effort to ``eliminate a de facto subsidy of
the coal industry.'' No specifics on how the States are to accomplish
this far-reaching proposal are set forth, other than an expectation
that they will do so in the course of a single fiscal year. OSM's
proposal is completely out of touch with the realities associated with
establishing or enhancing user fees, especially given the need for
approvals by State legislatures. IMCC's polling of its member States
confirmed that, given the current fiscal and political implications of
such an initiative, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for most
States to accomplish this feat at all, let alone in less than 1 year.
OSM is well aware of this, and yet has every intention of aggressively
moving forward with a proposal that was poorly conceived from its
inception. We strongly urge the subcommittee to reject this approach
and mandate that OSM work through the complexities associated with any
future user fees proposal in close cooperation with the States and
tribes before proposing cuts to Federal funding for State title V
grants.
At the same time that OSM is proposing significant cuts for State
programs, the agency is proposing sizeable increases for its own
program operations ($4 million) for Federal oversight of State
programs, including an increase of 25 FTEs. In making the case for its
funding increase, OSM's budget justification document contains vague
references to the need ``to improve the implementation of existing
laws'' and to ``strengthen OSM's skills base.'' More specifically, OSM
states in its budget justification document (on page 60) that ``with
greater technical skills, OSM anticipates improved evaluation of
permit-related actions and resolution of issues to prevent
unanticipated situations that otherwise may occur as operations
progress, thereby improving implementation of existing laws''. In our
view, this is code language for enhanced and expanded Federal oversight
of State programs. However, without more to justify the need for more
oversight and the concomitant increase in funding for Federal
operations related thereto, the Congress should reject this request.
The overall performance of the States as detailed in OSM's annual State
program evaluation reports demonstrates that the States are
implementing their programs effectively and in accordance with the
purposes and objectives of SMCRA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While not alluded to or fully addressed in OSM's budget
justification document, there are myriad statutory, policy and legal
issues associated with several aspects of the agency's enhanced
oversight initiative, especially three recently adopted directives on
annual oversight procedures (REG-8), corrective actions (REG-23) and
Ten-Day Notices (INE-35). IMCC submitted extensive comments regarding
the issues associated with these directives and related oversight
actions (including Federal inspections) on January 19, 2010, July 8,
2010 and January 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our view, this suggests that OSM is adequately accomplishing its
statutory oversight obligations with current Federal program funding
and that any increased workloads are likely to fall upon the States,
which have primary responsibility for implementing appropriate
adjustments to their programs identified during Federal oversight. In
this regard, we note that the Federal courts have made it abundantly
clear that SMCRA's allocation of exclusive jurisdiction was ``careful
and deliberate'' and that the Congress provided for ``mutually
exclusive regulation by either the Secretary or State, but not both.''
Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Ass'n, 248 F. 3d 275, 293-4 (4th Cir.
2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1113 (2002). While the courts have ruled
consistently on this matter, the question remains for the Congress and
the administration to determine, in light of deficit reduction and
spending cuts, how the limited amount of Federal funding for the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations under
SMCRA will be directed--to OSM or the States. For all the above
reasons, we urge Congress to approve not less than $70 million for
State and tribal title V regulatory grants, as fully documented in the
States' and tribes' estimates for actual program operating costs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We are particularly concerned about recent OSM initiatives,
primarily by policy directive, to duplicate and/or second-guess State
permitting decisions through the reflexive use of ``Ten-Day Notices''
as part of increased Federal oversight or through Federal responses to
citizen complaints. OSM specifically addresses this matter in its
budget justification document (on page 69) where it states that ``OSM
has an obligation under section 521 of SMCRA to take steps to ensure
that all types of violations, including violations of performance
standards or permit conditions and violations of permitting
requirements, are corrected if the State does not take action to do so.
Aside from the impact on limited State and Federal resources, these
actions undermine the principles of primacy that underscore SMCRA and
are likely to have debilitating impacts on the State-Federal
partnership envisioned by the act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to funding for State Title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
program grants, congressional action in 2006 to reauthorize title IV of
SMCRA has significantly changed the method by which State reclamation
grants are funded. Beginning with fiscal year 2008, State title IV
grants are funded primarily by mandatory appropriations. As a result,
the States should have received a total of $488 million in fiscal year
2013. Instead, OSM has budgeted an amount of $307 million based on an
ill-conceived proposal to eliminate mandatory AML funding to States and
tribes that have been certified as completing their abandoned coal
reclamation programs. This $180 million reduction flies in the face of
the comprehensive restructuring of the AML program that was passed by
the Congress in 2006, following more than 10 years of congressional
debate and hard fought compromise among the affected parties. In
addition to the elimination of funding for certified States and tribes,
OSM is also proposing to reform the distribution process for the
remaining reclamation funding to allocate available resources to the
highest-priority coal AML sites through a competitive grant program,
whereby an Advisory Council will review and rank AML sites each year.
The proposal, which will require adjustments to SMCRA, will clearly
undermine the delicate balance of interests and objectives achieved by
the 2006 Amendments. It is also inconsistent with many of the goals and
objectives articulated by the administration concerning both jobs and
environmental protection. We urge the Congress to reject this
unjustified proposal, delete it from the budget and restore the full
mandatory funding amount of $488 million. A resolution adopted by IMCC
last year concerning these matters is attached. We also endorse the
statement of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs
(NAAMLP) which goes into greater detail regarding the implications of
OSM's legislative proposal for the States and tribes, a copy of which I
would like to submit for the record.
We also urge the Congress to approve continued funding for the AML
emergency program. In a continuing effort to ignore congressional
direction, OSM's budget would completely eliminate funding for State-
run emergency programs and also for Federal emergency projects (in
those States that do not administer their own emergency programs).
Funding the OSM emergency program should be a top priority for OSM's
discretionary spending. This funding has allowed the States and OSM to
address the unanticipated AML emergencies that inevitably occur each
year. In States that have federally operated emergency programs, the
State AML programs are not structured or staffed to move quickly to
address these dangers and safeguard the coalfield citizens whose lives
and property are threatened by these unforeseen and often debilitating
events. And for minimum program States, emergency funding is critical
to preserve the limited resources available to them under the current
funding formula. We therefore request that the Congress restore funding
for the AML emergency program in OSM's fiscal year 2013 budget.
One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML
restoration work is through leveraging or matching other grant
programs, such as EPA's 319 program. Until fiscal year 2009, language
was always included in OSM's appropriation that encouraged the use of
these types of matching funds, particularly for the purpose of
environmental restoration related to treatment or abatement of AMD from
abandoned mines. This is a perennial, and often expensive, problem,
especially in Appalachia. IMCC therefore requests the Committee to once
again include language in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill that
would allow the use of AML funds for any required non-Federal share of
the cost of projects by the Federal Government for AMD treatment or
abatement.
We also urge the subcommittee to support funding for OSM's training
program, including moneys for State travel. These programs are central
to the effective implementation of State regulatory programs as they
provide necessary training and continuing education for State agency
personnel. In this regard, it should be noted that the States provide
nearly half of the instructors for OSM's training course and, through
IMCC, sponsor and staff benchmarking workshops on key regulatory
program topics. IMCC also urges the subcommittee to support funding for
TIPS, a program that directly benefits the States by providing critical
technical assistance. Finally, we support funding for the Watershed
Cooperative Agreements in the amount of $1.2 million.
Attached to our testimony today is a list of questions concerning
OSM's budget that we request be included in the record for the hearing.
The questions go into further detail concerning several aspects of the
budget that we believe should be answered before the Congress approves
funding for the agency or considers advancing the legislative proposals
contained in the budget.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement.
ATTACHMENTS
QUESTIONS RE OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT'S
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET
What does OSM plan to do with the additional $4 million that has
been budgeted for ``enhanced Federal oversight of State regulatory
programs''? How does OSM justify an increase in money for Federal
oversight while decreasing money for State title V grants? What is the
demonstrated need for an additional 25 FTEs to perform Federal
oversight of State programs? Will this not simply lead to duplication
of effort, second-guessing of State decisionmaking, undermining of
State primacy and wasted resources?
If pressed by the Congress, how expeditiously does OSM intend to
push the States to recover more of their regulatory costs from the coal
industry through user fees? Has OSM undertaken a full analysis of the
administrative and rulemaking complexities inherent in such an
undertaking?
OSM's newest AML legislative proposal (to eliminate payments to
certified States and tribes and to utilize a competitive bidding
process for the allocation of remaining AML reclamation funds for
noncertified States) is the fourth time that the agency has put forth
potential legislative adjustments to the 2006 amendments to SMCRA in
its proposed budgets. Based on the legislative proposal we have seen to
date, there are many more questions than answers about how this process
will work. (See attached list) Does OSM intend to seek input from the
States and tribes, especially given the role that the States and tribes
will play in the bidding/selection process and the significant impact
this will have on current program administration? What is the basis for
OSM's proposal to essentially upend the carefully crafted legislative
resolution related to future AML program funding and AML reclamation
work approved by the Congress in 2006? Has OSM thought and worked
through the implications for AML program management and administration
that would result from its legislative proposal?
Why has OSM chosen to advocate for a hardrock AML reclamation fee
to be collected by OSM but not distributed by OSM? Why bring another
Federal agency (BLM) into the mix when OSM has the greater expertise in
this area?
Specific Questions re Cost Recovery/User Fees
OSM has requested an amount for State title V regulatory program
grants in fiscal year 2013 that reflects an $11 million decrease from
fiscal year 2012. And while OSM does not dispute that the States are in
need of an amount far greater than this, the agency has suggested once
again that the States should be able to make up the difference between
what OSM has budgeted and what States actually need by increasing cost
recovery fees for services to the coal industry. What exactly will it
take to accomplish this task?
Assuming the States take on this task, will amendments to their
regulatory programs be required?
How long, in general, does it take OSM to approve a State program
amendment?
The State of Alabama submitted a program amendment to OSM in May
2010 to raise current permit fees and authorize new, additional fees.
It took OSM a full year to approve this amendment, resulting in lost
fees of more than $50,000 to the State. If OSM is unable to approve
requested State program amendments for permit fee increases in less
than a year, how does the agency expect to handle mandated permit
increases for all of the primacy States within a single fiscal year?
If OSM is not expecting to pursue this initiative in fiscal year
2013, why include such a proposal in the budget until OSM has worked
out all of the details with the States in the first instance?
Speaking of which, what types of complexities is OSM anticipating
with its proposal at the State level? Many of the States have already
indicated to OSM that it will be next to impossible to advance a fee
increase proposal given the political and fiscal climate they are
facing.
OSM's solution seems to be that the agency will propose a rule to
require States to increase permit fees nationwide. Won't this still
require State program amendments to effectuate the Federal rule, as
with all of OSM's rules? How does OSM envision accomplishing this if
the States are unable to do it on their own?
Even if a Federal rulemaking requiring permit fee increase
nationwide were to succeed, how does OSM envision assuring that these
fees are returned to the States? Will OSM retain a portion of these
fees for administrative purposes?
Specific Questions re Federal Program Increases
In OSM's budget justification document, the agency also notes that
the States permit and regulate 97 percent of the Nation's coal
production and that OSM provides technical assistance, funding,
training and technical tools to the States to support their programs.
And yet OSM proposes in its budget to cut funding to the States by $11
million while increasing OSM's own Federal operations budget by nearly
$4 million and 25 FTEs. How does OSM reconcile these seemingly
contradictory positions?
OSM's budget justification document points out in more detail why
it believes additional Federal resources will be needed based on its
recent Federal oversight actions during fiscal year 2011, which
included increased Federal inspections. Was OSM not in fact able to
accomplish this enhanced oversight with its current resources? If not,
where were resources found wanting? How much of the strain on the
agency's resources was actually due to the stream protection rulemaking
and EIS process?
In light of recent annual oversight reports over the past 5 years
which demonstrate high levels of State performance, what is the
justification for OSM's enhanced oversight initiatives and hence its
Federal program increase?
Something has to give here--no doubt. There is only so much money
that we can make available for the surface mining program under SMCRA.
Both the Congress and the courts have made it clear that the States are
to exercise exclusive jurisdiction for the regulation of surface coal
mining operations pursuant to the primacy regime under the law. It begs
the questions of whether OSM has made the case for moving away from
supporting the States and instead beefing up the Federal program.
Unless the agency can come up with a better, more detailed
justification for this realignment of resources, how can the Congress
support its budget proposal?
Specific Questions re Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement Oversight Initiative
OSM has recently finalized a Ten-Day Notice directive (INE-35) that
had previously been withdrawn in 2006 based on a decision by then
Assistant Secretary of the Interior Rebecca Watson. The basis for
terminating the previous directive was several court decisions that
clarified the respective roles of State and Federal governments
pursuant to the primacy regime contained in SMCRA. The Secretary's
decision also focused on the inappropriate and unauthorized use of Ten-
Day Notices under SMCRA to second-guess State permitting decisions.
OSM's new TDN directive flies in the face of both this Secretarial
decision and Federal court decisions. Does OSM have a new Secretarial
decision on this matter? If not, how can its recent action overrule
this prior decision? Has the Solicitor's office weighed in on this
matter? If so, does OSM have an opinion supporting the agency's new TDN
directive? Will OSM provide that to the subcommittee?
In light of limited funding for the implementation of SMCRA, how
does OSM justify the State and Federal expenses that will necessarily
follow from reviewing and second-guessing State permitting decisions?
States have complained that responding to a single OSM TDN, especially
with respect to State permitting decisions, can require the investment
of 2-3 FTE's for upwards of a week. How do you justify this?
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS RE THE ABANDONED MINE LANDS LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
IN OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT'S FISCAL YEAR
2013 BUDGET
The Proposed Competitive Allocation Process
What is the potential for this new review and ranking process to
reduce expenditures and increase efficiency without being counter-
productive? Will it introduce an additional level of bureaucracy and
result in more time being spent formulating proposals and less on
actual AML reclamation? The present funding formula, while not perfect,
at least provides some direction on which to base long-term strategic
planning and efficient use of available funds. The closest analogy to
what OSM is proposing by way of its competitive allocation process is
the way BLM and the Forest Service currently allocate their AML funds
through competitive proposals to various State offices and regions.
Because of the uncertainties of funding, neither agency has been able
to develop significant in-house expertise, but instead often rely on
SMCRA-funded States like Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado to do
a good portion of their AML work. Why would OSM want to duplicate a
system that has proven problematic for other agencies?
Who would be the ``other parties'' potentially bidding on AML grant
funds? Would this include Federal agencies such as BLM, USFS, NPS, etc?
If so, in many cases, those agencies already rely on the States to
conduct their reclamation work and also determine priorities based on
State input or guidance.
What do the State project managers and inspectors do if a State
does not win a competitive bid for AML funds? How does a State gear up
if it receives funding for more projects than it can handle with
present staffing? Each State and tribe has different grant cycles.
Unless all are brought into one uniform cycle, how will everyone
compete for the same dollars? In this regard, how can the competitive
allocation process and the use of the Advisory Council be more
efficient and simple than what we already have in place?
How long will OSM fund a State's/tribe's administrative costs if it
does not successfully compete for a construction grant, even though the
State/tribe has eligible high-priority projects on AMLIS? How will OSM
calculate administrative grant funding levels, especially since
salaries and benefits for AML project managers and inspectors
predominantly derive from construction funds? Would funding cover
current staffing levels? If not, how will OSM determine the funding
criteria for administrative program grants?
How do the States and tribes handle emergency projects under the
legislative proposal? Must these projects undergo review by the
Advisory Council? Will there be special, expedited procedures? If a
State/tribe has to cut back on staff, how does it manage emergencies
when they arise? If emergency programs do compete for AML funds,
considerable time and effort could be spent preparing these projects
for review by the Advisory Council rather than abating the immediate
hazard. Again, how can we be assured that emergencies will be addressed
expeditiously?
What ranking criteria will be used to determine the priority of
submitted AML project grant requests? The number of people potentially
affected? The current priority ranking on AMLIS? How would the Council
determine whether a burning gob pile near a city presents a greater
hazard than a surface mine near a highway or an underground mine
beneath a residential area? Would the winning bid be the ``most
convincing'' proposal? The one with the most signatures on a petition?
The one with the most influential legislative delegation? Will AMLIS
continue to serve as the primary mechanism for identifying sites and
their priority status?
If the current AML funding formula is scrapped, what amount will be
paid out to the noncertified AML States and tribes over the remainder
of the program? What does OSM mean by the term ``remaining funds'' in
its proposal? Is it only the AML fees yet to be collected? What happens
to the historic share balances in the Fund, including those that were
supposed to be re-directed to the Fund based on an equivalent amount of
funding being paid to certified States and tribes each year? Would the
``remaining funds'' include the unappropriated/prior balance amounts
that have not yet been paid out over the 7-year installment period?
What about the amounts due and owing to certified States and tribes
that were phased in during fiscal year 2009-2011?
Has anyone alleged or confirmed that the States/tribes are NOT
already addressing the highest-priority sites for reclamation within
the context of the current AML program structure under the 2006
Amendments? Where have the 2006 Amendments faltered in terms of high-
priority sites being addressed as envisioned by the Congress? What
would remain unchanged in the 2006 Amendments under OSM's proposal?
The Nature and Purpose of the Advisory Council
Who would be on the AML Advisory Council and how could they
collectively have better decisionmaking knowledge about hazardous AML
sites than the State and tribal project managers and administrators who
work with these sites on a daily basis?
What will be the criteria to serve on the Advisory Council? Will
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements apply to the
formation and deliberations of the Council? How long does OSM envision
it will take to establish the Council and when will it become
operational?
Will the Advisory Council be providing recommendations to OSM or
will OSM make all final decisions? Will these decisions by appealable?
If so, to who? Does OSM envision needing to develop internal guidance
for its own review process? If so, how long will it potentially take
from Advisory Council review and recommendation to final OSM decision
in order to complete the grant process so a State can begin a project?
What degree of detail will be required in order to review and
approve competitive grant applications? Will the Council review each
project? What type of time constraints will be placed on their review?
Will the Advisory Council consider partial grants for projects that
may exceed the allocation for a single year? Would minimum program
States be authorized to apply for a grant that would exceed $3 million?
Will grant applications be based on an individual project or will
the grant be based on a project year? How will cost overruns be
handled?
Planning for Abandoned Mine Lands Work
One of the greatest benefits of reauthorization under the 2006
Amendments to SMCRA was the predictability of funding through the end
of the AML program. Because State and tribes were provided with
hypothetical funding levels from OSM (which to date have proven to be
quite accurate), long-term project planning, along with the
establishment of appropriate staffing levels and project assignments,
could be made more accurately and efficiently. How can States/tribes
plan for future projects given the uncertainty associated with having
to annually bid for AML funds? NEPA compliance issues alone can take
years of planning. One State recently asked its State Historic
Preservation Office for initial consultation regarding project sites
that may be reclaimed over the next 5 years. This process will also
have significant impacts on those States that utilize multi-year
construction contracts that are paid for with annual AML grants.
State and tribal AML projects are often planned 18 months to 2
years in advance of actually receiving construction funds, based on
anticipated funding under the 2006 Amendments. During that time, States
and tribes are performing environmental assessments, conducting
archeology reviews, completing real estate work and doing NEPA
analyses. There could be considerable effort and money wasted if a
project does not get approved during the competitive allocation
process.
At what point does a State or tribe seek approval from the advisory
council? Considerable investigation must take place prior to developing
most projects, whether they be acid mine drainage projects or health
and safety projects. How much time should be spent in design prior to
proceeding to the Council? How accurate must a cost estimate be prior
to taking a project before the Council? The greater the accuracy, the
greater the design time expended, possibly for a project that will be
rejected.
State and tribes often seek and obtain valuable matching funds from
watershed groups, which take considerable lead time to acquire. It will
be difficult to commit to partners if we don't know what level of
funding, if any, will be made available from OSM.
Several States have committed significant amounts of money to
waterline projects across the coalfields. Local governmental entities
have started designs and applied for additional funds from other
agencies to match AML funds in order to make these projects a reality.
Ending all AML funding for these projects (assuming they are not
considered ``high priority'') could have significant consequences for
local communities. Our understanding is that these projects were
excluded under the 2006 Amendments from the priority scheme contained
in section 403(a) of SMCRA.
Does OSM's proposal allow acid mine drainage (AMD) projects to be
undertaken? Can these be designated as high priority? (Our
understanding is that those AMD projects undertaken pursuant to the
``AMD set-aside program'' are not subject to the priority scheme under
section 403(a) and that those AMD projects done ``in conjunction with''
a priority 1 or 2 project are considered ``high priority''.) How do
States handle ongoing engineering, operating and maintenance costs for
existing AMD treatment systems? As the administration works diligently
to develop a new rule to protect streams nationwide, why would it
advance a proposal to essentially halt the cleanup of streams funded by
the AML program?
Overarching Concerns
Given the original design of SMCRA by its framers that AML funds
will only be allocated to those States who agree to implement title V
regulatory programs for active mining operations, to what extent can we
expect that States will continue to implement and fund their title V
programs if Title IV funding is drastically cut or eliminated under the
proposal? Furthermore, since States and tribes will not know what level
of AML program staffing to maintain from year to year under the
proposal, who would desire to work for a program that is in a constant
state of flux?
The SMCRA 2006 Amendments were the result of roughly 10 years of
negotiations, discussions, and debates in the Congress. Since the
legislative process to enact these new proposed changes could take
years, why didn't OSM begin with the legislation and then follow up
with an appropriate budget proposal? Why weren't the States/tribes or
the NAAMLP included in discussions that led to this legislative
proposal?
As OSM develops the legislative proposal for a competitive bidding
process, the agency should consider the impacts on minimum programs and
consider maintaining the minimum allocation of $3 million for minimum
program States.
What type of State AML plan amendments does OSM foresee as a result
of this new process?
Proposed Elimination of Funding for Abandoned Mine Lands Emergencies
While amendments to title IV of SMCRA in 2006 (Public Law 109-432)
adjusted several provisions of the Act, no changes were made to OSM's
emergency powers in section 410. Quite to the contrary, section
402(g)(1)(D)(2) states that the Secretary shall ensure ``strict
compliance'' with regard to the States' and tribes' use of nonemergency
grant funds for the priorities listed in section 403(a), none of which
include emergencies. The funding for the emergency program comes from
the Secretary's discretionary share, pursuant to section 402(g)(3) of
the act. This share currently stands at $416 million. OSM's elimination
of funding for the emergency program will result in the shift of
approximately $20 million annually that will have to be absorbed by the
States. This is money that cannot be spent on high-priority AML work
(as required by SMCRA) and will require the realignment of State AML
program operations in terms of personnel, project design and
development, and construction capabilities. In most cases, depending on
the nature and extent of an emergency project, it could preclude a
State's ability to undertake any other AML work during the grant year
(and even following years), especially for minimum program States. How
does OSM envision States and tribes being able to meet their statutory
responsibility to address high-priority AML sites in light of the
elimination of Federal funding for AML emergencies? How does OSM
reconcile this proposal with the intentions of the Congress expressed
in the 2006 amendments to move more money out of the AML Fund sooner to
address the backlog of AML problems that continue to linger?
Proposed Elimination of Funding to Certified States and Tribes
From what we can ascertain, OSM proposes to eliminate all payments
to certified States and tribes--in lieu of funds; prior balance
replacement funds; and monies that are due and owing in fiscal year
2018 and 2019 from the phase-in during fiscal years 2008 and 2009. Is
this accurate? OSM says nothing of what the impact will be on
noncertified States as a result of eliminating these payments to
certified States and tribes--especially the equivalent payments that
would otherwise be made to the historic production share that directly
relate to ``in lieu of'' payments to certified States and tribes under
section 411(h)(4). Previously, OSM has stated that ``the amounts that
would have been allocated to certified States and tribes under section
402(g)(1) of SMCRA will be transferred to the historical production
allocation on an annual basis to the extent that those States and
tribes receive in lieu payments from the Treasury (through the
Secretary of the Interior) under section 402(i) and 411(h)(2) of
SMCRA.'' By OSM's own admission in its fiscal year 2013 proposed
budget, this will amount to $1.2 billion over 10 years. If the in lieu
payments are not made (as proposed), how can the transfer to historic
production occur? The result, of course, would be a drastic impact on
the historic production allocation otherwise available to uncertified
States. Will OSM address this matter in its proposed legislation? If
so, how?
Has OSM considered the fiscal and programmatic impacts that could
result if the certified States and tribes, who no longer receive AML
monies, choose to return their title V regulatory programs to OSM
(especially given the severe reductions being proposed for fiscal year
2013 in title V grants)?
Finally, how do the cuts in the title IV program line up with the
administration's other economic, fiscal and environmental objectives as
articulated in the deficit reduction and jobs bills that have been
considered by the Congress? These objectives include environmental
stewardship, cleaning up abandoned mines (coal and noncoal) nationwide,
creating green jobs, pumping dollars into local communities, putting
money to work on the ground in an expeditious manner, sustainable
development, infrastructure improvements, alternative energy projects,
protecting public health and safety, and improving the environment. It
seems to us that there is a serious disconnect here and we remain
mystified as to how these laudable objectives and OSM's budget proposal
can be reconciled.
______
RESOLUTION
INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION
BE IT KNOWN THAT:
WHEREAS, Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (SMCRA) established the Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
reclamation program; and
WHEREAS, the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) is a multi-
state organization representing the natural resource and
environmental protection interests of its 24 member States,
including the elimination of health and safety hazards and the
reclamation of land and water resources adversely affected by
past mining and left in an abandoned or inadequately restored
condition; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the cooperative federalism approach contained in
SMCRA, several IMCC member States administer AML programs
approved, funded and overseen by the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) within the U.S. Department of
the Interior; and
WHEREAS, SMCRA, Title IV establishes a reclamation fee on each ton of
coal mined in the United States to pay for abandoned mine land
reclamation; and
WHEREAS, SMCRA, Title IV mandates that 50 percent of the reclamation
fees collected annually are designated as State share funds to
be returned to the States from which coal was mined to pay for
reclamation projects pursuant to programs administered by the
States; and
WHEREAS, SMCRA, Title IV also mandates that a minimum level of funding
should be provided to ensure effective State program
implementation; and
WHEREAS, Congress enacted amendments to SMCRA in 2006 to address, among
other things, continued collection of AML fees and funding for
State programs to address existing and future AML reclamation;
and
WHEREAS, the 2006 Amendments established new, strict criteria that
ensure States expend funds on high-priority AML sites; and
WHEREAS, the proposed 2012 budget for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement within the U.S. Department of the
Interior would disregard the State-Federal partnership
established under SMCRA and renege on the funding formula under
the 2006 Amendments by, among other things, eliminating
mandatory funding for States who have certified the completion
of their coal reclamation work and adjusting the mechanism by
which noncertified States receive their mandatory funding
through a competitive bidding process; and
WHEREAS, if statutory changes are approved by Congress as suggested by
the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget for OSM, reclamation of
abandoned mine lands within certified States would halt;
reclamation of abandoned mine lands in all States would be
jeopardized; employment of contractors, suppliers, technicians
and others currently engaged in the reclamation of abandoned
mine lands would be endangered; the cleanup of polluted lands
and waters across the United States would be threatened by
failing to fund reclamation of abandoned mine lands; minimum
program State funding would be usurped; the AML water supply
replacement program would be terminated, leaving coalfield
citizens without potable water; and the intent of Congress as
contained in the 2006 Amendments to SMCRA would be undermined
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Interstate Mining Compact Commission opposes the legislative
proposal terminating funding for certified States and altering the
receipt of mandatory AML funding for noncertified States contained in
the fiscal year 2012 budget proposal for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement and instead supports the AML funding
mechanism contained in current law.
Issued this 10th day of March, 2011
ATTEST:
Gregory E. Conrad,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Izaak Walton League of America
The Izaak Walton League of America appreciates the opportunity to
submit testimony for the record concerning appropriations for fiscal
year 2013 for various agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of
the subcommittee. The League is a national, nonprofit organization with
more than 39,000 members and 250 local chapters nationwide. Our members
are committed to advancing common sense policies that safeguard
wildlife and habitat, support community-based conservation, and address
pressing environmental issues. The following pertains to programs
administered by the Departments of Agriculture and theInterior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Environmental
Protection Agency.
Keep Fiscal Year 2013 Bill Free of Extraneous Policy Provisions
This year, the American people will be celebrating the 40th
anniversary of passage of the Clean Water Act. With this in mind, the
League strongly urges the subcommittee not to accept any provision in
its fiscal year 2013 bill barring the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) from finalizing and implementing Clean Water Act guidance or
proceeding with the formal rulemaking process to revise its clean water
regulations. Our organization and other hunting, angling and
conservation groups across the country actively opposed a similar
provision advanced by the U.S. House in its fiscal year 2012 bill.
Since proposing draft guidance last spring, EPA has conducted a
nearly unprecedented public engagement process for agency guidance.
During this process, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers held a 90-day
public comment period. The agencies received more than 230,000 comments
and have publicly stated that 90 percent of individual comments
supported the proposal. In mid-February 2012, the Corps and EPA
submitted revised guidance to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for another round of inter-agency review. This process also allows
nongovernmental organizations to meet with OMB to discuss this policy.
Guidance proposed by EPA and the Corps is based on sound science
and clearly complies with the Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC and
Rapanos. Allowing EPA to proceed with guidance will partially restore
protections for streams flowing to public drinking water supplies for
117 million Americans. It will also begin--but only begin--to restore
protections for some wetlands. Healthy wetlands provide essential
habitat for waterfowl, fish, and other wildlife, offer cost-effective
flood protection, and improve water quality. They also support hunting,
angling, and wildlife watching, which together inject $122 billion
annually into our economy. Finalizing the guidance will also provide
more clarity and certainty about Clean Water Act implementation to
landowners, developers, agency personnel, and State and local
governments.
Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, Land and Water
Conservation Fund
The League supports providing $450 million for the LWCF in fiscal
year 2013 as requested by the administration. It is important to begin
to reinvest in strategic land acquisition to protect critical habitat,
secure valuable in-holdings, and expand recreational access to existing
Federal public lands. Dramatically reducing funding for LWCF will not
provide meaningful savings to taxpayers because it is capitalized with
revenue from offshore oil and gas drilling. As importantly, diverting
resources from LWCF to offset other expenditures from the general
treasury directly undermines the fundamental premise on which LWCF is
based. That common sense premise is a portion of the revenue generated
by natural resource extraction should be invested in conserving other
natural resources at the national, regional, and State levels.
In addition to supporting the overall request, the League backs
proposals by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and USDA Forest
Service to allocate $2.5 million and $5 million, respectively, to
projects which expand recreational access to existing public lands
through easements or acquisition from willing sellers. The League and
many other national hunting, angling, and conservation groups support
legislation in the Congress that would achieve a similar purpose by
annually allocating 1.5 percent of LWCF appropriations to expand
recreational access.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System Operations
and Maintenance
The League joins other members of the Cooperative Alliance for
Refuge Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 22 wildlife,
sporting, conservation, and scientific organizations representing
approximately 15 million of members and supporters, in supporting the
$495 million requested for operations and maintenance of the National
Wildlife Refuge system.
The League and CARE groups appreciate the importance of fiscal
discipline and making strategic spending decisions. CARE annually
develops an estimate of the operations and maintenance budget that is
necessary to effectively provide visitor services and law enforcement
and conserve and manage fish, wildlife, and habitat across the refuge
system. CARE estimates operations and maintenance needs total $900
million annually. Although our long-term goal is to make steady
progress toward a budget which more accurately reflects demands on the
ground, the fiscal year 2013 request balances fiscal responsibility
with pressing resource conservation, visitor services, and law
enforcement needs.
Fish and Wildlife Service, State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
As a member of the Teaming with Wildlife Coalition, the League
urges the subcommittee to provide at least $61 million in fiscal year
2013 for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. This amount equals the
administration's request and the appropriation for the current fiscal
year. State Wildlife Grants support proactive conservation projects
aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. Experience shows
that efforts to restore imperiled wildlife can be particularly
contentious and costly when action is taken only after species are
formally listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act. State Wildlife Grants augment State and community-based
efforts to safeguard habitat and wildlife before either reaches the
tipping point. The Federal investment leverages significant funding
from private, State, and local sources.
U.S. Geological Survey, Asian Carp Research and Control
Asian carp pose a serious and potentially devastating threat to the
long-term health of the Great Lakes. Asian carp have been steadily
migrating north along the Mississippi River and could reach the Great
Lakes through a system of canals that artificially connect the
Mississippi River and Great Lakes basins. Experts warn invasive carp
could devastate the $7 billion commercial and recreational fishery in
the Great Lakes. In fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
requests a $3 million increase to accelerate research designed to
detect, limit, and control carp in the Upper Mississippi River and
Great Lakes. In the Upper Mississippi region, the research would focus
on improving methods to detect Asian carp populations at low levels and
identifying habitats most vulnerable to colonization. In the Great
Lakes, research would be directed toward developing methods for oral
delivery of fish toxicants, identifying and developing chemical
attractants to aid in targeted removal of carp, and testing seismic
technology as a means of restricting the passage of carp through locks
and other navigation infrastructure.
The League believes one of the most effective ways to safeguard the
Great Lakes from aquatic invasive species is to restore the natural
hydrologic separation between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River
basins. In the mean time, we support this request, which represents a
prudent near-term investment in invasive carp control.
U.S. Geological Survey/Environmental Protection Agency, Hydraulic
Fracturing Research and Analysis
The League supports requests by the USGS and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for funding to continue and augment research
concerning the potential effects of high-volume hydraulic fracturing on
water and air quality, surface and groundwater resources, habitat, and
fish and wildlife. The League supports responsible development of
domestic energy resources, including natural gas, as well as greater
emphasis on renewable sources and energy efficiency in order to improve
energy independence and security. At the same time, the accelerated use
of hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus region, in particular,
continues to outpace our knowledge about potential negative impacts on
a wide range of natural resources.
The proposed budget would augment research across a range of
issues. For example, the USGS requests approximately $18.6 million for
fracturing-related research. With this funding, USGS would prioritize
research on water quality and supply, air quality, characterizing gas
resources and the related geologic formations, movement of methane gas
during the drilling process, and the impacts of fracturing on
landscapes, habitat, and other natural resources. EPA is requesting
approximately $14 million in fiscal year 2013 for research in this
area. This will support an ongoing EPA study assessing the impacts of
hydraulic fracturing on water resources and other applied research in
cooperation with USGS and the Department of Energy.
Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
The League supports providing $300 million as requested for the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The Great Lakes provide drinking
water to 35 million people and support jobs and recreational
opportunities for millions more. However, the health of the Great Lakes
is seriously threatened by untreated sewage, toxic pollution, invasive
species, and habitat loss. The eight States that border the Lakes and
many nongovernmental organizations have invested significant resources
to safeguard these national treasures. Sustained Federal investment at
a significant level is also needed or the problems will only get worse
and cost even more to fix.
Cleaning up the Great Lakes will provide many benefits, including
economic development in the region. According to the Brookings
Institution, Great Lakes restoration efforts produce $2 in economic
return for every $1 invested. Restoration projects create jobs for
engineers, landscape architects, and construction workers and improve
water quality, support outdoor recreation, and reestablish healthy fish
and wildlife habitat. These results lay the foundation for long-term
prosperity in the region.
Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source Management Program
(Clean Water Act Section 319)
The League is concerned that the Congress and EPA have reduced
funding for section 319, the Non-point Source Management Program. These
reductions are counterproductive as EPA and many States report that
nonpoint source pollution is the leading cause of water quality
problems, including harmful effects on drinking water supplies,
recreation, fisheries and wildlife. Based on the pressing nature of the
problem, it makes sense to invest resources that help States and local
governments more aggressively tackle nonpoint source pollution. The
League urges the subcommittee to provide at least the amount requested
by EPA for section 319.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program
The League supports the administration's request for approximately
$72.6 million in fiscal year 2013 for the Chesapeake Bay Program. The
Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States and one of
the largest in the world. More than 16 million people live within the
Bay watershed. The Bay is a critical economic, environmental, and
recreational resource for these residents and the Nation as a whole.
However, the productivity and health of this nationally significant
resource remain seriously impaired by nutrient pollution from multiple
sources throughout the watershed.
The EPA and States have launched a significant and rigorous effort
to cut pollution and improve water quality. Few would argue that
implementing the total maximum daily load (TMDL) will not be
challenging or not require significant investment to reduce point and
non-point source pollution. However, EPA is requesting additional
funds, in part, to support States, local governments, and other
partners as they begin implementing the TMDL. The League believes it is
essential to provide technical and financial assistance to achieve
results on-the-ground and lay the foundation for sustained pollution
reductions over the long-term.
The Izaak Walton League appreciates the opportunity to testify
about these important issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Washington State
On behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, we are pleased to
submit this written testimony on our funding priorities and requests
for the fiscal year 2013 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian
Health Service (IHS) budgets. While we recognize that the Congress
faces unusually difficult funding decisions this year, funding for
tribal programs and services must be a priority in the Federal budget
if the United States is to fulfill its trust obligation and live up to
the promises made to American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) tribal
governments.
Congressional support of our proposed funding initiatives will
promote efficiency and accountability, strengthen reservation and
surrounding local economies, and affirm tribal sovereignty and Self-
Governance. We have long appreciated this subcommittee's support of our
funding requests and are pleased to submit the following
recommendations and requests:
Tribal-Specific Appropriation Priorities
$495,000 land purchase for Tamanowas Rock Sanctuary Project.
$200,000 increase to BIA tribal base budget for fish & wildlife
management.
Local/Regional Requests and Recommendations
The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is a direct beneficiary of the
collective tribal efforts and continues to support the requests and
recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians,
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission.
National Requests and Recommendations
Bureau of Indian Affairs Requests
Provide $89 million increase for tribal priority allocations.
Provide $8.8 million increase for BIA contract support cost (CSC).
Provide $13.7 million increase for fixed costs/pay costs.
Restoration and increase funding for Indian Loan Guarantee Program.
Establishment and funding for a Surety Bonding Guarantee Program.
Indian Health Service Requests
Hold Harmless Indian Health Programs.
Provide $99.4 million increase more than President's fiscal year
2013 budget to fully fund contract support costs.
Provide $304 million increase to fund mandatory costs for current
services.
Provide $45 million increase for the Indian Health Care Improvement
Fund.
The leadership of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe remains actively
involved in both the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and
the National Indian Health Board (NIHB) and we are extremely supportive
of their requests.
Tribal-Specific Appropriation Justification
$495,000 Land Purchase for Tamanowas Rock Sanctuary Project
The purpose of the project is to preserve tribal cultural and
ceremonial access to an important archaeological site of the S'Klallam
American Indian people. Tamanowas Rock, located in Eastern Jefferson
County on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, is of great
cultural and spiritual significance to the tribes in the region, and
also holds special significance for the local non-Indian community. As
a geological formation, the estimated age of the Rock is 43 million
years. More importantly, the oral history associated with the Rock
among the local tribes includes the era of the mastodons (extinct for
8,000 years), when it was used as a perch by tribal hunters and a story
of a great flood (assumed to be a tsunami from around 3,000 years ago)
when people tied themselves to the Rock to avoid being swept away.
In 1976, the Rock was listed in the Washington Heritage Register as
having significant archaeological interest. The tribes, Washington
State Parks, and local community have been working for more than 13
years to try to protect the Rock from development. In February 2005,
the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, acting on behalf of all the S'Klallam
Tribes, obtained loans to purchase a 20-acre parcel and a group of
platted properties totaling 66.32 acres (if dedicated roads are
vacated, the acreage is closer to 100 acres for the platted
properties). This property was in imminent threat of development in the
vicinity of the Rock. We are taking the lead to seek funds to purchase
the land and the remaining 80 acres directly surrounding Tamanowas
Rock, all of which would be protected in perpetuity.
$200,000 Increase to Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Base
Budget for Fish and Wildlife Management
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is one of four tribes that signed the
Point No Point Treaty with the U.S. Government in 1855. The U.S.
Government formally recognized Jamestown in 1981. By then, the BIA was
contracting with tribes to provide fisheries management services. The
Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) was serving as the fisheries
management agency for the other Klallam and Skokomish Tribes. Rather
than redistribute the funding pie, Jamestown received a smaller portion
for fisheries management in relation to the other three tribes. Even
with Self-Governance, the BIA continues to distribute contracted funds
based on funding history, thus Jamestown receives a significantly
smaller portion of the PNPTC base funding than the other three tribes.
The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is nonetheless required to meet the basic
fisheries and wildlife management responsibilities of United States v.
Washington including planning, negotiation, regulation, technical
expertise and enforcement.
In addition to meeting our own responsibilities under United States
v. Washington, our tribal staff regularly perform the essential
fisheries management duties that other governmental jurisdictions are
charged with but either do not administer or administer poorly. As a
result, Treaty tribes are assuming responsibility for observing,
documenting and urging the agencies with regulatory responsibilities to
act in order to preserve critical fish habitat and protect dwindling
fish species from further decline. Development pressures along streams
and rivers have increased the need for local government monitoring and
enforcement of shoreline regulations; however, local and State funding
shortfalls have contributed to the decline in biologists and
environmental enforcement officers. Our immediate concerns are that as
State and local governments cut back on their capacity to carry out and
enforce these obligations, our Treaty rights are further imperiled. The
$200,000 increase to our fiscal year 2012 Self-Governance base is
needed to implement these essential treaty fish and wildlife management
services.
National Requests and Priorities
Bureau of Indian Affairs Requests
The President has committed to support and advance Tribal Self-
Determination and Self-Governance for the Nation's 567 federally
recognized tribes. Consistent with that commitment, the fiscal year
2012 budget should include the following critical increases:
Tribal Priority Allocation General Increase--Provide $89 million
(10-percent increase more than fiscal year 2012 enacted).--TPA
is one of the most important funding areas for tribal
governments. Tribes use these funds to administer social
service programs for our tribal communities including, critical
services such as law enforcement, education, transportation,
natural resources and economic development. This funding has
steadily eroded due to inflation and population growth. We urge
you to adequately fund TPA to enhance the health and well-being
of tribal reservations and the surrounding non-Native
communities.
Contract Support Costs--Provide $8.8 Million Increase as Included
in the President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request for BIA to
Fully Fund Contract Support Cost.--The Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, (Public Law
93-638) allowed Indian tribes to manage Federal trust programs
for the benefit of their citizens that would otherwise be
administered by the U.S. Government. Under Self-Determination
contracts or Self-Governance compacts, tribes administer a vast
array of governmental services, including healthcare, law
enforcement services, education, housing, land and natural
resource management, as well as many other vital social service
programs. The greatest impediment to the successful
administration of these trust programs is the failure on the
part of the U.S. Government to fully fund contract support
costs.
Fixed Costs/Pay Costs--Provide $13.7 Million Increase.--Most
Federal agencies receive adjustments to their fixed cost rates
each year to cover inflationary costs associated with fringe
benefits and pay costs. Tribes have never received similar
adjustments to account for these costs.
Indian Loan Guarantee Program--Restoration and Increase
Funding.--The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) loan guarantee
program is vital to tribes because it creates jobs, provides
new sources of revenue to tribal communities, and critical
support in advancing economic development in Indian Country.
Part of the rationale to cut back this program is that the
program could be duplicating other services, such as SBA loan
programs. This assumption is wrong and will undermine the
tribes economic development efforts.
Surety Bonding--Establishment and funding of a Surety Bonding
Program.--There has long been a need for a Surety Bonding
program for Indian Country. The traditional bonding industry--
uncomfortable and unfamiliar with sovereign tribes--requires
excessive waivers of sovereign immunity to issue surety bonds
for our companies requiring these bonds. This industry
impediment clearly suppresses our business opportunities.
Indian Health Service Requests
Our tribe strongly encourages the following:
Hold Harmless.--Hold Indian health programs harmless and protect
prior year and proposed fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013
increases from budget roll-backs, freezes, and rescissions. We
are encouraged by the increased investments in Indian health we
are equally concerned that efforts by the Congress and the
administration to reduce the overall size of the Federal budget
may jeopardize the recent progress.
Contract Support Costs)--Provide $145 Million for IHS to Fully
Fund CSC, Including Direct CSC.--Tribal healthcare systems have
proven successful in providing quality, culturally appropriate
services to their citizens. However, the success of the program
will not be realized, without adequate CSC funding to support
these efforts.
Fund Mandatory Costs--$400 million.--Mandatory costs include
adjustments for inflation, pay costs, staffing for new
facilities and population increases. Failing to fund these
mandatory requirements forces the tribes to cut vital
healthcare services.
Fund the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund--$45 million.--The
purpose of the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund is to ensure
the equitable provision of healthcare services to Indian
people. The fiscal year 2010 $45 million appropriation brought
all operating units within the IHS to a 45-percent Level of
Need Funded (LNF). We are requesting $45 million in 2013 to
further decrease the disparity.
In closing, thank you for this opportunity to provide this written
testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation
Plan Industry and Government Coalition
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Coalition for the Kern County Valley
Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (KCVFHCP), we are pleased to submit
this statement for the record in support of our funding request for the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2013.
First, the Coalition supports the President's budget request for
the Department of the Interior's Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund, especially funding for HCP land acquisition.
Second, the Coalition urges the subcommittee to appropriate
additional funding for land acquisition above the funding requested by
the President. The additional funding requested by the Coalition
anticipates that $1 million will be needed by the Kern County program
to be used for purposes of acquiring and maintaining habitat preserves.
The Coalition's request is supported by the timely need to complete
and implement the KCVFHCP. The County's local oil and gas production
industry and Water Districts have contributed more than $573,500 to the
development of this program. In 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service allocated $500,000 of Federal Endangered Species Act section 6
funds to assist in program implementation (land acquisition and
endowment). The California State Government has authorized $1 million
to augment the Federal funds. In order to secure the $3 million total
necessary to assist in the implementation of the plan, we will require
$1 million for fiscal year 2013 and $500,000 for fiscal year 2014.
The Coalition requests that the subcommittee appropriate the
maximum possible amount for this program, so that the funding pool can
accommodate our request and need. We are confident that the plan's
merits and need support this request.
Kern County's program is unique from other regions in the Nation in
that it contains some of the highest concentrations of plant and animal
species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the
continental United States. The region is occupied by 11 wildlife
species and 14 plant species covered as threatened or endangered under
the program. The potential for conflict with the Federal ESA is great
in Kern County because of the extensive oil and gas production
activities, water conveyance and management efforts and other economic
pursuits that are occurring. Since Kern County is the top oil producing
county in the Nation and experiencing continued growth, potential
conflicts with the ESA and their resolution through a proactive
conservation program has significant national importance.
In recognition of the conflicts posed to economic growth by Federal
and State endangered species laws, a joint agency Memorandum of
Understanding was entered into by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Land Management, California Energy Commission, California
Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources, California Department
of Fish and Game and Kern County. The participating agencies agreed to
develop a unified conservation strategy with the goal of providing a
streamlined and consistent process of complying with State and Federal
endangered species laws, yet at the same time allow important industry
activities such as oil and gas, water conveyance and other economic
pursuits to continue.
Preparation of the KCVFHCP began in 1989 and involved a number of
Federal, State and local government agencies, as well as the oil and
gas industry, water interests, utilities, and environmental groups.
Kern County's Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan is one of the
largest and most diverse endangered species conservation programs under
development in the Nation encompassing more than 3,110 square miles.
The program represents a departure from traditional endangered species
conservation programs which utilize prohibitory controls to assure
conservation of species habitat. Instead, it will utilize an incentive-
based system of selling or trading habitat credits in an open market.
This innovative approach, for the first time, provides landowners with
real incentives and more importantly, the ability to choose how best to
manage their own private property. The KCVFHCP is in the final stages
of preparation. The HCP document is completed. An environmental impact
statement is being prepared for public review in the near future. Final
approval will occur in 2013.
Numerous agencies, in concert with the State of California and
local government entities, as well as the private oil and gas industry
have contributed funding, time and other resources toward developing
the KCVFHCP. This program will be completed in 2013, provided there is
the necessary Federal funding for the acquisition of habitat to
mitigate for oil and gas operations and development. Additional funding
is critical to completing the HCP. This is one of the final steps
necessary to implement the conservation strategy. Because of the
extensive private, local and State government financial support that
went into the development of this program, Federal participation in
program implementation will demonstrate that the burden of ESA
compliance is not being placed exclusively on private property owners.
Program funding will also contribute to eventual species recovery.
PROGRAM FUNDING NEEDS
In order for the KCVFHCP to be implemented, the program requires
funding in the amount of $1.5 million (augments the $1.5 million in
State and Federal funding received in 1997) that could be funded in
increments over the first 2 years of the program. The purpose of this
funding is described as follows:
Oil Development Issue
A mitigation strategy has been devised that is intended to
acknowledge existing oil field activities within Kern County. The
strategy proposes to acquire 3,000 acres of endangered species habitat
to mitigate for species loss resulting from oil field development
outside of established oil field production areas, but within proximity
of those areas. This is to allow for reasonable expansion of oil field
activities over the life of the HCP program. The program strategy
allocates $3 million for acquisition and perpetual maintenance of
species reserve areas. With this type of strategy, oil field expansion
activities would be provided for in the program. This strategy would be
of great benefit to the small independent oil and gas companies within
the program area.
Urban Development/County Infrastructure Issue
The conservation program includes an Urban Development/County
Infrastructure mitigation strategy that mitigates for species habitat
loss through the use of an incentive-based system of selling or trading
habitat credits in an open market. This innovative program will add
market value to land that is needed by project proponents to comply
with endangered species laws which, in turn, will encourage the owners
of such properties to offer lands for the benefit of species
conservation. Protected species of plants and animals will benefit from
a program that promotes private property owners to conserve permanent
habitat preserves consistent with the objectives of the ESA.
Water District Activity Issue
A Water District Strategy is included in the program to address
Covered Species protection due to the construction of new facilities
and the operation and maintenance of existing water management and
conveyance facilities. The Covered Species will benefit from reduced
and less intrusive operation and maintenance measures than have been
conducted historically due to concerns for conflicts with endangered
species laws.
Federal Funding Support Will Augment Local Government and Private
Industry Efforts To Comply With the Endangered Species Act
The $1.5 million required for the oil field strategy would help
contribute to satisfying the program's endangered species conservation
goals, while also providing for continued economic growth of Kern
County's oil and other development activities. Protected species would
benefit from a comprehensive long-term program that promotes the
creation of permanent habitat preserves.
Numerous private businesses, in concert with the State of
California and local government entities, are attempting to do their
part, and we come to the appropriations process to request assistance
in obtaining a fair Federal share of financial support for this
important effort. This unique cooperative partnership involving State
and local government, as well as private industry, has contributed
substantial funds to date, to assist in the development of this
program.
The California Industry and Government Coalition appreciates the
subcommittee's consideration of this request for a fiscal year 2013
appropriation to support implementation of this significant program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Kodiak Area Native Association
My name is Andy Teuber and I am the President and CEO of the Kodiak
Area Native Association (KANA) in Kodiak, Alaska. KANA is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit tribal organization formed in 1966 to provide health and
social services for Alaska Natives of the Koniag region. KANA provides
these services on behalf of the United States Government through
contracts with the Indian Health Service (IHS) and with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA). I am submitting this testimony on behalf of the
Kodiak Area Native Association, which experienced contract support cost
shortfalls but has been denied its day in court, due to no fault of its
own. On behalf of this tribal organization, I request that the
Committee include language which would deem its claims to have been
timely filed so that it can finally have its day in court. The language
would not guarantee any outcome on the claims, and would only assure
that the tribal organization is permitted to bring them.
Indian tribes and tribal organizations are the only Federal
contractors that do not receive full CSC. There is a clear obligation
on the part of the Federal Government to fully fund CSC. But more
importantly, lack of full funding for CSC has a very real and
detrimental impact on our programs that are already substantially
underfunded.
CSC is used to reimburse our fixed costs for items that we are
required to have but are not otherwise covered by the IHS budget,
either because another governmental department is responsible or
because the IHS is not subject to that particular requirement. Examples
include federally required annual audits and telecommunication systems.
We cannot operate without these things, so when CSC reimbursements are
underfunded we have to use other program funds to make up the
shortfall, which means fewer providers that we can hire and fewer
health services that we can provide to our patients.
We are very thankful for the increases in CSC that this Committee
has been able to provide, beginning with fiscal year 2010, particularly
the large increase that tribes and tribal organizations received last
year thanks to the efforts of this subcommittee. Although these
increases have gone a long way toward helping to diminish the CSC
shortfall, a significant CSC shortfall remains.
The best projections available show that the CSC shortfall for
fiscal year 2012 will be approximately $60 million, and that the
shortfall in fiscal year 2013 will be nearly $99 million. Given these
significant shortfalls, IHS's request for only a $5 million increase in
CSC for fiscal year 2013 is extremely disappointing. Our disappointment
is particularly acute when we consider that the BIA has requested full
CSC for its programs.
The inadequate IHS request could return us to a situation similar
to the one we endured from 2002 to 2009, when there were virtually no
increases for IHS CSC appropriations and the CSC shortfall increased by
more than $130 million. During that period, as our fixed costs
increased every year, all major tribal health programs in Alaska were
forced to lay off staff due to lack of funds.
KANA respectfully requests that the Federal Government honor its
legal obligations to tribes and tribal organizations and fully fund CSC
reimbursements by providing $571 million for IHS CSC reimbursements in
fiscal year 2013.
I appreciate your consideration of our recommendation for
additional CSC funding to improve the level, quality and accessibility
of desperately needed health services for AI/ANs whose healthcare
status continues to lag far behind other populations in Alaska and in
this Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians
My name is Tom Maulson, I am President of the Lac du Flambeau Band
of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, located in Wisconsin. I am pleased
to submit this testimony, which reflects the needs and concerns of our
tribal members for the upcoming fiscal year 2013. I would especially
like to thank the subcommittee for its leadership and commitment to
tribes and the programs that are critical to our operations.
This subcommittee's support of tribal programs demonstrates the
very best of the Congress and our Nation's leaders. Today, I am going
to discuss the funding needs of several programs vital to tribes,
including tribal EPA funding, the BIA Natural Resource Programs and
Indian Health Service funding.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PROGRAMS
Tribal General Assistance Program.--The tribe strongly supports the
proposed $28 million increase for the Tribal General Assistance Program
(Tribal GAP). The Tribal GAP program provides base environmental
funding to assist tribes in the building of their environmental
capacity to assess environmental conditions, utilize available data and
build their environmental programs to meet their needs. According to
the EPA's budget justification, this level of funding would increase
the funding amounts available to eligible tribes by 40 percent, which
is the first base increase these programs have received since 1999.
This increased funding will help reduce staff turnover rates and
enhance long-term sustainability of tribal environmental programs. This
funding is critical for tribes in the Great Lakes as our region begins
to examine resource extraction issues, in particular mining. While we
understand the need for job creation, we believe any action must be
done in a way that does not destroy our natural resources, which are
the basic foundation of our way of life and economies today.
Great Lakes National Program Office.--We want to express our
continuing support for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)
and in particular, the $3 million tribal set-aside. As the subcommittee
knows, the Great Lakes represent three-quarters of the world's supply
of fresh water. But for us, the indigenous people of Wisconsin, the
Great Lakes represent the life blood of our economies and our culture.
The protection and preservation of the Great Lakes is necessary to the
protection and preservation of the tribal communities that have made
the Great Lakes their home since time immemorial.
The Tribal GLRI funding has allowed the Lac du Flambeau Tribal
Natural Resource Program to conduct a comprehensive bird survey and
establish an inventory of current and past wild rice beds. This data
will be used to draft restoration plans. The tribe also purchased a
Marsh Master. This all-terrain vehicle allows us to implement our Fire
Management Plan on the 8,000-acre Powell Marsh, a critical Reservation
wetland habitat area for wildlife and waterfowl, and to establish and
restore other important wildlife areas.
Clean Water Program.--The Clean Water Program provides grants to
tribes under section 106 of the Clean Water Act to protect water
quality and aquatic ecosystems. The Lac du Flambeau Clean Water program
monitors, maintains and improves water quality for the tremendous
amount of surface and ground water within the exterior boundaries of
our Reservation. According to the 2010 census, the Lac du Flambeau
Reservation includes nearly one-half of all of the water area (56.34
square miles) within the Wisconsin Indian Reservations. The tribe's GIS
Program indicates that there are 260 lakes covering 17,897 acres, 71
miles of streams, and 24,000 acres of wetlands within the Reservation.
Surface waters cover nearly one-half of the Lac du Flambeau
Reservation. Funding to maintain clean waters on our Reservation has
already decreased below the minimum required to maintain our program.
We ask the subcommittee to protect funding for this program that is so
important to the health of our communities.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
While the tribe is disappointed that the BIA's proposed budget for
fiscal year 2013 is essentially level funding for most programs, the
tribe recognizes the difficult fiscal times the Nation is in and thus,
the tribe is pleased that the BIA did not propose decreases to many of
the BIA's programs. In particular, we are pleased that the BIA
maintained funding for critical welfare and education programs. The
tribe is concerned that the BIA has proposed an administrative
streamlining initiative (including offering incentives for early
retirements) to achieve cost savings. We are fearful that if these cost
savings are not achieved that there will be a reduction across the
board in program funding. Thus, we urge the subcommittee to be mindful
of this and require the BIA to regularly report its progress in
achieving this initiative's goals.
Today, we want to particularly focus on the funding needs for the
BIA Education and Natural Resource Programs.
Tribal Education Programs.--Education is a top priority for the Lac
du Flambeau Band. We believe that it is through investment in education
that we will be able to restore stability to our Nation's economy. In
particular, to continue the progress Indian Country has made in
participation and control of education programs and schools, it is
imperative that funding for tribal higher education programs be
increased.
Thus, we support the budget's proposed small increases for the BIA
scholarship and adult education program and for the BIA Special Higher
Education Scholarships (SHEP) program. This funding supports Indian
students working for higher education and advanced degrees. Tribal
communities have made great strides in educating their youth. Those
strides are evident in the fact that more Indian students are attending
and graduating from colleges and other post-secondary institutions.
However, tribal communities must continue to evolve with other
communities. The national and global economy has changed--students must
earn college and graduate degrees to remain competitive. After making
progress in Indian education, Indian students cannot be allowed to fall
behind again because of lack of access to higher education programs.
Tribal Natural Resource Departments.--Tribes are leaders in natural
resource protection and BIA natural resource funding is essential to
maintain our programs. Lac du Flambeau has a comprehensive Natural
Resources Department and dedicated staff with considerable expertise in
natural resource and land management. Our activities include raising
fish for stocking, conservation law enforcement, collecting data on
water and air quality, developing well head protection plans, wildlife
habitat protection and enhancement, conducting wildlife surveys and
administering timber stand improvement projects on our 86,000-acre
reservation.
We would like to remind the Congress that, in addition to being
important cultural and environmental resources for current and future
generations, natural resources provide many tribes and surrounding
communities with commercial and economic opportunities. Whether tribes
use those resources to sell licenses for hunting or recreational
fishing, or operate subsistence fisheries, these resources often
provide much needed hunting and fishing resources for families and
tribes. As you all know, each and every economic and subsistence
opportunity today is invaluable, and should not be taken lightly. To
ensure that these opportunities continue, these resources must be
protected.
It is with this understanding of the importance of our natural
resources, that the tribe strongly supports proposed increases for the
Tribal Natural Management Development Programs, which would allow for a
$60,000 increase to the Lac du Flambeau Program alone. This increased
funding is the first significant increase these programs have received
in more than a decade. This funding will allow us to improve our
efforts to conserve and enhance the natural resources that are the very
foundation of our way of life.
Conservation Law Enforcement Officers.--One of the critical
elements of our Natural Resource program is our Conservation Law
Enforcement Officers. These officers are primarily responsible for
enforcing hunting and fishing regulations related to the exercise of
treaty rights, but they also have a much larger role in law
enforcement. They are often the first to respond to emergency
situations. These officers play an integral part in protecting our
cultural and economic resources, as well as assisting with the most
important role of protecting public safety.
Thus, we urge the subcommittee to support the BIA's proposed
$500,000 increase for Conservation Law Enforcement in the fiscal year
2013 budget. While this funding will be divided among tribes nationwide
and not sufficient to meet the overall need, it does represent an
acknowledgement of the importance of tribal conservation law
enforcement officers to the Federal law enforcement family.
Circle of Flight: Wetlands Waterfowl Program.--We urge the
subcommittee to support the $800,000 for the BIA Circle of Flight
Program. This program supports tribal efforts throughout the Great
Lakes Region to restore and preserve wetlands and waterfowl habitat
within tribal territories. This program also gives the Great Lakes
Region Tribes, States, USFWS, USDA, Ducks Unlimited and other private
sector groups an opportunity to work cooperatively in projects that
provide wetland protection, flood control, clean water, and recreation
in the Great Lakes Region. The subcommittee's strong support of this
program for the last two decades has resulted in tremendous successes
in restoring wetlands and waterfowl habitat throughout the Mississippi
Flyway.
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.--Related to the
tribe's natural resource needs, we would like to voice our continuing
support for the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
(GLIFWC). The tribe is a member of the Commission, which assists the
tribe in protecting and implementing its treaty-guaranteed hunting,
fishing and gathering rights. We urge the subcommittee to fully support
the increased programmatic funding for GLIFWC. GLIFWC has played an
invaluable role in providing science and sound management practices for
our off-reservation resources. This role could not be filled by any
other agency.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation.--The tribe strongly supports
the $1 million for the BIA's Cooperative Landscape Conservation
initiative. This funding will allow tribal participation in activities
intended to address climate change throughout the country, as well
develop and implement adaption/mitigation projects. Only through
collaborative initiatives will we address the challenges that climate
change presents for all of us.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
The tribe strongly supports the testimony of both the National
Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Health Board
regarding the Indian Health Service's fiscal year 2013 funding needs.
We join with them in expressing great appreciation to this subcommittee
for your efforts to increase the funding for tribal programs in the
face of very difficult fiscal times. Nevertheless, the level of funding
has not kept pace with the rising cost of healthcare or with the
population growth of our communities. Thus, we urge this subcommittee
to continue your efforts.
Contract Health.--We want to call particular attention to the need
for contract healthcare funding, which is a need that is expressed to
the subcommittee every year. This request is constant because contract
healthcare funding is so important to the basic health and well-being
of our communities, and is historically and continually tragically
underfunded. Again we would like to express our appreciation to the
subcommittee for providing increases to contract healthcare funding
over the past couple of years. In this regard, we strongly support the
$20 million programmatic increase for contract healthcare services
proposed for the fiscal year 2013 budget.
CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS
We cannot commend the subcommittee enough for your efforts to fully
fund Tribal Contract Support Costs. The last 2 years of increases have
been unprecedented and vital to the continued success of the Indian
self-determination policy. While we appreciate the BIA's $8.9 million
increase for Contract Support Costs, which the Agency reports should
fully fund this account, we are disappointed in the Indian Health
Service's request of only $5 million. We understand that this will
result in a $100 million shortfall for fiscal year 2013. Under the
Indian Self-Determination Act, many tribes have assumed responsibility
for providing core services to their members. If these services were
provided by the Federal Government, employees would receive pay cost
increases mandated by Federal law, but the Congress and Interior have
historically failed to fulfill their obligation to ensure that tribes
have the same resources to carry out these functions.
______
Prepared Statement of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and honorable members of
the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in
support of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal
year 2013 Interior, Environment, and related Agencies appropriations
bill. My name is Kevin Boling, I am a resident of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
and owner of The Boling Company, a forestland investment company. I am
pleased to be appearing today on behalf of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) Coalition. The Coalition represents a broad
array of groups and individuals across the country who value land
conservation and outdoor recreation with members from ranging from
business leaders to sportsmen to conservation organizations.
In a career spanning thirty years, I have had the great good
fortune to combine a personal passion for the outdoors with a career in
forest management, planning and investment. During the two decades that
I managed Potlatch Corporation's logging and forestry operations, I
became aware of the challenges for private landowners in the face of
changing land-use patterns and development pressures. Beginning in
2002, I managed extensive timberland investments for Forest Capital
Partners and, later, oversaw the successful closing of land and
conservation easements sales valued at $87 million. I worked on several
transactions funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund and
experienced firsthand its importance in helping communities and
landowners work together to maintain privately owned working forests
while protecting public values.
I appreciate this opportunity to advocate for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF), America's premier Federal program to ensure
that we all have access to the outdoors. Whether it is a local
community park or playground, or the vast expanses of our Federal
public lands, the Congress created the LWCF in 1964 to guarantee
America's natural, historical and outdoor recreation heritage. In 1968,
Congress had the wisdom to authorize an income stream of $900 million
annually for LWCF from offshore oil and gas leasing revenues--not
taxpayers' dollars. With an average of more than $6 billion coming in
from offshore leasing royalties annually (and significantly more
expected in future years), $900 million for the LWCF account is a
reasonable conservation offset to offshore energy development. It only
makes sense as we draw down some natural resources, that we reinvest a
portion of the proceeds to conserve other natural resources.
LWCF is a time-tested program with remarkable range, reaching all
Americans. Each of us has likely visited a local or State park, trail
or fishing access site that has benefitted from it. In total, more than
40,000 LWCF State assistance grants have added value to every State and
98 percent of the counties across the country. Each year, millions of
Americans as well as international tourists visit our national parks
and forests, hunt, fish or bird watch at our national wildlife refuges,
or hike along our national trails. Yet, few are aware of the added
protection that the LWCF program provides to our public lands. From
Gettysburg to Yosemite, and countless places in between, LWCF funding
has protected our natural, cultural, historical and recreation legacy,
preserving our uniquely American landscapes, stories and traditions.
Continued strategic LWCF investments in inholdings and conservation
easements protects the asset that is our public lands, preventing
incompatible development, creating management efficiencies, and
enhancing access to outdoor recreation opportunities. During my tenure
at Forest Capital, with the help of a conservation partner, we worked
on the conveyance of 6,600 acres of Forest Capital timber holdings to
the Siskiyou National Monument south of Medford, Oregon. This
represented the best possible outcome to meet the management needs of
the public agency, the financial considerations of Forest Capital, and
the interests of the local community. From the vantage point of the
private landowner, having a reasonable expectation that LWCF funding
would be made available for the purchase was critical in our decision
to invest time and manpower towards this conservation outcome at the
Siskiyou.
Increasingly, LWCF funding is playing an important role in
landscape-scale protection. This doesn't involve extensive Federal
purchases of land. Rather, open space, clean water, and wildlife
habitat can often be preserved by partnering with private landowners to
sustain working landscapes and keep land on the tax rolls. Conservation
easements purchases allow ranchers and farmers to remain responsible
land stewards, as they have for generations. Today, LWCF funding is
needed to protect working lands from the Everglades Headwaters to the
Dakota Grasslands to the Rocky Mountain Front. These projects--stunning
in scale and impact to local communities and traditional landscapes--
are relatively small and strategic in terms of Federal investment.
In my home State of Idaho, LWCF funding has contributed
substantially to the conservation of working farms and ranches along
the South Fork of the Snake River. Over the last decade and a half, a
unique partnership of landowners, local communities, conservation
partners, and Federal agencies has resulted in the permanent protection
of what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has dubbed one of our
country's most sensitive and unique natural areas. Today, this
continuous corridor of conservation easement-protected lands is keeping
the ranching traditional alive. With 350 recreational visitor days per
year along the South Fork Snake, it is also providing a major economic
driver in East Idaho.
The Forest Legacy Program, funded under LWCF since 2004, has
partnered with States and private landowners to protect more than 2
million acres of working forests in 42 States and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico. Even during tough economic times, with presumably fewer
private buyers out there, the reality is that these properties are
still worth more to a second-home or subdivision developer than today's
forest investor is willing or able to invest in them on a long-term
basis. Through the purchase of development rights today, the timberland
owner is no longer held hostage to future development considerations.
They can focus on the full measure of long-term forest management
opportunities and protect conservation values, while continuing to pay
property taxes, produce logs for local mills and, importantly, preserve
private sector jobs for rural communities.
One such example is the McArthur Lake Corridor in northern Idaho.
Several years ago, while a manager at Forest Capital, I oversaw the
conveyance of development rights for 3,943 acres utilizing Forest
Legacy funding. An important wildlife travel corridor between the
Bitterroot and Selkirk ranges, this ownership was already surrounded by
considerable rural residential development, so preventing further
development was critical. This year, the State of Idaho has requested a
Forest Legacy Program grant of $4 million to protect an additional
6,000 acres of working forests lands across the McArthur Lake Wildlife
Corridor. Stimson Lumber Company, the landowner, is contributing more
than $1 million in donated land value. Stimson will continue
sustainable timber harvest operations of approximately 2.5 million
board feet annually supporting about 33 full-time forest products jobs
plus another 69 full-time in other related sectors of the economy. By
guaranteeing public access to these lands in perpetuity, the easement
will also help to support numerous local businesses that are part of
Idaho's outdoor recreation economy--which statewide supports 37,000
jobs and accounts for more than $2 billion annually in retail sales and
services This is a win-win that maintains vital timber industry jobs
and production while supporting the local tourism and recreation
economy.
If we are serious about creating jobs and getting the economy back
on track, conservation spending on LWCF is not only a wise, but an
essential investment. Today, outdoor recreation and tourism represent a
major part of the U.S. economy, one that America still dominates
globally, and one that represents opportunities for sustained economic
growth in rural and urban communities across America. A recent report
from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation tells us that, together,
outdoor recreation, natural resource preservation and historic
preservation activities support 9.4 million jobs (1 out of every 15
jobs in the United States) and contributes $1.06 trillion annually to
our economy. The popularity and demand for opportunities to recreate on
public lands will only increase as our population grows and these
natural places increase in aesthetic and economic value.
I am an avid outdoorsman and my most treasured memories are of time
spent in Idaho with family and friends, hunting and fishing, skiing and
camping, and rafting our magnificent rivers. Across the country, LWCF
purchases within federally designated areas, as well as conservation
easements across private lands, are protecting our most threatened
waterfowl, trout and big-game habitat. These Federal dollars often
provide leverage for significant State, local, and private investments
in land protection as well. Furthermore, LWCF funding can play an
increasingly important role in making public lands public by ensuring
that sportsmen and other outdoor enthusiasts have access to favorite
hunting grounds, trout streams, and trails. With changing land use and
ownership patterns, historic recreational access is being cut off or
blocked in many areas. Strategic LWCF purchases can defuse conflicts
with private landowners by securing permanent access. Additionally,
they serve to connect existing public lands and create expanded parking
and trailhead access for the public. Conservation easement acquisitions
through the Forest Legacy Program compensate private landowners who
have often provided voluntary public access to lands, thereby ensuring
permanent public access to prime hunting and fishing lands.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I join with the LWCF
Coalition and many others across the Nation in urging you to support
funding for LWCF . This year, the administration's budget request
includes high-priority, now-or-never, willing seller projects across
our national parks, wildlife refuges, forests and other public land. It
makes investments in stateside LWCF grants including local parks and
trails, and in non-Federal protection of working forests, key wildlife
habitat, and other irreplaceable outdoor resources. It also expands
LWCF investments in landscape conservation, hunting and fishing access,
civil war heritage sites, and national trails. These are priorities I
think we can all agree upon.
We understand the severe financial constraints under which you and
this Congress are operating. At the same time, we recognize that
America simply cannot afford to lose the public opportunities that LWCF
provides, or the activity it injects into the economy. It is a program
that enables local communities and private landowners to make
economically sound choices to protect the natural, cultural and
recreation resources we all commonly share. I therefore respectfully
ask that you support the administration's fiscal year 2013
recommendation of $450 million for LWCF program. At one-half the
authorized funding level for the program, this represents a measured
proposal that spreads limited resources wisely across urgent and
diverse LWCF priorities and programmatic goals.
In closing, I thank you for your dedication and service. I can
think of no greater legacy for my three lovely granddaughters than the
conservation of our traditional working landscapes, and the protection
of our recreation lands, clean waters, and wildlife heritage.
______
Prepared Statement of the League of American Orchestras
The League of American Orchestras urges the subcommittee to approve
fiscal year 2013 funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
at a level of $155 million. We urge the Congress to continue supporting
the important work of this agency, which broadens public access to the
arts, nurtures cultural diversity, spurs the creation of new artistic
works, and fosters a sense of cultural and historic pride, all while
supporting countless jobs in communities nationwide.
The League of American Orchestras leads, supports, and champions
America's orchestras and the vitality of the music they perform. Its
diverse membership of approximately 850 orchestras across North America
runs the gamut from world-renowned symphonies to community groups, from
summer festivals to student and youth ensembles.
With communities throughout the Nation continuing to weather
difficult economic conditions, the award of an intensely competitive
NEA grant is a compelling boost to an orchestra's pursuit of funding
from other sources. A grant from the NEA is seen as a mark of public
value and national artistic significance, and the distinction of
presenting these nationally recognized programs is enjoyed by
communities large and small. In fiscal year 2011, the NEA's Grants to
Organizations included 88 grants to orchestras, and continued funding
for the agency will support orchestras' ability to serve the public.
The NEA promotes creation, engagement, and learning in the arts through
Art Works, the major support category for organizations, and the
Challenge America: Reaching Every Community grant program--as well as
through vital Federal/State partnerships.
In addition to educating and engaging people of all ages, fueling
local economies, and attracting new business development, orchestras
unite people and cultures in a uniquely powerful way. The League is
committed to helping our members engage with their communities, and the
NEA plays an invaluable leadership role through its direct grants,
strategic initiatives, and research on trends in public participation
and workforce development.
nea grants help orchestras educate and engage america's youth
The Boston Youth Symphony Orchestras (BSYO), comprising 9 full-time
administrative staff and 68 part-time artistic staff serves
approximately 450 students every year. With an fiscal year 2012 NEA Art
Works grant, BYSO initiated and continues to develop the Intensive
Community Program (ICP), a nationally recognized string training
program for underrepresented youth from Boston's inner city. BYSO
provides ICP students with financial assistance for weekly music
lessons, ensemble classes, instrument rental and tuition subsidy in
BYSO orchestras. Additionally, BYSO makes more than 6,000 free tickets
available each year to the community through partnerships and offers
free outreach concerts directly in inner-city Boston neighborhoods,
bringing classical music to traditionally underserved populations.
Thanks to an NEA Art Works grant, the Eugene Symphony Orchestra,
with 7 full-time employees and 84 part-time musicians, will be able to
continue the Laura Avery Visiting Masters Program, an artistic
development program for student musicians. This program is an annual
series of artistic development activities for student musicians in
Eugene, Springfield, and Roseburg, Oregon, which offers master classes,
coaching sessions, lectures, and workshops by guest artists from the
Eugene Symphony's season, which in 2012 include violinist Midori and
pianist Adam Golka. All program activities are free and open to the
public.
The San Francisco Symphony Youth Orchestra (SFSYO) also received an
NEA Art Works grant, which it will use in its Artistic Development
Program to provide specialized training to prepare students for careers
in music through intensive coaching, collaboration with guest artists,
internships, mentoring, and training in chamber music, instrument care,
and audition techniques. An annual concert series and community
appearances reach more than 20,000 attendees each year, serving a broad
and diverse population through free tuition for its members; free open
rehearsals for seniors, students, and community groups; free concert
tickets for public school instrumental music students; and ensemble
performances at community events. The youth orchestra provides paid
part-time apprenticeships to 4-5 students each year.
nea funding increases public access to culturally diverse experiences
The NEA, together with the organizations it helps support, is
dedicated to improving public access to the arts. The experience of
live music can serve as a conduit for disparate communities to connect
with each other, and the Pacific Symphony, which employs 88 part-time
musicians and 44 full-time staff, is utilizing an NEA Art Works grant
to produce a celebration of the Persian New Year. The centerpiece is
the world premiere of Toward a Season of Peace, a work for chorus,
orchestra and solo soprano by the Iranian American composer Richard
Danielpour. The Symphony is committed to building unity in the
community through music, exploring a different facet of American music
each year. The Nowruz celebration has sparked considerable interest
nationally and spurred cross-cultural discourse among the orchestra's
culturally diverse surrounding community.
An fiscal year 2012 Challenge America grant will enable the
Billings Symphony Orchestra and Chorale, with 4 full-time employees,
500 volunteers, and 160 musicians, to present Classical Music/World
Class Artists, a three-concert series that will engage Montana
audiences in symphonic music presented by internationally acclaimed
guest artists who have roots in Ireland, Serbia, and Mexico. Challenge
America grants are specifically intended to support projects from
primarily small and mid-sized arts organizations that extend the reach
of the arts to underserved audiences. Accordingly, in addition to
making international artistry available to the regional population of
250,000, the Billings Symphony Orchestra and Chorale will offer master
classes, a community concert in rural Red Lodge, and three school
showcases in conjunction with this concert series.
With an NEA Art Works grant, the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra (BSO)
will establish the Orchestra Fellows Program for post-conservatory
musicians of color. Fellows will rehearse and perform in the main BSO
season and receive private coaching and preparation for auditions.
Beyond the concert stage, Fellows will engage in the orchestra's after-
school and community programs, including OrchKids, the BSO Academy, and
Rusty Musicians. The Orchestra Fellowship Program is part of the BSO's
broader vision of inclusivity and relevance within the community that
has marked the tenure of Music Director Marin Alsop. Among its goals,
the Fellows Program seeks to create a welcoming destination for
musicians of color and to increase the number of African-American
musicians in the BSO, thus better reflecting the diversity of
Baltimore. The BSO has 138 full-time and 318 part-time/freelance
employees, and a volunteer force of 438.
This May, an NEA Art Works grant will support the Milwaukee
Symphony Orchestra's (MSO) participation in the second annual Spring
for Music Festival at Carnegie Hall in New York. The Festival is a
series of concerts by North American symphony and chamber orchestras
with artistic profiles built around innovative, creative programming.
The MSO, which employs 35 full-time staff, was selected for
participation based on the submission of a program including works by
Olivier Messiaen, Claude Debussy and Qigang Chen. The program's
inspiration comes from the influence of world cultures and the
generational teacher-student dynamic that enhances the creation and
performance of the music.
While many orchestras draw inspiration from the various ethnic
cultures that make up our country, others celebrate distinctly local
traditions and landscapes, such as the Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra
(LPO), which received funding from the NEA to support the concert
Becoming American: The Musical Journey. Presented in collaboration with
The Historic New Orleans Collection, the concert celebrated the 200th
anniversary of Louisiana statehood by exploring the diverse classical
music traditions of New Orleans influencing the development of jazz
into the American tradition it has become today. The LPO, with 16 full-
time employees and 67 full-time musicians, was able to leverage its NEA
grant to secure funding from a national foundation to webcast the
performance to Internet audiences, resulting in more than 1,000 views
by audience members from 41 States and 17 countries.
Meanwhile, the Arkansas Symphony Orchestra, which employs 10 full-
time musicians, approximately 50 contracted musicians, 13 full-time
staff and 2,436 volunteers in three community guilds across the State,
will utilize its NEA grant for the American premiere of Michael Torke's
Mojave Concerto for Marimba. The Mojave Desert directly inspired the
composition, with the pulse of the marimba and accompaniment
representing the moving panorama as one drives the interstate between
Las Vegas and Los Angeles. In addition to the premiere, the composer
and percussionist will spend 1 week leading education workshops and
lectures for student musicians and community members.
NEA FUNDING ENCOURAGES NEW WORKS AND LOCAL ARTISTRY
NEA grants to orchestras help support the creative initiatives of
American composers and musicians. The Bismarck-Mandan Symphony
Orchestra, with a staff of 3 full-time employees, received its first-
ever NEA Challenge America grant for A Place in Heaven, a series of
activities culminating in a full orchestra concert featuring
Metropolitan Opera star and North Dakota native soprano Korliss Uecker.
Area students will be offered a college-level master class and there
will be an open rehearsal and presentation for students with
disabilities in partnership with VSA North Dakota.
A grant from the NEA will support the City of Fountains
Celebration, presented by the Kansas City Symphony, whose 80 musicians
and 30 full-time staff are dedicated to sharing music with audiences.
The Celebration includes world premiere performances of Daniel
Kellogg's Water Music, Steven Hartke's Muse of the Missouri, and Chen
Yi's Fountains of KC, all inspired by the fountains of Kansas City. The
project includes discussions with the composers, master classes, open
rehearsals for students, visual media postings, and a special
presentation about the fountains co-sponsored by the Kansas City Public
Library.
The Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra (RPO) also received NEA
support to commission and premiere a new work, which will include a
composer residency, by American composer Margaret Brouwer. The project
includes workshops with high school and college-level composers and
coaching at the International Viola Congress in Rochester with an
Eastman School of Music student performing Brouwer's Viola Concerto.
The RPO employs 58 full-time core musicians and 21 full-time
administrative employees. In addition, nearly 900 volunteers assist the
RPO, giving more than 22,000 hours of their time.
NEA grants encourage orchestras to commission innovative
compositions, bring music to underserved regions, and help educate and
engage citizens young and old. Thank you for this opportunity to convey
the tremendous value of NEA support for orchestras and communities
across the Nation. The Endowment's unique ability to provide a national
forum to promote excellence, both through high standards for artistic
products and the highest expectation of accessibility, remains one of
the strongest arguments for a Federal role in support of the arts. We
urge you to support creativity and access to the arts by approving $155
million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
______
Prepared Statement of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians
Aaniin! (greetings) My name is Jimmie Mitchell, Director of Natural
Resources for the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, located in
Manistee, Michigan. First of all, allow me to thank you for the past
support that you have respectfully provided and also for this
opportunity to present our testimony in support of the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget.
I represent the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority, herein referred
to as CORA, a natural resource management coalition comprised of 5
federally recognized Indian tribes:
--the Bay Mills Indian Community;
--the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians;
--the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians;
--the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians; and
--the Sault Ste Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
The CORA Tribes currently manage federally protected Treaty-
reserved Rights under the BIA Rights Protection Implementation Program
(RPI). These program funds are crucial as they greatly assist CORA and
its member tribes with the ability effectively and responsibly uphold
management obligations found under two separate decrees in United
States v. Michigan:
--the 2000 Great Lakes Consent Decree; and
--the 2007 Inland Consent Decree.
United States v. Michigan
The five CORA tribes are parties to the historic United States v.
Michigan court case concerning the exercise of treaty-reserved fishing,
hunting, trapping and gathering rights under Article 13 of the 1836
Treaty of Washington of March 31, 1836. In Article 13 the tribes
``stipulate[d] for the right of hunting on the lands ceded, with the
other usual privileges of occupancy, until the land is required for
settlement.'' The 1836 Ceded Territory covers a significant portion of
the Northern Great Lakes surrounding Michigan and also 13.7 million
acres of land found in the Northern Lower and Western Upper Peninsula
of Michigan. The 1836 Ceded Territory is quite arguably the oldest
expanse of its type remaining where Treaty Reserved Rights have been
reserved and exercised upon, prior to its inception through to current
times.
In the early 1970's, tribal members sought to further expand their
Article 13 rights by engaging in commercial fishing activities on the
Great Lakes. The State of Michigan did not recognize the tribes'
Article 13 rights and responded by citing, arresting and prosecuting
tribal members. The dispute led the United States to file United States
v. Michigan in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Michigan, to seek an adjudication of the tribes' Article 13
rights. Eventually, all five CORA tribes intervened in the case.
2000 Great Lakes Consent Decree
United States v. Michigan focused initially on the tribes' fishing
rights in the treaty-ceded waters of the Great Lakes. In a landmark
decision in 1979, the court held that the tribes retained their
aboriginal fishing rights in the Great Lakes. The court found
specifically that the ``usual privileges of occupancy'' reserved in
Article 13 included the right to fish and that the Great Lakes had not
been required for settlement. The court has since entered two decrees
governing the allocation and management of the Great Lakes fishery:
--a 15-year decree entered in 1985 that expired in 2000; and
--a subsequent 20-year decree entered in 2000 that remains in force
today.
The 2000 Great Lakes consent decree was negotiated by all parties
to the case, including the United States, the tribes and the State, and
contains extensive provisions for the restoration, preservation and
enhancement of Great Lakes fishery resources. In accordance with these
provisions (and their predecessors in the 1985 decree), the tribes have
developed programs that are necessary to protect and manage the Great
Lakes fishery resource while continuing to exercise the tribes'
commercial and subsistence fishing rights. These programs include the
following elements:
--Enactment of conservation-based regulations governing the manner
and means by which tribal members may exercise the right to
harvest resources;
--Staffing of conservation enforcement departments;
--Establishment of adjudicatory bodies to determine the existence of
violations of regulations;
--Biological assessment of the fishery resource and conduct of
resource protection and enhancement programs;
--Development of access sites for use by tribal fishermen; and
--Development of an inter-tribal management organization to provide
coordination and cooperation among the tribes and with the
State, the United States and international organizations.
2007 Inland Consent Decree
It was not until after the entry of the 2000 Great Lakes Consent
Decree that the parties to United States v. Michigan addressed the
tribes' inland hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering rights under
Article 13 of the 1836 Treaty. After several years of litigation,
followed by several years of negotiations, the court entered a
permanent consent decree on November 2, 2007, that recognizes the
continued existence of the tribes' inland Article 13 rights and defines
the nature and extent of those rights.
The 2007 Inland Consent Decree contains allocation and management
provisions governing treaty-reserved hunting, fishing, trapping, and
gathering rights throughout the expanse of the 1836 Ceded Territory. It
is a comprehensive and complex document that resolves the final phase
of United States v. Michigan.
The 2007 Inland Consent Decree establishes many new obligations and
responsibilities for the tribes. These responsibilities are heavily
weighted toward:
--Biological programs to protect and enhance inland natural
resources;
--Establishment of appropriate regulations of member harvesting
activities;
--Provision of adequate law enforcement personnel to ensure that such
harvesting is conducted in compliance with applicable law;
--Provision of judicial forums for the adjudication of any alleged
violations; and
--Establishment, implementation, and maintenance of joint information
sharing and management activities through CORA to assist in
inter-tribal coordination and co-management with State and
Federal resource managers.
All of these obligations impose a substantial and permanent
financial burden for the tribes to realize the full potential the
Consent Decree is designed to provide.
In order to meet the obligations mandated by the 2007 Inland
Consent Decree, while providing for long-term sustainable use of the
resources for the next seven generations, each of the tribes are
required to establish a management capability in several core areas,
including conservation enforcement, biological monitoring and
assessment, tribal court, and administration. Initiation of these
management programs necessitates adequate funding to ensure that the
tribes can meet their obligations, which is critical to ensure the
future viability of both the treaty right and the newly established
2007 Inland Consent Decree.
Support for Bureau of Indian Affairs Rights Protection Implementation
Program in the President's Budget
After making such landmark, long-term commitments, it is imperative
that the tribes not be placed in a position where inadequate funding
prohibits them from meeting their obligations, responsibilities, and
opportunities under either the Great Lakes or Inland consent decrees.
Adequate funding is absolutely critical to achieving the objectives and
responsibilities described in both consent decrees.
CORA's base funding for implementation of the Great Lakes consent
decree has suffered congressional funding reductions in recent years,
threatening the tribes' ability to meet consent decree obligations and
effectively manage and self-regulate their treaty fishery. However,
most of the proposed increase in funding for CORA is for implementation
of the newly enacted 2007 Inland consent decree, which has not been
provided with recurring base funding. Very little funding to implement
the Inland consent decree has been provided since it was entered into 5
years ago.
CORA heralds the BIA Rights Protection Implementation Program in
the President's budget, which provides an increase of $1.6 million in
CORA's funding. A small portion of the requested increase will be
provided through CORA to return the CORA tribes' funding base for the
Great Lakes treaty fishery to fiscal year 2010 levels. The vast
majority of the increase will provide $1.5 million to allow the
beneficiary tribes and their members to meet their obligations under
the 2007 Inland consent decree and to implement their treaty-reserved
inland hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering rights. The BIA Rights
Protection Implementation Program in the President's budget provides
base funding for the very first time for affected tribes to meet
Federal-court mandated responsibilities in the conservation and
management of fish and wildlife resources.
The CORA Tribes stand united in reminding the Congress of the
Federal Government's trust obligations to sustain funding for tribal
natural resource management programs. This obligation is the result of
treaties negotiated by tribes and Federal Government, which must be
honored and protected within the limits of available funding, including
current limits on discretionary funding. The President's budget
demonstrates that this can be achieved.
CORA hopes that you will recognize the fact that the tribes, State
of Michigan, and the United States have successfully resolved many
difficult legal, biological, social and political problems confronting
the Great Lakes fishery and inland resources in the 1836 ceded
territory. With your assistance, the tribes can continue to enhance
cooperative inter-governmental programs, build upon past collaborative
successes and to secure and promote our shared natural resources with
sound management structures for both tribal and nontribal users now and
forward into future generations.
I thank you again for providing this opportunity to convey with
you, both the challenges we face and the opportunities the RPI funds
assist us to accomplish as managing co-sovereigns'.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lummi Nation
Thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished subcommittee members for
the opportunity to share with you the appropriation priorities of the
Lummi Nation for the fiscal year 2013 budgets of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Lummi Nation is located on the northern coast of Washington
State, and is the third-largest tribe in Washington State serving a
population of more than 5,200. The Lummi Nation is a fishing Nation. We
have drawn our physical and spiritual sustenance from the marine
tidelands and waters for hundreds of thousands of years. Now the
abundance of wild salmon is gone. The remaining salmon stocks do not
support commercial fisheries. Our fishers are trying to survive from
shellfish products. In 1999 we had 700 licensed fishers who supported
nearly 3,000 tribal members. Today, we have about 523 remaining. This
means that more than 200 small businesses in our community have gone
bankrupt in the past 15 years. This is the inescapable reality the
Lummi Nation fishers face without salmon. We were the last surviving
society of hunters/gatherers within the contiguous United States. We
can no longer survive in the traditional ways of our ancestors.
Lummi Specific Requests--Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Role of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in
Preserving Ancestral Knowledge.--We would first like to acknowledge the
most recent revisions to section 106 that emphasize landscapes when
dealing with locations of cultural and historical significance.
However, we need to bring to your attention the marginalization and de-
legitimization of Native American ancestral knowledge. The question is
not whether ancestral knowledge is meaningful to Native Americans when
we speak of the significance of sacred landscapes. Instead, the
question is how, for what reason, to whose benefit, at what cost, and
by what authority Native American ways of knowing knowledge have been
marginalized as less than true knowledge. Our ancestral knowledge must
contend with the influences of Christian belief and its moral order as
well as conventional education, anatomo-economic regulations of the
capitalized workplace, bureaucratized and jural-legal as opposed to
ancestral systems of governance, and the imperium of science that
marginalizes through the re-representation of Native American
traditional knowledge and ways of knowing our world. The Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation is one of the few entities in a
position to acknowledge our forms and frameworks of knowledge as coeval
with those of modern science and bring a degree of justice to our
efforts to protect not only our sacred landscapes, but also our ways of
understanding and experiencing them.
Lummi Specific Requests--Bureau of Indian Affairs
+$2 million--Phase 1. New Water Supply System--Increase in funding
for Hatchery construction, operation and maintenance.--Funding will be
directed to increase hatchery production to make up for the shortfall
of wild salmon. +$300,000 funding for the Conservation Law Enforcement
Officer Program to insure that Lummi Nation need for Natural Resources
Enforcement Officers will be funded.
Committee Directive Requests
Bureau of Reclamation.--The Lummi Nation requests that the
Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to fund Lummi Nation work
to develop comprehensive water resources conservation and utilization
plans that accommodates the water needs of its residents, its extensive
fisheries resources.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Natural Resources Branch.--Direct the BIA
to work with Lummi Nation to ensure that its needs related to the
removal of wild stocks from the salmon available for harvest are
compensated through increased hatchery construction, operations and
maintenance funding.
Direct the DOI Office of Indian Energy, Economic and Workforce
Development to work with the Lummi Nation in support of its
comprehensive Fisherman's Cove Harbor and Working Water Front Project
which addresses Indian Energy, Economic and Workforce Development needs
of the Lummi Nation membership.
Lummi Specific Requests--Indian Health Service
Implement ACA & IHCIA.--Direct the Department and the U.S. Indian
Health Services to fully and completely implement the Indian Specific
provision of the Affordable care Act and the newly re-authorized Indian
Health Care Improvement Act.
Wellness is the #1 Priority of the Council in 2012-13.--Lummi
Nation requests the committee support the SAMHSA Proposed Tribal Block
Grant to combat Drug Epidemic among the Lummi Nation membership.
Head Start for Tribal Development.--The Lummi Nation requests the
Committee directs BIE and DHHS, Children's Bureau support the
construction of a new Lummi Nation head start/day care facility with
technical and financial assistance.
Serve Native American Veterans.--Direct the Indian Health Services
to immediately develop and provide formal consultation between Indian
Health Services, U.S. Veteran's Affairs and tribes on the formal
Memorandum of Understanding for the provision of VA medical services to
tribal veterans and their families.
Lummi Specific Requests--Bureau of Indian Affairs
+$2 million--Phase 1. New Water Supply System-Increase in funding
for Hatchery construction, operation and maintenance. Funding will be
directed to increase hatchery production to make up for the shortfall
of wild salmon.--The Lummi Nation currently operates two salmon
hatcheries that support tribal and nontribal fishers in the region. The
tribal hatchery facilities were originally constructed utilizing
Federal funding from 1969-1971. Understandably most of original
infrastructure needs to be repaired, replaced and/or modernized. Lummi
Nation Fish Biologists estimate that these facilities are currently
operating at 30 percent of their productive capacity. Through the
operation of these hatcheries the tribe annually produces 1 million
fall Chinook and 2 million Coho salmon. To increase production, we must
pursue a ``phased approach'' that addresses our water supply system
first. The existing system only provides 850 GPM to our hatchery. To
increase production to a level that will sustain tribal and nontribal
fisheries alike, we need to increase our water supply four-fold. A new
pump station and water line will cost the tribe approximately $6
million. We are requesting funding for the first phase of this project.
Our goal is to increase fish returns by improving aquaculture and
hatchery production and create a reliable, sustainable resource to
salmon fishers by increasing enhancement.
+$300,000 to increase the funding for the BIA Conservation Officer
Program to support Natural Resources Law Enforcement.--The Lummi people
rely on several commercial fisheries for their livelihood and several
noncommercial fish, game, fowl and natural plants for ceremonial and
subsistence purposes. There are currently three Natural Resource
Enforcement Officers (NREOs) and one Sergeant to patrol the 1,846
square miles of marine area and 9,145 square miles of the ceded lands.
The Natural Resource Officers patrol a vast area, with a large amount
of Natural Resources to protect, including:
--shellfish;
--salmon;
--halibut;
--deer;
--elk; and
--other protected species.
Although Lummi Code of Laws Title 10 (Natural Resources Code)
prohibits timber harvests without a permit, members and nonmembers
periodically conduct timber harvests without necessary permits.
Tideland Trespass on the Lummi tidelands is a major enforcement
challenge. The fact that all of the Reservation tidelands are held in
trust by the United States for the exclusive use of the Lummi Nation
was most recently re-affirmed in United States and Lummi Nation v.
Milner, et al. No. CV-01-00809-RBL (9th Cir. 2009). Although all of the
Reservation tidelands are closed to persons, who are not members of the
Lummi Nation in the absence of a lease permitting nonmember use of the
tidelands, or use permits issued pursuant to LCL Title 13 (Tidelands
Code), and this closure is posted at several places around the
Reservation, nonmembers continue to regularly trespass on these
tidelands. Although LCL Title 17 (Water Resources Protection Code)
prohibits the withdrawal of Reservation Waters without a permit,
nonmembers continue to drill ground water wells on the Reservation.
Illegal dumping is a major challenge on the Reservation. Although LCL
Title 18 (Solid Waste Control and Disposal Code) prohibits solid waste
dumping, like many places throughout rural America, illegal dumping
continues to occur. Currently, the Lummi NREOs are only able to
concentrate their patrol to the major Treaty concerns of fishing,
crabbing, and shellfish harvesting. Additional funding is necessary for
to prosecute actual incidents.
Direct the Bureau's Office of Indian Energy, Economic and Workforce
Development Division to work with the Lummi Nation in support of its
comprehensive Fisherman's Cove Harbor and Working Waterfront Project.--
Unemployment on the reservation has been very difficult to address with
limited on-reservation jobs. Tribal governments need to be able to meet
the employment and training needs of our membership as well as the
business development needs of our communities. This is the objective of
the Lummi Nation Fisherman's Cove Harbor and Working Waterfront
Project. We need financial assistance to enable our membership to get
the job skills the local (Reservation and Non-Reservation) labor market
demands. We ask the Committee to direct the Bureau to work with the
Lummi Nation to fully develop the Working Waterfront Project for the
benefit of the Lummi Nation fishers, members, and others invested in
the marine economy of the extreme northwest corner of the United
States.
Lummi Specific Requests--Indian Health Service
Support for full and complete implementation of the Indian
Specific provision of the Affordable care Act and newly re-
authorized Indian Health Care Improvement Act.--Tribes are
dismayed by the lack of support they have received in the
development and implementation of the following:
Long-Term and Community-Based Care.--The authorization of long-
term and community-based care tribal communities are among the
last to receive access to this all important health care
option.
Tribal Medicaid Program Demonstration Project.--The act
authorizes a demonstration project to enable tribes to
demonstrate their ability to successfully plan, develop,
implement and operate Medicaid Programs for the benefit of
their membership.
Healthcare Insurance Exchanges.--To support the planning
development, implementation, and operation of tribes as
providers of healthcare insurance on the same basis as State
are receiving this technical and financial assistance from the
Department.
Lummi Nation requests the subcommittee support the SAMHSA Proposed
Tribal Block Grant to combat Drug Epidemic among the Lummi Nation
membership.--Wellness is the #1 Priority of the Council in 2012-13.
Drug abuse is at epidemic proportions on the Lummi Reservation. The
proximity of the Lummi Reservation to the U.S. and Canadian borders
makes for a key ingredient in successful drug trafficking. With that
prime ingredient add production, transportation, distribution, abuse
and drug related crimes . . . this is our reality where my people are
becoming prisoners in our own homes.
What We Have Done.--Our people are seeking a return to health
through massive consumption of Lummi Nation Health Care
resources. We have increased the number of tribal members
receiving substance abuse treatment and mental health
counseling.
What We Still Need.--We are not equipped to keep pace with the
increasing access and use of heroin and other opiate additive
drugs that have besieged our ports, borders, communities and
citizens. Lummi Nation and other tribes cannot successfully
compete with politically connected communities and interest
groups which receive the majority of the funding that is
available through the State block grant system. We need
assistance to secure funding to plan develop, construct and
implement, programs services and facilities needed to improve
health and safety in our communities.
Head Start for Tribal Development--New Head Start Facility.--The
Lummi Nation Requests that the Committee directs BIE and DHHS,
Children's Bureau support the construction of a new head start/day care
facility for the Lummi Nation membership with technical and financial
assistance. Lummi has operated a Head Start program since 1966 in the
same facility. Successive Head Start Performance reviews have
consistently identified the building as not meeting Head Start
Performance standards. The tribe is seeking gap financing in the amount
of $1.2 million to complete the proposed new facility. These additional
costs are generated by Head Start Performance and tribal Child Care
Facility Standards.
Support Formal Consultation Between Indian Health Services, U.S.
Veteran's Affairs and Tribes on the Formal Memorandum of Understanding
for the Provision of VA Medical Services to Tribal Veterans and Their
Families.--Tribes have been seeking the development of relationship
between the Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Services
which results in simple parity of services between Indian and non-
Indian Veterans for more than a century. There is a need to insure that
the provisions of the final agreement between the Veterans
Administration and the Indian Health Services are consistent with
Indian Veterans needs.
National and Self-Governance Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Priorities.--
In general, all Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health
Services (IHS) line items should be exempt from any budget recessions
and discretionary funding budget reductions.
Bureau of Indian Affairs.--Fully Fund Contract Support Costs--
Support $8.8 million increase included in fiscal year 2013 President's
request. Tribal Priority Allocations--Provide $89 million increase. Law
Enforcement--Full Fund all Provisions of the Tribal Law & Order Act of
2010 that affect Indian Tribes & Increase funding for Bureau of Indian
Affairs Law Enforcement by $30 million. Office of Self-Governance
(OSG)--Provide increase funding to the OSG.
Indian Health Services.--Contract Support Costs (CSC)--Provide
increase of $99.4 million more than President's fiscal year 2013
request to fund the CSC shortfall. Mandatory Costs--Provide $304
million increase to for Mandatory costs to address these ongoing fiscal
responsibilities to maintain current services. Contract Health Services
(CHS)--Provide a $200 million increase to provide CHS. Adequate Funding
for Implementation of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA).
Office of Tribal Self-Governance--Increase $5 million to the HIS Office
of Tribal Self-Governance.
Hy'shqe (thank you) for the opportunity to provide these
appropriations priorities of the Lummi Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of Malheur Wildlife Associates
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of Malheur
Wildlife Associates, the friends group for Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge and its 110 members, we would like to thank the committee for
their strong support of the National Wildlife Refuge System and for
giving us the opportunity to submit testimony. We are a volunteer
nonprofit organization whose purpose is to promote conservation,
awareness, and appreciation of the wildlife and habitats of the Malheur
National Wildlife Refuge and to provide assistance to Refuge
operations. We urge you to show your continued support of the National
Wildlife Refuge System by approving the President's fiscal year 2013
budget request of $495 million for the operations and maintenance of
the world's premier system of public lands and water set aside to
conserve America's fish, wildlife, and plants. This level of funding
will barely maintain current management capabilities. The National
Wildlife Refuge Association estimates that refuges would need at least
$527 million in fiscal year 2013 to maintain management capabilities
from fiscal year 2010, and the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement (CARE) estimates that the Refuge System needs at least $900
million in annual funding to properly administer its 150 million acres
and remains committed to aiming for this goal.
Refuges are vital places for the American people to connect with
nature and get involved. Currently, refuge Friends and volunteers do
approximately 20 percent of all work on refuges. In 2011, these 1.5
million hours equated to roughly 8 volunteers for every 1 Refuge System
employee. Without staff to oversee volunteers, their commitment and
passion is lost, as is their desperately needed contribution to the
System. We request $80 million for Visitors Services for the NWRS.
We ask you to support $3.8 million in fiscal year 2013 for
Challenge Cost Share (CCS). Partners are the key to successful
conservation; no Federal or State agency can do it alone. Because of
this, we support programs that leverage Federal dollars such as the CCS
program. Partner organizations such as local volunteer ``Friends''
groups leverage these funds to give American taxpayers more bangs for
their buck for projects like trails, education, boardwalks and habitat
restoration. Malheur Wildlife Associates is helping Malheur NWR with
such projects by providing matching grant funds and volunteer work
crews.
We also request that you fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) at $700 million. Created in 1965 and authorized at $900 million
per year (more than $3 billion in today's dollars), the LWCF is our
most important land and easement acquisition tool. With more than 8
million acres still unprotected within existing refuge boundaries, and
the need to establish key wildlife corridors and connections between
protected areas, the LWCF is more important than ever. Also please
support the new Collaborative Conservation requests of the Departments
of the Interior and Agriculture, which brings together several Federal
agencies around a common goal.
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
Malheur NWR is one of the largest freshwater wetland refuges in the
Refuge System. It is considered one of the jewels of the Refuge System
and despite its remote location, receives very high visitor use, which
is very beneficial to both the local Harney County and Oregon economy.
It is the most popular birding destination in the State of Oregon. A
2004 study reported that Malheur NWR visitors spent $2.2 million. The
net economic benefit showed an economic value of $1.62 for every $1 of
the refuge budget. Such funding is a worthy investment in our Nation's
economy.
The refuge encompasses more than 187,000 acres and is critical to
migrating and nesting waterfowl and waterbirds in the Pacific Flyway.
It supports one of the largest nesting sandhill crane populations in
North America and is home to many other important bird species such as
the Greater Sage Grouse, Trumpeter Swan and American White Pelican and
also a wide variety of other native plants and animals.
Current Challenges and Needs
Malheur NWR wetlands have been seriously degraded by an introduced
population of invasive common carp. Carp have destroyed much of the
critical habitat on the Refuge, and are also affecting wetlands on
private lands in all the tributaries to Malheur and Harney Lakes. These
adjacent private lands have very high values for waterfowl and
waterbirds and along with the Refuge, make up one of the most important
wetlands complexes in North America. The refuge staff is embarking on a
monumental effort to reduce carp impacts on wetland habitats and
improve conditions for birds to further the Refuge's Mission. This
effort has also resulted in a strong local partnership between Malheur
NWR, private landowners, the Burns Paiute Tribe and State and Federal
agencies to focus on restoring wetlands and enhancing conditions for
wildlife on a landscape scale in Harney County.
There is also huge maintenance backlog at Malheur NWR and much work
is needed to properly manage the refuge. Malheur has one of the largest
infrastructures in the National Wildlife Refuge System, with
approximately 200 miles of public roads; 2,000 miles of waterways/
dikes; 5 dams; 1,000 water control structures; 6 automated fish
screens; 27 administrative, 7 quarters, and 25 visitor services
facilities; 4 historic building sites; and a large fleet of heavy/light
vehicles and equipment. This extensive infrastructure requires a high
degree of routine maintenance/repair to efficiently and effectively
support the various Refuge programs and maintain tens of thousands of
acres of wetlands, 30 miles of rivers/creeks, and 16,000 acres of
irrigated meadow. At the current staffing level, a vast majority of
routine maintenance and repair needs are addressed reactively.
Additional funding is needed to proactively address the maintenance and
repair backlog and move this Refuge forward to its full ecological
potential and ensure biological integrity. In 2011, the deferred
maintenance backlog for the Refuge was approximately $48 million.
Sequestration
Malheur Wildlife Associates is very concerned about the devastating
impact across-the-board sequestration cuts of 9-10 percent in fiscal
year 2013 will have on our refuges and the entire Refuge System. If
sequestration occurs refuge management estimates there will just enough
funds to pay salaries and utilities. The impacts will affect wildlife,
visitors and the local Harney County economy.
Impacts on Wildlife.--Managing the habitat will be staff's first
goal; however management will not be as effective. Invasive carp will
further degrade Refuge wetlands, reducing the value to waterfowl and
other wildlife that depend on them. Important populations of waterfowl
and waterbirds will suffer from this neglect. Refuge efforts to control
invasive weeds will be curtailed, causing further loss of wildlife
habitat and natural diversity, resulting in more costly control needs
in the future. Reduced law enforcement efforts will likely lead to
increased poaching of big game, livestock trespass, and looting of
Refuge archeological sites.
Impact on Visitors.--If sequestration goes into effect, refuge led
visitor service programs will be severely reduced. Staff time for
assisting visitors will be very restricted and access to the refuge
will be reduced. Trails and roads that are obstructed by storm events
will be closed. There will be no extended hours during the summer or
weekends. Regular trail and road maintenance will be deferred. Vaulted
toilets will be cleaned every few weeks instead of weekly and portable
toilets will be closed.
Friends and other volunteers will not be able to compensate for all
of these loses. To assist with managing the habitat, volunteers need
oversight and training, but there will be no funds to pay for the
training. The Friends organization is willing to expand our
interpretive programs; the challenge will be access, safety, and the
quality of wildlife viewing.
Opportunities To Embrace
Malheur NWR staff has been presented a great opportunity for
forming a ``Beyond the Boundaries'' partnership, the Harney Basin
Wetlands Initiative. This is a collaborative partnership which includes
the Refuge, local landowners, State and Federal agencies and the Burns
Paiute Tribe. The goal of this initiative is to improve aquatic health
and restore wetlands on a large scale (more than 300,000 acres of
lands) in the Basin. Malheur Wildlife Associates is assisting with
these efforts.
In 2011, the National Wildlife Refuge System created a vision to
guide the management of the System during the next decade and beyond.
The new vision seeks to make wildlife conservation more relevant to the
public and engage them in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Because
of its high visitation, Malheur NWR has the opportunity to help the
public understand the values of the National Wildlife Refuge System and
the benefits of our wildlife heritage.
In Summary
Wildlife Refuges matter to your constituents. In spite of its
remote location, Malheur NWR is by far the most popular destination for
birders in Oregon and has many fans who visit annually.
Our members realize that our country is facing difficult economic
times and we must all share in the challenges of the recovery. We thank
you for the meaningful funding increases allowed the System in fiscal
year 2008-2010 that provided stability to our refuges. We respectfully
ask you to support the following funding allocations for the National
Wildlife Refuge System that will allow the System to maintain existing
management capabilities:
--$495 million for the operations and maintenance accounts of the
National Wildlife Refuge System including:
--$39 million for Refuge Law Enforcement;
--$80 million for Visitor's Services;
--$3.8 million for Challenge Cost Share; and
--$37 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service construction
account.
The Malheur Wildlife Associates invite all the members of this
Subcommittee, your family, and staff to visit Malheur NWR, to see what
a treasure the place is, watch the wildlife, enjoy the scenery and
relax.
______
Prepared Statement of Maine's Department of Inland Fisheries and
Wildlife
The Congress created the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program in 2001
to help State and tribal fish and wildlife agencies address the unmet
needs of fish and wildlife and associated habitats, especially species
of greatest conservation need (SGCN). Funds appropriated under the
State Wildlife Grants program are allocated to States according to a
formula that takes into account each State's size and population. To
date, Maine has received more than $6.5 million in SWG funds. Projects
funded to date are diverse, covering many species groups, all
geographic areas of the State, and ranging in scale from ecosystems to
subspecies. They vary in length from 1 to 5 years, and include baseline
surveys and inventories, research, and habitat conservation. State
Wildlife Grant funds support 10 full-time positions within the Maine
Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and have funded
many projects that support conservation actions identified in Maine's
Wildlife Action Plan (WAP). Here are a few examples of projects that
State Wildlife Grant funds have supported. Other SWG-supported
activities not described here include:
--organizing a network of citizen-volunteers to locate and monitor
colony-nesting wading birds such as herons; and
--population monitoring and public outreach for species such as
falcons, bats, New England cottontail rabbit, rare butterflies,
dragonflies, and freshwater mussels, and significant wildlife
habitats.
Beginning With Habitat
Beginning with Habitat is a cooperative effort of agencies and
organizations working together to secure Maine's outdoor legacy. The
goal of the program is to maintain sufficient amounts of habitats to
support all native plant and animal species currently breeding in Maine
100 years from now. We aim to provide each Maine town with a collection
of maps and accompanying information depicting and describing various
habitats of statewide and national significance in the town. Beginning
with Habitat partners then work with communities to design a landscape
that accommodates the growth they need with the highest resource
conservation. Beginning with Habitat is the foundation of Maine's
Wildlife Action Plan and is a nonregulatory collaborative and
information-based habitat conservation tool.
Seabird Outreach
The principal objective of this project was to inform Maine
students and the general public about seabird biology and marine
conservation by providing insight into the lives of Maine seabirds
(e.g., puffins and terns) through a web-based school curriculum and
Internet access that features live-streaming video from Eastern Egg
Rock, a State-owned 7-acre sanctuary managed by National Audubon
Society.
Distribution and Ecology of Purple Sandpipers Wintering in Maine
The northeast Atlantic Coast is recognized by the U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Council as an area that is extremely important to the
survival of wintering purple sandpipers in the Western Hemisphere. In
fact, there is strong evidence that Maine supports a large percentage
of the wintering population. With threats from catastrophic oil spills
and consequent damage to shorebird habitats or shorebirds themselves,
the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife identified the
need to locate and map important purple sandpiper habitats and
determine population abundance, distribution, and limiting factors.
This project enabled the Department to:
--estimate abundance and distribution of purple sandpipers in Maine;
--assess movements and site fidelity of individuals at particular
sites; and
--develop a protocol for monitoring purple sandpiper populations in
Maine.
Enhance Management of Piping Plovers and Least Terns
Piping plovers and least terns are designated as endangered species
in Maine and are known to nest on a handful of beaches in the State. To
successfully raise young, these birds need sand beaches free from human
disturbance and predators. This project enabled MDIFW, working in
cooperation with Maine Audubon and local towns, to conduct the planning
and data gathering necessary to enhance the management of piping
plovers and least terns, including the development of cooperative beach
management agreements with Maine municipalities.
Bald Eagle Survey and Essential Habitat
Bald eagles continue their dramatic comeback in Maine. Presently,
the State is home to at least 500 nesting pairs, a remarkable increase
from the 30 nesting pairs reported in the late-1970s. Despite this
accomplishment, our ultimate challenge is to provide suitable habitat
for eagles in the future. Nesting eagles need mature trees and wooded
buffers in shorelands, a niche that will always be at risk to land
development and recreational pressures. This project devised statewide
strategies and identified optimal sites for long-term conservation of
bald eagle nesting habitat as the fundamental safeguard for a lasting
recovery of the species in Maine. The delisting of the bald eagle is a
great example of what SWG is all about. This is a tremendous story of
conservation successful through Federal and State partnership, and we
are striving for many more to come.
Ecoregional Surveys
Since 1997, MDIFW and the Maine Natural Areas Program have been
working on a systematic, statewide, 10-year survey of rare and
endangered wildlife, plants, and natural communities. Surveys are
designed to document new locations of rare species to better assess
their status and distribution and design conservation strategies to
predict potential new occurrences and promote their recovery. SWG funds
helped support surveys in the Aroostook Hills and Lowlands (2.5 million
acres), Eastern Lowlands (2.2 million acres), and Central and Western
Mountains ecoregions (5 million acres). Inventories focused on high
value habitats supporting rare, threatened, and endangered animals.
Data gathered support voluntary land protection by large and small
private landowners.
Canada Lynx Ecology
The Canada lynx has long been a rare carnivore in northern and
western Maine. Ten years ago, its status was largely unknown and was
based on anecdotal reports or a track in the snow. SWG funds helped
support an ongoing study of Canada lynx in Maine to:
--determine that there is in fact a viable, self-supporting
population of lynx in the State;
--document mortality factors affecting lynx;
--identify habitats used by lynx and how they relate to distribution
and abundance of prey;
--investigate how lynx distribution in Maine is affected by
populations of bobcats, coyotes, fishers, and fox; and
--test the efficacy of various survey methods used to determine
status of lynx.
Stream Survey Databasing of Restored Aquatic Habitats
The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is enhancing
its efforts toward managing and conserving flowing water habitats and
their respective animal communities. Although the Department currently
holds extensive survey information regarding these ecosystems, most
data exist in a multitude of formats and physical locations. This
project will compile existing stream habitat and fish community data
into a computerized Geographic Information System (GIS) database for
easier use, analysis, and visualization within landscapes.
Lake Habitat Inventories
One of the primary responsibilities of the Maine Department of
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is to conduct habitat surveys of the
aquatic resources in the State. These surveys include gathering data
related to water quality, fish species composition and relative
abundance, bathymetry, aquatic habitat types, and macroinvertebrate
species composition. Surveys are important to present and future
management of Maine's lakes and ponds. To date, there are roughly 3,800
ponds that have never been inventoried by MDIFW staff and many that
have been completed need to be updated. The purpose of this project is
to use various fisheries techniques to collect data to properly plan
for the future management of lacustrine habitat in Maine.
Aquatic Biodiversity Project
Effective resource management depends on ready access to existing
data resources and on the ability to design and implement future data
collection efforts in a rational and cost-effective manner. This
project enabled the Department to ensure that all priority freshwater
fisheries data were in a format that permitted electronic mapping and
analyses of this information.
Unique Aquatic Ecosystems
Fishless ponds are believed to be rare in the Maine landscape. Many
of these ponds occur in mountainous terrain where fish access is
limited because of local topography. These sites have sometimes been
targeted for introductions of sport fish, but they may have unique
ecological attributes, especially for invertebrates and amphibians.
Introduction of predatory fish could permanently alter the ecology of
fishless ponds. This study documented the ecology of fishless ponds in
Maine and conducted a landscape analysis to predict and evaluate the
presence of these potentially unique natural communities.
Wildlife Park Displays
The Maine Wildlife Park receives more than 80,000 visitors
annually, including a large number of school children on field trips.
These visitors come to the park to learn more about Maine's fish and
wildlife resources and management. This project enabled the Department
to construct a new fisheries display and to complete educational
exhibits for moose, deer, coyote, turkeys, and turtles.
Fish and Wildlife Education
This project provided educational materials to every fourth grade
classroom in the State to increase students' awareness and
understanding of fish and wildlife resources. The materials consisted
of posters, activity guides for teachers, animal and fish guides, and
management reports.
Wildlife Management Areas: Planning and Habitat Management for the
Future
Two-thirds of MDIFW's 52 Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) contain
special habitats or communities that support Federal or State-listed
threatened or endangered wildlife, species of special concern, and
species identified of greatest conservation need. SWG funds supported
development of a statewide WMA database, update of WMA management
plans, development of a WMA schedule of development and maintenance
treatments, and implementation of a schedule of habitat treatments
across all WMAs to benefit a diversity of featured wildlife species and
species of greatest conservation need.
An Investigation of Blanding's Turtle Road Mortality
There is increasing emphasis on the part of Federal and State
transportation authorities to minimize and mitigate impacts to wildlife
passage and mortality from road construction projects. This project
helped the Maine Departments of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and
Transportation identify the location and extent of road impacts on
endangered turtles in Maine as a precursor toward designing strategic
mitigation measures.
Status and Monitoring of Maine Owls
MDIFW worked with Maine Audubon to evaluate the abundance and
distribution of owls in Maine and to develop a volunteer-based
monitoring system. Both Partners in Flight and recent initiatives
directed at integrated bird conservation have identified monitoring of
nocturnal birds as a high-priority research and management need in the
northeast.
Species of Greatest Conservation Need Research and Status
Investigations
Maine has identified 213 species of greatest conservation need
(SGCN) in its Wildlife Action Plan:
--103 birds;
--7 herpetofauna (1 amphibian and 6 reptiles);
--72 invertebrates;
--12 inland fish;
--6 nonmarine mammals; and
--13 marine species (5 diadromous fish, 5 whales, and 3 turtles).
For many SGCN, there is a need for financial resources to evaluate
population dynamics and habitat relationships and use information
gathered to support listing and de-listing proposals (State endangered,
threatened, or special concern) and aid in conservation and management
of these species, so that they may ultimately be de-listed.
For more information on Maine's Wildlife Action Plan please visit
www.mefishwildlife.com.
______
Prepared Statement of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Marine Conservation
Institute, based in Bellevue, Washington, is a nonprofit conservation
organization that uses the latest science to identify important marine
ecosystems around the world, and then advocate for their protection. As
a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), we
support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wildlife
Refuge System (NWRS), particularly the monuments and refuges that
conserve marine environments. I wish to thank the members of the
Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for the
opportunity to submit written testimony to support the President's
request of $494.8 million in fiscal year 2013 for the NWRS. This is an
$8.8 million increase more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
Marine Conservation Institute recommends $3.5 million of that increase
be allocated for the management of our Nation's unique marine
monuments.
President George W. Bush established four marine national monuments
in the Pacific Ocean:
--Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument;
--Marianas Trench Marine National Monument;
--Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument; and
--Rose Atoll Marine National Monument.
Together, these monuments protect approximately 335,348 square
miles of marine habitat, and constitute about one-third of the entire
Refuge System. The four monuments include 12 marine refuges and more
than 20 islands, atolls and reefs spread across the Pacific Ocean. Each
monument was designated because of its individual ecological and
cultural uniqueness.
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, also referred to as the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, is home to millions of seabirds, an
incredible diversity of coral reef species (including deep-sea corals),
and the highly endangered Hawaiian monk seal. Approximately 90 percent
of Hawaii's green sea turtles nest in the monument, as do about 99
percent of the world's population of Laysan albatross and 98 percent of
the black-footed albatross. These islands are also important to Native
Hawaiians for culture, history, and religion.
Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument
The Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument contains some
of the last remaining, relatively intact coral reef and pelagic
ecosystems in the Pacific Ocean. Any one of the seven coral islands
within the monument contains nearly four times more shallow water,
reef-building coral species than the entire Florida Keys. The monument
provides habitat for an estimated 14 million seabirds and many
threatened or endangered species, such as leatherback, loggerhead, and
green sea turtles; humphead wrasse; bumphead parrotfish; and the
globally depleted giant clam. An estimated 200 seamounts, most of which
have yet to be identified or explored, are predicted to exist in the
pelagic zone within 200 nautical miles of the seven islands. Seamounts
are important biodiversity hotspots because they provide habitat and
localized nutrients for many species in the vast pelagic waters of the
Pacific.
Rose Atoll Marine National Monument
Rose Atoll Marine National Monument is home to a very diverse
assemblage of terrestrial and marine species, many of which are
threatened or endangered. Rose Atoll supports 97 percent of the seabird
population of American Samoa, including 12 federally protected
migratory seabirds and 5 species of federally protected shorebirds.
Rose Atoll is the largest nesting ground in the Samoan Islands for
threatened green sea turtles, and is an important nesting ground for
the endangered hawksbill turtle. Rose Atoll also provides sanctuary for
the giant clam, whose population is severely depleted throughout the
Pacific Ocean.
Marianas Trench Marine National Monument
The Marianas Trench Marine National Monument protects areas of
biological, historical and scientific significance. The monument is
home to many unusual life forms found in its boiling and highly acid
waters, highly diverse and unique coral reef systems (more than 300
species of stony coral), and an astonishingly high population of apex
predators, including large numbers of sharks. The monument also
encompasses the Mariana Trench, the deepest ocean area on Earth, which
is deeper than Mount Everest is tall.
Marine National Monument Management Implementation
President Bush gave the Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service) management responsibility over the three newest
monuments, while the Department of Commerce has primary responsibility
for managing fishing in the outer waters of each monument. Although it
has been more than 3 years since their designation, very little funding
(<$200,000 annually) has been added specifically for managing the Rose
Atoll, Marianas Trench, and Pacific Remote Islands Marine National
Monuments. As a result, monument plans and fishing regulations have not
been completed and most islands remain essentially unmanaged and
unmonitored.
It is imperative that USFWS establish appropriate management
measures to adequately protect the land, waters and seafloor of all
four marine monuments. In particular, the USFWS must have adequate
funds to finalize management plans for the three newest monuments, hire
adequate personnel, provide transportation to visit the islands on a
regular basis, develop plans to restore damaged reefs and lands, and
consult with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and
the U.S. Coast Guard to provide proper surveillance and enforcement of
illegal activities such as trespassing and illegal fishing.
Restoration actions are needed at most of the islands, including
restoring natural habitats, removing discarded equipment and structures
from past military occupations, and dealing with old waste disposal
sites. Additionally, human exploration and occupation introduced many
invasive species to the islands which should be removed.
For example, two fishing vessels that grounded in the Pacific
Remote Islands Marine National Monument have yet to be removed and are
currently devastating the surrounding coral ecosystems. In 1991, a 121-
foot Taiwanese fishing boat sank on Palmyra Atoll; in 2007 an abandoned
85-foot fishing vessel was discovered on Kingman Reef. These two
islands are home to some of the most pristine coral reefs in the world.
The Palmyra wreck sits directly on the reef and continues to damage the
ecosystem by leaching iron into the water which has accelerated the
rapid growth of a nuisance corallimorph, Rhodactis howesii. According
to a recent report by the U.S. Geological Service, more than 740 acres
of the coral habitat has been smothered and destroyed so far by the
corallimorph whose growth continues to be promoted by the wreck's
presence.
A recent study by L. Wegley, et al. on nearby Kingman Reef,
indicates that the live coral cover surrounding the wreck has decreased
to less than 10 percent of its original size due to accelerated algae
growth and corallimorph infestation. The reef destruction extends 1.5
kilometers along the reef horizontally, and was observed spreading down
the reef slope to approximately 35 meters. As this growth continues
unabated, it is expected to spread toward the north facing shoreline
where fragile coral gardens are located.
Appropriations Needs
Marine Conservation Institute requests that the subcommittee
increase funding for NWRS operations by $8.8 million to a level of
$494.8 million in fiscal year 2013 to better manage our Nation's
refuges. We recommend that $3.5 million of that amount be allocated to
the marine monuments, which now receive approximately $200,000
annually. USFWS responsibilities in the Pacific Islands have increased
substantially since the designation of the monuments in 2009, but
funding has not followed suit.
Additional monument funding would allow USFWS to properly manage
Midway Atoll Airfield, and more adequately protect and restore the
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. Furthermore, the additional
funding would allow USFWS to provide adequate management of the three
newest monuments. Funding is needed to hire managers for Marianas and
Pacific Remote Islands (a Rose Atoll Manager has been funded over the
last several years); hire one public planner position to aid in
management responsibilities; and pay for associated administrative
costs such as office space costs and travel expenses. Additional funds
would also continue to address nuisance and invasive species that are
hurting native wildlife populations, and hire additional law
enforcement officers to combat illegal entry and fishing. The remaining
funds would pay for an initial cost assessment for removal of the two
shipwrecks mentioned above that are damaging coral reef habitats.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our views.
______
Prepared Statement of the Merritt Island Wildlife Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
nearly 1,300 members of the Merritt Island Wildlife Association (MIWA),
thank you for this opportunity to submit comments on the proposed
fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. MIWA is a nonprofit volunteer organization formed
in 1994. Our mission is ``to promote conservation, awareness,
appreciation, and use of the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
(MINWR) and to support Refuge programs.''
We appreciate your prior support of the National Wildlife Refuge
System (NWRS), and specifically request that you continue that
commitment to sustaining the world's foremost wildlife conservation
system with approval of the President's budget request of $495 million
for NWRS operation and maintenance. In the broader context of the
overall Fish and Wildlife Service budget request, we also urge your
support of the $51 million appropriation proposed for the Migratory
Bird Management program. Further, we believe funding of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund at $700 million is vitally important to
acquisition and preservation of critical habitat throughout the United
States.
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
MINWR was established in 1963, the 286th refuge in the system which
now numbers 556. It serves as the headquarters for a complex of seven
refuges which comprise a total of 172,000 acres located in five
counties in east-central Florida. The complex includes Pelican Island
NWR, the Nation's first Refuge, as well as the system's most recent
addition--the Everglades Headwaters NWR. MINWR itself is an overlay of
NASA's Kennedy Space Center and extends more than 140,000 acres of
northern Brevard and southern Volusia counties. More than 2 million
people live within an hour's drive of the Refuge.
The initial primary purpose of MINWR was ``. . . for use as an
inviolate sanctuary . . . for migratory birds.'' (Migratory Bird
Conservation Act); later expanded under the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act to include ``. . . to protect, enhance, restore, and
manage an appropriate distribution and diversity of wetland ecosystems
and other habitats for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife . .
.'' and ``. . . to sustain an abundance of waterfowl and other
migratory birds consistent with the goals of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan . . .''
The Refuge has been designated by the State of Florida as an
``Outstanding Florida Water'' in recognition of the exceptional
ecological value and water quality of the Indian River Lagoon within
MINWR; and is also identified as ``Essential Fish Habitat'' under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
These mandates and accolades speak to the quality of the biological
and physical resources within MINWR and the necessity to preserve and
protect them. Implicit in the mission of the NWRS, however, is the firm
commitment to also serve the interests of the people who pay the bills.
MINWR has done an excellent job of this. The Refuge receives more than
750,000 visitors each year and another 250,000 visit the rest of the
complex's lands and facilities. The spectrum of interests is broad--
many come for wildlife observation, photography, or simply to enjoy
some quiet time in a natural setting; but there are also waterfowl
hunters, anglers, boaters, and hundreds of school children drawn by the
environmental education programs. MINWR is a highly favored stop on the
Great Florida Birding Trail managed by the Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission.
They come from near and far--more than 60 percent from outside the
local area (50-mile radius) according to an extensive 2010-2011 visitor
survey. For most, visiting the Refuge was either the primary purpose of
their trip or one of a few equally important purposes. And they spend
money locally; an average of $52 per day for local visitors, and $91
for those from farther away (who typically stayed in the area for a few
days). Nearly 80 percent of the respondents stopped at the Visitor
Center for information, services, and gift shopping; more than 95
percent said they were very satisfied with all aspects of their visit;
and 92 percent believed that National Wildlife Refuges provide a unique
recreational experience in comparison to other public lands. The
survey, one of several done at refuges across the country, achieved a
remarkable 79-percent response rate.
The National Wildlife Reserve System Operations and Maintenance Budget
Request
It has been estimated that ``full funding'' of the NWRS would
require a $900 million annual appropriation. We are all aware of the
realities of our current economy, however, and request your approval of
the fiscal year 2013 request of $495 million. We note that while this
amount will avoid further sharp cuts in system staff and programs, it
falls short of holding the line in terms of constant dollars. The
Refuge staff has done an admirable job with the available resources,
but they face a number of current and impending budget-related issues:
--The current MINWR staff is 29 people, which provides less than one-
half man-hour per acre per year of available labor for all
operation and maintenance requirements. (The staff of the other
six refuges in the complex is only 11.) One Refuge Manager
position was eliminated in 2011, and the Supervisory Refuge
Ranger position remains vacant for lack of available funding.
That position is responsible for managing the Refuge's public
services program . . . for those 750,000 people who visit each
year. The vacancy will force the reduction of Visitor Center
hours to 5 days per week from its current level of 7 days
during the winter ``high season'' and 6 days through the
summer.
--Some of the Refuge's roads that historically have been open to the
public have been closed this year due to lack of maintenance
funds. Lack of adequate staffing also has caused planned
expansions of the hunting program (to include upland game at
MINWR and the satellite St. Johns NWR) to be postponed until
2015 or later. Inadequate funding also will reduce maintenance
of the levees and control structures used to manage water
levels in the impoundments critical for waterfowl habitat.
Without proper and timely water control, wintering waterfowl
numbers can decline precipitously.
--There are only about 250 law enforcement personnel within the
entire NWRS; the MINWR 7-refuge complex has but 2. A 2005
assessment by the International Association of Chiefs of Police
recommended a NWRS force of 845 full-time officers. While crime
within our refuge complex has not yet become a major problem,
it is increasing. The law enforcement budget request for the
entire NWRS is less than $40 million . . . for 150 million
acres in more than 500 locations spread throughout 50 States.
That is about a one-third of the annual budget for either the
Brevard County Sheriff's Office or the Orlando Police
Department.
--Nationally, the 230 ``Friends'' groups such as MIWA and individual
volunteers provide 1.4 million hours for NWRS programs and
facilities--the equivalent of 665 full-time positions. But
volunteers must be trained and managed to be effective, and
that requires F&WS staff.
--MINWR is responsible for wildfire protection throughout the Refuge,
including Kennedy Space Center. Prescribed burning is the
primary management tool for both fire risk reduction and for
maintenance of scrub habitat for one of Florida's largest
populations of the endangered Florida Scrub Jay. Staff has
projected that prescribed burns may have to be reduced by up to
25 percent in the coming year if sufficient staff and funds are
not available.
The impact of these issues on visitor orientation, assistance, and
satisfaction is obvious, and quite likely to result in reduced
visitation. And that problem extends well beyond MINWR.
The Refuge is a linchpin in the local economy, and its senior staff
have been closely and cooperatively involved in the efforts of
Titusville and northern Brevard County--indeed, all of east central
Florida--to deal with the repercussions of the ending of the NASA Space
Shuttle program. The area has lost thousands of jobs in the past year
and suffers from a painfully high unemployment rate.
Local leaders have united to address this immediate and pressing
problem . . . to turn an extraordinarily sour lemon into lemonade, to
fall back on an old cliche. A notable example is the Greater Titusville
Renaissance whose mission is to ``embark on an exciting path of
revitalization by celebrating our natural and historic resources,
cultivating arts and culture, and energizing our economy.'' Promoting
and sustaining our nature-based tourism is an integral part of that
concept.
Using the survey data presented above, we estimate that our 750,000
annual visitors are the source of more than $50 million in local gas,
food, lodging, and other spending. MINWR is clearly a significant
element in local economic recovery planning. Our community will be even
more severely damaged if the Refuge's funding is eroded. We are a
reflection of the entire NWRS in this regard. Nationwide, 45 million
annual refuge visitors contribute nearly $1.7 billion to local
economies and support tens of thousands of local jobs.
Migratory Bird Management Program Budget
Given the fundamental importance of migratory bird habitat
preservation and enhancement to the purpose of MINWR, MIWA strongly
supports the $51 million budget request for these programs. While
originally focussed on our wintering waterfowl populations, the Refuge
also includes some of the last intact coastal hammock and upland scrub
along the Florida coast. These areas are heavily used by migrating
neotropical land birds--passerines and other woodland species--moving
along the Atlantic Flyway. MINWR also has many large expanses of mud
flats and salt marsh used by migrating shorebirds, many of which are
species of concern, and several miles of undisturbed beach and dunes.
Coupled with our excellent waterfowl areas, these additional
components of the Refuge underlie its 2001 designation by the American
Bird Conservancy as a Globally Important Bird Area. There are only 500
such areas worldwide--including 183 of our National Wildlife Refuges.
This also underscores the global nature of the need for migratory
bird protection. Many of the species passing through MINWR winter in
Central and South America where habitat degradation is an increasingly
serious problem. We also support the proposed $3.8 million
appropriation request for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Fund.
A significant percentage of the visitors to MINWR are birders.
Without large numbers of wintering species and the recurring passage of
the migrants, our birders will go elsewhere.
Land and Water Conservation Fund
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was created in 1965
with the intention, never fulfilled, of annual funding of $900 million.
These funds are derived primarily from offshore oil and gas drilling
fees, not from general tax revenue. The administration's request this
year is $104.7 million for the NWRS, but the Senate Transportation
bill, as amended, would provide $700 million for national, State, and
local efforts to conserve irreplaceable lands. We ask for your support
of the increased amount. The LWCF can be an unequalled mechanism for
the acquisition and preservation of critical habitats at the landscape
scale. These would include the 8 million acres still unprotected within
our National Wildlife Refuges and wildlife corridors between existing
sanctuaries, preserves, and refuges.
Summary
We believe our National Wildlife Refuges are viewed as great
national assets by the American people, and we know that Merritt Island
National Wildlife Refuge enjoys that support in Florida. These are
places where we go for the enjoyment of things not built by man, for
reconnection with our natural heritage, and sometimes simply for stress
relief. Our members know they provide all of that. We hope you will
find the time to experience these things personally and often, and that
you will support the National Wildlife Refuge System to--and perhaps
beyond--the extent we have requested.
Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on this proposed
appropriation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan) encourages the subcommittee's support for the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water, and Air Program. This
includes for fiscal year 2013, Federal funding of $5.2 million for
general water quality improvement efforts within the Colorado River
Basin and, of that amount, specifically $1.5 million for salinity
specific projects to prevent further degradation of Colorado River
water quality and increased downstream economic damages.
The concentrations of salts in the Colorado River cause
approximately $300 million in quantified damages in the lower Colorado
River Basin States each year and significantly more in unquantified
damages. Salinity concentrations of Colorado River water are lower than
at the beginning of Program activities by more than 100 milligrams per
liter (mg/L). Modeling by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)
indicates that the quantifiable damages would rise to more than $500
million by the year 2030 without continuation of the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program (Program).
Water imported via the Colorado River Aqueduct has the highest
level of salinity of all of Metropolitan's sources of supply, averaging
around 630 mg/L since 1976, which leads to economic damages. For
example, damages occur from:
--A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--An increase in the cost of cooling operations, and the cost of
water softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in
the commercial sector;
--An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to
groundwater quality deterioration; and
--Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
Concern over salinity levels in the Colorado River has existed for
many years. To deal with the concern, the International Boundary and
Water Commission approved Minute No. 242, Permanent and Definitive
Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado
River in 1973, and the President signed into law the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974 (Act). High total dissolved solids
in the Colorado River as it enters Mexico and the concerns of the seven
Colorado River Basin States regarding the quality of Colorado River
water in the United States drove these initial actions. To foster
interstate cooperation and coordinate the Colorado River Basin States'
efforts on salinity control, the seven Basin States formed the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum.
The Program reduces salinity by preventing salts from dissolving
and mixing with the River's flow. Irrigation improvements (sprinklers,
gated pipe, lined ditches) and vegetation management reduce the amount
of salt transported to the Colorado River. Point sources such as saline
springs are also controlled. The Federal Government, Basin States, and
contract participants spend more than $40 million annually on salinity
control programs.
The Program, as set forth in the Act, benefits both the Upper
Colorado River Basin water users through more efficient water
management and the Lower Basin water users, hundreds of miles
downstream from salt sources in the Upper Basin, through reduced
salinity concentration of Colorado River water. California's Colorado
River water users are presently suffering economic damages in the
hundreds of millions of dollars per year due to the River's salinity.
The Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall ``develop
a comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to the
Colorado River from lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management.'' BLM is the largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin.
Due to geological conditions, much of the lands that are controlled and
managed by the BLM are heavily laden with salt. Past management
practices have led to human-induced and accelerated erosion processes
from which soil and rocks, heavily laden with salt have been deposited
in various stream beds or flood plains. As a result, salts are
dissolved into the Colorado River system causing water quality problems
downstream.
The Congress has charged Federal agencies, including the BLM, to
proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
BLM's rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
effective salinity control measures available. These measures
significantly complement programs and activities being considered for
implementation by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation through its Basin-wide
Program and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through its on-farm
Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Over the past years, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program has proven to be a very cost-effective approach to help
mitigate the impacts of increased salinity in the Colorado River.
Continued Federal funding of this important Basin-wide program is
essential.
Metropolitan urges the subcommittee to fund BLM's Soil, Water, and
Air Program for fiscal year 2013 at $5.2 million for general water
quality improvement efforts in the Colorado River Basin. Metropolitan
additionally urges you to specifically designate $1.5 million of that
amount for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource
Association
Background
One of the most significant threats to biodiversity in the Nation's
coastal and estuarine habitats as well as inland navigable waters is
the introduction of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into
the ecosystem. The introduction of ANS through intentional or
accidental means establishes a stress on ecosystems that can result in
the decline of native species population, serve as an impediment to
species recovery and pose a long-term economic and ecological threat to
the health of the area. The control and management of these ANS in such
areas as the Mississippi River Basin Drainage, Great Lakes, Everglades,
and San Francisco Bay/Inland Delta costs the economy and taxpayers
billions of dollars annually.
MICRA commends the Congress and the Federal Government's
recognition of this problem and efforts to address it through enactment
of the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
(NANPCA) of 1990 (Public Law 101-646) and the National Invasive Species
Act (NISA) of 1996 (Public Law 104-332). The establishment of the
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) makes use of a coordinating
body to improve efforts to administer the Government's responsibilities
as carried out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); U.S. Coast Guard; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
other Federal agencies.
As a part of their authority and responsibility for water resources
management, individual States have moved forward with State based
programs to combat aquatic nuisance species and to prevent their
introduction into State waters. These programs supplement the national
activity and are indicative of an ongoing need for resources and action
to reduce the threat and minimize the impacts of ANS on U.S. waters.
State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan
The NANPCA (as amended by NISA) recognized that States are integral
partners in the battle against ANS by authorizing the State/Interstate
Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan (SIANSMP) grant program.
Managed by the Service, the program provides annual funding to States,
tribes, and Regional organizations to support the implementation of
State and interstate ANS management plans that have been approved by
the ANSTF. The SIANSMPs identify feasible, cost-effective measures to
be undertaken by the States and cooperating entities to manage ANS
infestations in an environmentally sound manner. This funding has
helped many States initiate an ANS program and has enabled them to
establish mechanisms for prevention, early detection and rapid
response, containment, and control. Through their SIANSMPs, State
efforts link together to form an effective national ANS program that
combines strong Federal and State partnerships to eliminate or reduce
the environmental, economic, public health and human safety risks
associated with ANS.
Section 1301(c) of NANPCA authorized a total of $4 million for the
SIANSMP grant program; however, that amount has never been fully
appropriated. Funding was gradually increased from $68,000 for the
first approved State Management Plan in 1994, to its current level of
$1,075,000 beginning in 2004. Over the years, the number of plans
approved far outpaced the capacity of the SIANSMP funding. In 2011, the
number of approved plans had reached 39, and the amount of support
requested by the States was more than $9 million. The number of plans
has increased almost 2.5 times since 2004, causing the amount of annual
funding per plan to decrease over the same time period. In 2000, the
Service provided approximately $100,000 per State for plan
implementation; in 2004, it was approximately $71,000 per plan. In
fiscal year 2011, the Service provided $29,800 to support each of the
36 approved SIANSMPs that requested funding.
More than 75 percent of the States have approved SIANSMPs. All but
one Mississippi River Basin State are implementing an ANSTF approved
plan or are at various stages of developing their State ANS plan. Each
State has invested significant resources to develop a plan that meets
its needs and addresses its priority ANS issues, and each has been able
to significantly leverage available Federal funds. In 2010, the States
combined the Federal contribution of $1.075 million with more than $6.6
million in State and partner funds to complete a wide array of
accomplishments toward the goals and objectives of their SIANSMPs.
In some cases the funding from the FWS for SIANMPs represents the
only funding the States spend on AIS, while in other cases, the annual
allocation from the Service represents only a small portion of their
total Invasive Species Management budgets. In either case, however,
these funds are vital to supporting State AIS Coordinator positions or
are pooled with other funds, and with other partners, to allow for
effective and efficient collaborative projects to address plan
priorities. For many States, a lack of dedicated State funding for the
ANS Plans is an ongoing problem. Many elements of the SIANSMP have not
been successfully implemented due to a lack of sufficient resources,
and demands placed on the capacity of States to address these issues
continue to outpace the availability of resources.
President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget
The States have developed ANSTF approved management plans and ANS
programs in accordance with congressional authorizations in NANPCA and
NISA. The SIANSMP grant program remains a high priority to States and
is critical to their ability to implement successful ANS prevention and
control programs. Funding for the SIANSMPs has remained stable since
2004 at only 25 percent of the authorized level, however total requests
to support the 36 approved State/Interstate ANS Management Plans that
applied for funding in fiscal year 2011 exceeded $9 million. The States
have consistently demonstrated a need for increased appropriations to
implement ANS prevention and control priorities, yet the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget eliminates the SIANSMP grant program for
implementation of ANSTF-approved plans.
MICRA urges the Congress to restore fiscal year 2013 appropriations
of $1,075,000, and to provide additional fiscal year 2013
appropriations to fully fund that SIANSMP grant program at $4 million
as authorized by NANPCA and NISA.
Note.--Information provided in this document was pulled from
existing documents including:
--2011-2012 Policy Positions for the Jurisdiction of the Environment
Committee, National Conference of State Legislatures, http://
www.ncsl.org/state-Federal-committees.aspx?tabs=855,23,667.
--State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans 2010
(1st in a Series of 3). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April
2012.
--Accomplishments of the State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species
Management Plans A Summary of State Efforts in the Battle
Against ANS (2nd in a Series of 3). U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. February 2012.
--The Evolution of the State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species
Management Plan Grant Program (3rd in a Series of 3). U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. April 2012.
______
Prepared Statement of the Moat Creek Managing Agency
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2013
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF. As
part of this LWCF request, the Bureau of Land Management included $4.5
million for the acquisition of land at the California Coastal National
Monument in Mendocino County. I respectfully urge you to support robust
funding for the LWCF to ensure that this critical California
conservation priority will receive the necessary funds.
LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and protect
lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at
State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial public benefits
including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
assisting wildlife and fisheries. LWCF investments also support jobs,
tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural, historical, and recreation heritage. As LWCF is funded from
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these
funds should go to their intended and authorized use as a conservation
offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
For more than 100 years the small incorporated City of Point Arena
and the Point Arena Lighthouse have clung to the rugged and remote
coastline of Mendocino County in California. Surrounding the point and
lying north of the town of Point Arena are the Stornetta Public Lands
and Manchester Beach State Park, a complex of Federal and State
conserved lands totaling approximately 3,350 acres.
A unique designation, the national monument was proclaimed in 2000
by President Bill Clinton to protect the coastline; offshore rocks,
reefs, and islands; and marine habitats along the 1,100-mile Pacific
Coast of California. The monument is part of the BLM's National
Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), first created in 2000 and later
authorized by the Congress in 2009. The State of California protects
1,500 acres at Manchester Beach State Park. A privately held
conservation easement inland along the Garcia River protects another
589 acres. In total the public lands complex protects 6 miles of
coastline.
The jagged coastline of northern California is a major draw for
tourists to Mendocino County. Most visitors access the area via
California Route 1. Attracted by the scenery of the coast and
recreational opportunities including hiking, biking, camping, wildlife
viewing, ocean sports, and horseback riding, tourists also enjoy the
hospitality of small communities like Point Arena. Tourism depends not
only on the multiple small businesses along the Route 1 corridor,
ranging from inns, shops, restaurants, and historic sites like the
lighthouse, but also from the ecological and visual integrity of the
high quality surrounding landscape.
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2013 is the 409-acre
second phase of the Cypress Abbey property. This property has BLM lands
on three of its borders including California Coastal National Monument
to its west, Stornetta Public Lands to its north, and the tract
recently acquired in the first phase of the project to its south. The
property boasts miles of gentle coastal bluff, rich riparian corridors,
and approximately 2 miles of terraces and wild beach with natural
bridges, tide pools, waterfalls, sinkholes and blowholes. The coastal
bluffs and terraces include open meadows and forests of Shore Pine. The
property and surrounding area supports habitat for the Behren's
Silverspot Butterfly, Point Arena Mountain Beaver, and California Red-
legged Frog, all federally listed endangered or threatened species.
The acquisition will allow for a variety of onsite recreational
uses, including interpretive hikes and studies; walking, and bicycling
along multi-modal trails; and wildlife viewing. Visitors will be able
to observe an array of seabirds along with wintering and migrating
shorebirds such as black turnstones, surfbirds, and rock sandpipers.
The exposed and vegetated offshore rocks support nesting sites for
pelagic cormorants, pigeon guillemots, and black oystercatchers.
Coastal trail access resulting from the proposed acquisition would
create a gateway to the national monument and the scenic coastline,
making this extraordinary resource accessible for public enjoyment.
Acquisition of phase II lands will also provide the opportunity to
create more than 8 miles of California Coastal Trail originating in the
heart of the City of Point Arena and connecting to the protected open
space. The protection of the property will also enhance the viewshed
along California Route 1, the main access road for visitors to the
coastline. The route is designated by Caltrans as an eligible State
scenic highway.
The project has the support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the California State Coastal Conservancy, the California Department of
Fish and Game, Mendocino County, the City of Point Arena, and other
interested groups and organizations. The first phase of the project,
comprising 123 acres, was completed in January 2012 using funds from
the BLM and the California State Coastal Conservancy. A total of $5.3
million is needed for the acquisition of the second phase.
In its budget request for fiscal year 2013, the BLM included $4.5
million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for California
Coastal National Monument. Additional funds are being sought from State
sources, the Federal Public Lands Highways Discretionary program, and
private donors.
In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund of $450 million, as proposed in the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget, including critical funding for California
Coastal National Monument. I want to thank the Chairman and the members
of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this
nationally important protection effort in California, and I appreciate
your consideration of this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
Programs
My name is Madeline Roanhorse and I serve as the Manager of the AML
Reclamation/UMTRA Department with the Navajo Nation. I am appearing
today on behalf of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
Programs (NAAMLP) The NAAMLP represents 30 States and tribes with
federally approved abandoned mine land reclamation (AML) programs
authorized under Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act (SMCRA). Title IV of SMCRA was amended in 2006 and significantly
changed how State and tribal AML grants are funded. These grants are
still based on receipts from a fee on coal production, but beginning in
fiscal year 2008, the grants are funded primarily by mandatory
appropriations. As a result, the States and tribes should receive $488
million in fiscal year 2013. In its fiscal year 2013 budget, the Office
of Surface Mining (OSM) is requesting $307 million for State and tribal
AML grants, a reduction of $180 million. OSM's budget also includes a
legislative proposal for the establishment of a competitive grant
process that would allegedly improve AML program efficiency. The
legislative proposal would also eliminate funding to States and tribes
that have ``certified'' completion of their highest-priority abandoned
coal reclamation sites.
Over the past 30 years, the accomplishments of the States and
tribes under the AML program has resulted in tens of thousands of acres
of abandoned mine lands having been reclaimed, thousands of mine
openings having been closed, and safeguards for people, property and
the environment having been put in place. Be assured that States and
tribes continue to be committed to address the unabated hazards at both
coal and noncoal abandoned mines. We are all united to play an
important role in achieving the goals and objectives as set forth by
the Congress when SMCRA was first enacted--including protecting public
health and safety, enhancing the environment, providing employment, and
adding to the economies of communities impacted by past coal and
noncoal mining.
SMCRA was passed in 1977 and set national regulatory and
reclamation standards for coal mining. The act also established a
Reclamation Fund to work toward eliminating the innumerable health,
safety and environmental problems that exist throughout the Nation from
the mines that were abandoned prior to the act. The Fund generates
revenue through a fee on current coal production. This fee is collected
by OSM and distributed to States and tribes that have federally
approved regulatory and AML programs. The promise the Congress made in
1977, and with every subsequent amendment to the Act, was that, at a
minimum, half the money generated from fees collected by OSM on coal
mined within the boundaries of a State or tribe, referred to as ``State
Share'', would be returned for the uses described in title IV of the
act if the State or tribe assumed responsibility for regulating active
coal mining operations pursuant to title V of SMCRA. The 2006
Amendments clarified the scope of what the State Share funds could be
used for and reaffirmed the promise made by the Congress in 1977.
If a State or tribe was successful in completing reclamation of
abandoned coal mines and was able to ``certify'' under section 411 of
SMCRA, then the State Share funds could be used to address a myriad of
other abandoned mine issues as defined under each State's or tribe's
approved Abandoned Mine Reclamation Plan. These Abandoned Mine
Reclamation Plans are approved by the Office of Surface Mining and they
ensure that the work is in accordance with the intent of SMCRA. Like
all abandoned mine reclamation, the work of certified States and tribes
eliminates health and safety problems, cleans up the environment, and
creates jobs in rural areas impacted by mining.
The elimination of funding for certified State and tribal AML
grants not only breaks the promise of State and Tribal Share funding,
but upsets the balance and compromise that was achieved in the
comprehensive restructuring of SMCRA accomplished by the 2006
Amendments following more than 10 years of discussion and negotiation
by all affected parties. The funding reduction is inconsistent with the
administration's stated goals regarding jobs and environmental
protection. We therefore respectively ask the subcommittee to support
continued funding for certified States and tribes at the statutorily
authorized levels, and turn back any efforts to amend SMCRA in this
regard.
In addition to the $180 million reduction for certified States and
tribes, the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget perpetuates the
termination of Federal funding for the AML emergency program, leaving
the States and tribes to rely on funds received through their
nonemergency AML grant funds. This contradicts the 2006 amendments,
which require the States and tribes to maintain ``strict compliance''
with the nonemergency funding priorities described in section 403(a),
while leaving section 410, Emergency Powers, unchanged. Section 410 of
SMCRA requires OSM to fund the emergency AML program using OSM's
``discretionary share'' under section (402)(g)(3)(B), which is entirely
separate from State and tribal nonemergency AML grant funding under
sections (402)(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(5). SMCRA does not allow States
and tribes to administer or fund an AML emergency program from their
nonemergency AML grants, although, since 1989, 15 States have agreed to
implement the emergency program on behalf of OSM contingent upon OSM
providing full funding for the work. As a result, OSM has been able to
fulfill their mandated obligation more cost effectively and
efficiently.
Regardless of whether a State/tribe or OSM operates the emergency
program, only OSM has the authority to ``declare'' the emergency and
clear the way for the expedited procedures to be implemented. In fiscal
year 2011, OSM issued guidance to the States that the agency ``will no
longer declare emergencies.'' OSM provided no legal or statutory
support for its position. Instead, OSM has ``transitioned''
responsibility for emergencies to the States and tribes with the
expectation that they will utilize nonemergency AML funding to address
them. OSM will simply ``assist the States and tribes with the projects,
as needed''. Of course, given that OSM has proposed to eliminate all
funding for certified States and tribes, it begs the question of how
and to what extent OSM will continue to assist these States and tribes.
If the Congress continues to allow the elimination of emergency
program funding, States and tribes will have to adjust to their new
role by setting aside a large portion of their nonemergency AML funds
so that they can be prepared for any emergency that may arise.
Emergency projects come in all shapes and sizes, vary in number from
year to year and range in cost from thousands of dollars to millions of
dollars. Requiring States and tribes to fund emergencies will result in
funds being diverted from other high-priority projects and delay
certification under section 411, thereby increasing the backlog of
projects on the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS). For
minimum program States and States with small AML programs, large
emergency projects will require the States to redirect all or most of
their AML resources to address the emergency, thereby delaying other
high-priority reclamation. With the loss of stable emergency program
funding, minimum program States will have a difficult, if not
impossible, time planning, budgeting, and prosecuting the abatement of
their high-priority AML problems. In a worst-case scenario, a minimum
program State would not be able to address a costly emergency in a
timely fashion, and would have to ``save up'' multiple years of funding
before even initiating the work to abate the emergency, in the meantime
ignoring all other high-priority work.
OSM's proposed budget suggests addressing emergencies, and all
other projects, as part of a competitive grant process whereby States
and tribes compete for funding based on the findings of the proposed
AML Advisory Council. OSM believes that a competitive grant process
would concentrate funds on the highest-priority projects. While a
competitive grant process may seem to make sense at first blush,
further reflection reveals that the entire premise is faulty and can
only undermine and upend the deliberate funding mechanism established
by the Congress in the 2006 Amendments. Since the inception of SMCRA,
high-priority problems have always taken precedence over other
projects. The focus on high priorities was further clarified in the
2006 Amendments by removing the lower-priority problems from the Act
and requiring ``strict compliance'' with high-priority funding
requirements. OSM already approves projects as meeting the definition
of high priority under its current review process and therefore an AML
Advisory Council would only add redundancy and bureaucracy instead of
improving efficiency.
Based on our understanding of OSM's legislative proposal, there are
a myriad of potential problems and implications for the entire AML
program. A listing of our questions and concerns regarding the
legislative proposal is attached to this statement and we urge the
subcommittee to press OSM for answers. Given the uncertainties and the
negative implications for the accomplishment of AML work under title IV
of SMCRA, the Congress should reject the proposed amendments to SMCRA
as being counterproductive to the purposes of SMCRA and an inefficient
use of funds. We request that the Congress continue mandatory funding
for certified States and tribes and provide funding for AML
emergencies. A resolution to this effect adopted by NAAMLP last year is
attached.
On a somewhat related matter, there appears to be increasing
concern by some in Washington that the States and tribes are not
spending the increased AML grant moneys that they have received under
the 2006 Amendments in a more expeditious manner, thus resulting in
what the administration has characterized as unacceptable levels of
``undelivered orders''. What these figures and statements fail to
reflect is the degree to which AML grant moneys are obligated or
otherwise committed for AML reclamation work as part of the normal
grant process. Most AML grants are either 3 or 5 years in length and
over that course of time, the States and tribes are in a continual
process of planning, bidding and contracting for specific AML projects.
Some projects are multi-layered and require extended periods of time to
complete this process before a shovel is turned at the AML site. And
where Federal funding is concerned, additional time is necessary to
complete the myriad statutory approvals for AML work to begin,
including compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the
National Historic Preservation Act.
In almost every case, however, based on the extensive planning that
the States and tribes undertake, AML grant funds are committed to
specific projects even while clearances and bidding are underway. While
funds may not technically be ``obligated'' because they are not yet
``drawn down'', these funds are committed for specific purposes. Once
committed, States and tribes consider this grant money to be obligated
to the respective project, even though the ``order'' has not been
``delivered'' and the funds actually ``drawn down''. The latter can
only occur once the project is completed, which will often be several
years later, depending on the size and complexity of the project. We
would be happy to provide the subcommittee with more detailed
information about our grant expenditures and project planning in order
to answer any questions you may have about how we account for and spend
our AML grant moneys. Given the confusion that often attends the
various terms used to describe the grant expenditure process, we
believe it is critical that the Congress hear directly from the States
and tribes on this matter and not rely solely on the administration's
statements and analyses. We welcome the opportunity to brief your
subcommittee in more detail regarding this issue should you so desire.
One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML
restoration work is through leveraging or matching other grant
programs, such as EPA's 319 program. Until fiscal year 2009, language
was always included in OSM's appropriation that encouraged the use of
these types of matching funds, particularly for the purpose of
environmental restoration related to treatment or abatement of acid
mind drainage (AMD) from abandoned mines. This is an ongoing, and often
expensive, problem, especially in Appalachia. NAAMLP therefore requests
the subcommittee to support the inclusion of language in the fiscal
year 2013 appropriations bill that would allow the use of AML funds for
any non-Federal cost-share required by the Federal Government for AMD
treatment or abatement.
We also urge the subcommittee to support funding for OSM's training
program and TIPS, including moneys for State/tribal travel. These
programs are central to the effective implementation of State and
tribal AML programs as they provide necessary training and continuing
education for State/tribal agency personnel, as well as critical
technical assistance. Finally, we support funding for the Watershed
Cooperative Agreements in the amount of $1.2 million because it
facilitates and enhances State and local partnerships by providing
direct financial assistance to watershed organizations for acid mine
drainage remediation.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement regarding
OSM's proposed budget for fiscal year 2013. We would be happy to answer
any questions you may have or provide additional information.
ATTACHMENT
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS RE THE ABANDONED MINE LAND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
IN OSM'S FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET
The Proposed Competitive Allocation Process
What is the potential for this new review and ranking process to
reduce expenditures and increase efficiency without being counter-
productive? Will it introduce an additional level of bureaucracy and
result in more time being spent formulating proposals and less on
actual AML reclamation? The present funding formula, while not perfect,
at least provides some direction on which to base long-term strategic
planning and efficient use of available funds. The closest analogy to
what OSM is proposing by way of its competitive allocation process is
the way BLM and the Forest Service currently allocate their AML funds
through competitive proposals to various State offices and regions.
Because of the uncertainties of funding, neither agency has been able
to develop significant in-house expertise, but instead often rely on
SMCRA-funded States like Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado to do a
good portion of their AML work. Why would OSM want to duplicate a
system that has proven problematic for other agencies?
Who would be the ``other parties'' potentially bidding on AML grant
funds? Would this include Federal agencies such as BLM, USFS, NPS, etc?
If so, in many cases, those agencies already rely on the States to
conduct their reclamation work and also determine priorities based on
State input or guidance.
What do the State project managers and inspectors do if a State
does not win a competitive bid for AML funds? How does a State gear up
if it receives funding for more projects than it can handle with
present staffing? Each State and tribe has different grant cycles.
Unless all are brought into one uniform cycle, how will everyone
compete for the same dollars? In this regard, how can the competitive
allocation process and the use of the Advisory Council be more
efficient and simple than what we already have in place?
How long will OSM fund a State's/tribe's administrative costs if it
does not successfully compete for a construction grant, even though the
State/tribe has eligible high-priority projects on AMLIS? How will OSM
calculate administrative grant funding levels, especially since
salaries and benefits for AML project managers and inspectors
predominantly derive from construction funds? Would funding cover
current staffing levels? If not, how will OSM determine the funding
criteria for administrative program grants?
How do the States and tribes handle emergency projects under the
legislative proposal? Must these projects undergo review by the
Advisory Council? Will there be special, expedited procedures? If a
State/tribe has to cut back on staff, how does it manage emergencies
when they arise? If emergency programs do compete for AML funds,
considerable time and effort could be spent preparing these projects
for review by the Advisory Council rather than abating the immediate
hazard. Again, how can we be assured that emergencies will be addressed
expeditiously?
What ranking criteria will be used to determine the priority of
submitted AML project grant requests? The number of people potentially
affected? The current priority ranking on AMLIS? How would the Council
determine whether a burning gob pile near a city presents a greater
hazard than a surface mine near a highway or an underground mine
beneath a residential area? Would the winning bid be the ``most
convincing'' proposal? The one with the most signatures on a petition?
The one with the most influential legislative delegation? Will AMLIS
continue to serve as the primary mechanism for identifying sites and
their priority status?
If the current AML funding formula is scrapped, what amount will be
paid out to the noncertified AML States and tribes over the remainder
of the program? What does OSM mean by the term ``remaining funds'' in
its proposal? Is it only the AML fees yet to be collected? What happens
to the historic share balances in the Fund, including those that were
supposed to be re-directed to the Fund based on an equivalent amount of
funding being paid to certified States and tribes each year? Would the
``remaining funds'' include the unappropriated/prior balance amounts
that have not yet been paid out over the 7-year installment period?
What about the amounts due and owing to certified States and tribes
that were phased in during fiscal year 2009-2011?
Has anyone alleged or confirmed that the States/tribes are NOT
already addressing the highest-priority sites for reclamation within
the context of the current AML program structure under the 2006
Amendments? Where have the 2006 Amendments faltered in terms of high-
priority sites being addressed as envisioned by the Congress? What
would remain unchanged in the 2006 Amendments under OSM's proposal?
The Nature and Purpose of the Advisory Council
Who would be on the AML Advisory Council and how could they
collectively have better decisionmaking knowledge about hazardous AML
sites than the State and tribal project managers and administrators who
work with these sites on a daily basis?
What will be the criteria to serve on the Advisory Council? Will
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements apply to the
formation and deliberations of the Council? How long does OSM envision
it will take to establish the Council and when will it become
operational?
Will the Advisory Council be providing recommendations to OSM or
will OSM make all final decisions? Will these decisions by appealable?
If so, to who? Does OSM envision needing to develop internal guidance
for its own review process? If so, how long will it potentially take
from Advisory Council review and recommendation to final OSM decision
in order to complete the grant process so a State can begin a project?
What degree of detail will be required in order to review and
approve competitive grant applications? Will the Council review each
project? What type of time constraints will be placed on their review?
Will the Advisory Council consider partial grants for projects that
may exceed the allocation for a single year? Would minimum program
States be authorized to apply for a grant that would exceed $3 million?
Will grant applications be based on an individual project or will
the grant be based on a project year? How will cost overruns be
handled?
Planning for Abandoned Mine Land Work
One of the greatest benefits of reauthorization under the 2006
Amendments to SMCRA was the predictability of funding through the end
of the AML program. Because State and tribes were provided with
hypothetical funding levels from OSM (which to date have proven to be
quite accurate), long-term project planning, along with the
establishment of appropriate staffing levels and project assignments,
could be made more accurately and efficiently. How can States/tribes
plan for future projects given the uncertainty associated with having
to annually bid for AML funds? NEPA compliance issues alone can take
years of planning. One State recently asked its State Historic
Preservation Office for initial consultation regarding project sites
that may be reclaimed over the next 5 years. This process will also
have significant impacts on those States that utilize multi-year
construction contracts that are paid for with annual AML grants.
State and tribal AML projects are often planned 18 months to 2
years in advance of actually receiving construction funds, based on
anticipated funding under the 2006 Amendments. During that time, States
and tribes are performing environmental assessments, conducting
archeology reviews, completing real estate work and doing NEPA
analyses. There could be considerable effort and money wasted if a
project does not get approved during the competitive allocation
process.
At what point does a State or tribe seek approval from the advisory
council? Considerable investigation must take place prior to developing
most projects, whether they be acid mine drainage projects or health
and safety projects. How much time should be spent in design prior to
proceeding to the Council? How accurate must a cost estimate be prior
to taking a project before the Council? The greater the accuracy, the
greater the design time expended, possibly for a project that will be
rejected.
State and tribes often seek and obtain valuable matching funds from
watershed groups, which take considerable lead time to acquire. It will
be difficult to commit to partners if we don't know what level of
funding, if any, will be made available from OSM.
Several States have committed significant amounts of money to
waterline projects across the coalfields. Local governmental entities
have started designs and applied for additional funds from other
agencies to match AML funds in order to make these projects a reality.
Ending all AML funding for these projects (assuming they are not
considered ``high priority'') could have significant consequences for
local communities. Our understanding is that these projects were
excluded under the 2006 Amendments from the priority scheme contained
in section 403(a) of SMCRA.
Does OSM's proposal allow acid mine drainage (AMD) projects to be
undertaken? Can these be designated as high priority? (Our
understanding is that those AMD projects undertaken pursuant to the
``AMD set-aside program'' are not subject to the priority scheme under
section 403(a) and that those AMD projects done ``in conjunction with''
a priority 1 or 2 project are considered ``high priority''.) How do
States handle ongoing engineering, operating and maintenance costs for
existing AMD treatment systems? As the administration works diligently
to develop a new rule to protect streams nationwide, why would it
advance a proposal to essentially halt the cleanup of streams funded by
the AML program?
Overarching Concerns
Given the original design of SMCRA by its framers that AML funds
will only be allocated to those States who agree to implement title V
regulatory programs for active mining operations, to what extent can we
expect that States will continue to implement and fund their title V
programs if Title IV funding is drastically cut or eliminated under the
proposal? Furthermore, since States and tribes will not know what level
of AML program staffing to maintain from year to year under the
proposal, who would desire to work for a program that is in a constant
state of flux?
The SMCRA 2006 Amendments were the result of roughly 10 years of
negotiations, discussions, and debates in the Congress. Since the
legislative process to enact these new proposed changes could take
years, why didn't OSM begin with the legislation and then follow up
with an appropriate budget proposal? Why weren't the States/tribes or
the NAAMLP included in discussions that led to this legislative
proposal?
As OSM develops the legislative proposal for a competitive bidding
process, the agency should consider the impacts on minimum programs and
consider maintaining the minimum allocation of $3 million for minimum
program States.
What type of State AML plan amendments does OSM foresee as a result
of this new process?
Proposed Elimination of Funding for Abandoned Mine Land Emergencies
While amendments to title IV of SMCRA in 2006 (Public Law 109-432)
adjusted several provisions of the act, no changes were made to OSM's
emergency powers in section 410. Quite to the contrary, section
402(g)(1)(D)(2) states that the Secretary shall ensure ``strict
compliance'' with regard to the States' and tribes' use of nonemergency
grant funds for the priorities listed in section 403(a), none of which
include emergencies. The funding for the emergency program comes from
the Secretary's discretionary share, pursuant to section 402(g)(3) of
the act. This share currently stands at $416 million. OSM's elimination
of funding for the emergency program will result in the shift of
approximately $20 million annually that will have to be absorbed by the
States. This is money that cannot be spent on high priority AML work
(as required by SMCRA) and will require the realignment of State AML
program operations in terms of personnel, project design and
development, and construction capabilities. In most cases, depending on
the nature and extent of an emergency project, it could preclude a
State's ability to undertake any other AML work during the grant year
(and even following years), especially for minimum program States. How
does OSM envision States and tribes being able to meet their statutory
responsibility to address high-priority AML sites in light of the
elimination of Federal funding for AML emergencies? How does OSM
reconcile this proposal with the intentions of the Congress expressed
in the 2006 amendments to move more money out of the AML Fund sooner to
address the backlog of AML problems that continue to linger?
Proposed Elimination of Funding to Certified States and Tribes
From what we can ascertain, OSM proposes to eliminate all payments
to certified States and tribes--in lieu of funds; prior balance
replacement funds; and monies that are due and owing in fiscal year
2018 and 2019 from the phase-in during fiscal years 2008 and 2009. Is
this accurate? OSM says nothing of what the impact will be on
noncertified States as a result of eliminating these payments to
certified States and tribes--especially the equivalent payments that
would otherwise be made to the historic production share that directly
relate to ``in lieu of'' payments to certified States and tribes under
section 411(h)(4). Previously, OSM has stated that ``the amounts that
would have been allocated to certified States and tribes under section
402(g)(1) of SMCRA will be transferred to the historical production
allocation on an annual basis to the extent that those States and
tribes receive in lieu payments from the Treasury (through the
Secretary of the Interior) under section 402(i) and 411(h)(2) of
SMCRA.'' By OSM's own admission in its fiscal year 2013 proposed
budget, this will amount to $1.2 billion over 10 years. If the in lieu
payments are not made (as proposed), how can the transfer to historic
production occur? The result, of course, would be a drastic impact on
the historic production allocation otherwise available to uncertified
States. Will OSM address this matter in its proposed legislation? If
so, how?
Has OSM considered the fiscal and programmatic impacts that could
result if the certified States and tribes, who no longer receive AML
monies, choose to return their title V regulatory programs to OSM
(especially given the severe reductions being proposed for fiscal year
2013 in title V grants)?
Finally, how do the cuts in the Title IV program line up with the
administration's other economic, fiscal and environmental objectives as
articulated in the deficit reduction and jobs bills that have been
considered by the Congress? These objectives include environmental
stewardship, cleaning up abandoned mines (coal and noncoal) nationwide,
creating green jobs, pumping dollars into local communities, putting
money to work on the ground in an expeditious manner, sustainable
development, infrastructure improvements, alternative energy projects,
protecting public health and safety, and improving the environment. It
seems to us that there is a serious disconnect here and we remain
mystified as to how these laudable objectives and OSM's budget proposal
can be reconciled.
______
RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ABANDONED MINE LAND PROGRAMS
WHEREAS, Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (SMCRA) established the Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
reclamation program; and
WHEREAS, the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs
(NAAMLP) was established as a nonprofit corporation to
accomplish the objectives of its 30 member tribes and States to
eliminate health and safety hazards and reclaim land and water
resources adversely affected by past mining and left in an
abandoned or inadequately restored condition; and
WHEREAS, NAAMLP members administer AML programs funded and overseen by
the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
U.S. Department of the Interior; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the cooperative Federalism approach contained in
SMCRA, all tribes and States who are members of NAAMLP have
federally approved abandoned mine reclamation plans; and
WHEREAS, SMCRA, Title IV, establishes a reclamation fee on each ton of
coal mined in the United States to pay for abandoned mine land
reclamation; and
WHEREAS, SMCRA, Title IV, mandates that 50 percent of the reclamation
fees collected annually are designated as State/tribal share
funds to be returned to the States and tribes from which coal
was mined to pay for reclamation programs administered by the
States and tribes; and
WHEREAS, SMCRA Title IV also mandates that a minimum level of funding
should be provided to ensure effective State program
implementation; and
WHEREAS, Congress enacted amendments to SMCRA in 2006 to address, among
other things, funding for State and tribal programs and fee
collection to address existing and future AML reclamation; and
WHEREAS, the 2006 Amendments established new, strict criteria that
ensures States and tribes expend funds on high priority AML
sites; and
WHEREAS, the proposed 2012 budget for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement within the U.S. Department of the
Interior would abandon the 50/50 State-Federal partnership
established under SMCRA and renege on the funding formula under
the 2006 amendments by, among other things, eliminating
mandatory funding for those States and tribes who have
certified the completion of their coal reclamation work and
adjusting the mechanism by which noncertified States receive
their mandatory funding through a competitive bidding process;
and
WHEREAS, if statutory changes are approved by Congress as suggested by
the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget for OSMRE, reclamation of
abandoned mine lands within certified States and tribes would
halt; reclamation of abandoned mine lands in all States would
be jeopardized; employment of contractors, suppliers,
technicians and others currently engaged in the reclamation of
abandoned mine lands would be endangered; the cleanup of
polluted lands and waters across the United States would be
threatened by failing to fund reclamation of abandoned mine
lands in some States; minimum program State funding would be
usurped; the AML water supply replacement program would be
terminated, leaving coalfield citizens without potable water;
and the intent of Congress as contained in the 2006 amendments
to SMCRA and its 2006 Amendments would be undermined
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ABANDONED
MINE LAND PROGRAMS THAT ITS MEMBER TRIBES AND STATES:
Opposes the legislative proposal terminating funding for certified
States and tribes and altering the receipt of mandatory AML funding for
noncertified States contained in the fiscal year 2012 budget proposal
for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement and
instead supports the AML funding mechanism contained in current law.
Issued this 22nd day of February,
2011
ATTEST:
Michael P. Garner,
President, NAAMLP.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) appreciates
this opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year 2013 proposed
budget for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
NACAA is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit association of air
pollution control agencies in 45 States, the District of Columbia, 4
territories and more than 165 metropolitan areas. The members of NACAA
have the primary responsibility under the Clean Air Act for
implementing our Nation's clean air program. The air quality
professionals in our member agencies have vast experience dedicated to
improving air quality in the United States. The comments we offer are
based upon that experience. The views expressed in these comments do
not necessarily represent the positions of every State and local air
pollution control agency in the country. NACAA supports the President's
request for a $65.8 million increase in Federal grants for State and
local air pollution control agencies under sections 103 and 105 of the
Clean Air Act--part of the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG)
program (for a total of $301.5 million).
Air Pollution is a Significant Public Health Problem
With all the competing requests the Congress must address, one may
ask why air quality programs should receive additional funding. The
answer is that dirty air poses a significant risk; tens of thousands of
people die prematurely every year. In fact, it would be fair to say
that more people die from air pollution than from almost any other
problem under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. Many more people suffer
serious health problems as a result of air pollution, including
aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease; damage
to lung tissue; impaired breathing; irregular heart beat; heart
attacks; adverse effects on learning, memory, IQ, and behavior; and
cancer.
While Federal, State and local clean air programs have made
tremendous progress, millions of people in this country continue to
breathe unhealthful air. EPA estimated that about 124 million people
lived in areas that violated at least one of the health-based National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 2010.\1\ EPA's data on toxic
air pollution showed that everyone in the United States had an
increased cancer risk of more than 10 in 1 million (1 in 1 million is
generally considered ``acceptable'') in 2005.\2\ Finally, air pollution
also harms vegetation and land and water systems, impairs visibility
and causes other adverse impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Our Nation's Air: Status and Trends Through 2010 (February
2012), EPA, www.epa.gov/airtrends/2011/.
\2\ National Air Toxics Assessment for 2005--Fact Sheet,
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current State of Funding for Air Quality Programs
Funding for State and local air pollution control programs comes
from several sources, including State and local appropriations; the
Federal permit fee program under title V of the Clean Air Act; State
and local permit and emissions fee programs and Federal grants under
sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act. Section 103 has usually
funded specific monitoring efforts (e.g., particulate matter
monitoring), while section 105 supports the foundation of State and
local air quality programs, including, but not limited to, personnel.
The Clean Air Act authorizes the Federal Government to provide
grants up to 60 percent of the cost of State and local air quality
programs, while State and local agencies must provide a 40-percent
match (as per section 105). In reality, however, the Federal Government
provides less than one-quarter of the total State/local air budget,
while State and local governments supply more than three-quarters (not
including income from title V permit fees). Furthermore, numerous air
quality agencies receive no section 105 grants and must supply all of
the funds to implement federally mandated programs to attain and
maintain the national air quality standards.
Not only do Federal funds provide a small share of the cost of
Clean Air Act programs, those grants have actually decreased in
purchasing power over the years due to inflation. As the following
chart shows, this decline between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2011
has equaled 9 percent.
Because of current economic conditions, many State and local air
agencies are finding it difficult to keep essential programs operating.
Many have had to reduce or eliminate programs that protect public
health and have had to reduce their staffs. As a result, States and
localities are more dependent than ever on their Federal grants.
In this time of limited State and local resources, where State and
local governments are straining to maintain existing programs,
additional Federal funding is needed to meet the ongoing and ever-
increasing responsibilities and challenges of air quality programs. A
2009 NACAA funding study documented an annual shortfall of $550 million
in Federal grants for State and local air programs.\3\ While the
proposed increase would not solve all our funding problems, it is
critically needed to help fill the gap in our efforts to attain and
maintain healthful air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Investing in Clean Air and Public Health: A Needs Survey of
State and Local Air Pollution Control Agencies (April 2009), NACAA,
http://www.4cleanair.org/Documents/Reportneedssurvey042709.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An EPA study from March 2011 highlighted the cost effectiveness of
air quality programs, showing that the benefits from the Clean Air Act
have outweighed the costs by more than 30 to 1.\4\ Moreover, an EPA
White Paper from last year reported that environmental protection,
including air quality, has had a significant positive effect on our
economy in general and job creation in particular.\5\ Certainly
additional jobs, a healthier and more productive workforce and fewer
healthcare expenditures are all beneficial to our economy and should be
encouraged through congressional appropriations, such as grants to
State and local agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act Amendments from
1990 to 2020 (March 1, 2011), EPA, http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/
feb11/summaryreport.pdf.
\5\ Empirical Evidence Regarding the Effects of the Clean Air Act
on Jobs and Economic Growth, EPA White Paper (February 9, 2011), http:/
/www.epa.gov/ocir/pdf/hottopics/2011_0208_white_paper.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit Fees Cannot Fill the Gap
Some believe that the permit and emission fee program under title V
of the Clean Air Act is the answer to the State and local air agencies'
financial problems. Unfortunately, this is not so for several reasons.
First, the fees must support only the operating permit program (and
associated program support) and must not be used for other activities.
Second, fees only apply to major sources and do not cover the
significant costs related to nonmajor sources, which include minor
source permits, monitoring, enforcement, compliance assistance, etc.
Third, fee revenue is decreasing due to reductions in the emissions on
which they are based.
Increases in costs for air quality programs (except for permit
programs themselves) are not addressed by title V permit fee programs.
The Clean Air Act's fee program, while essential to State and local
efforts, is not the solution to the funding problem. Federal grants
must be expanded to meet the significant resource requirements.
The Increases Will Support Essential Programs
The President's proposed budget calls for a much-needed increase of
$65.8 million more than fiscal year 2012 levels for several very
important activities. We urge the Congress to provide the amount of
increased grants the administration is recommending, but to allow State
and local air agencies the flexibility to determine which activities
are most in need of additional funds in their areas. While there is a
need for additional funds for a myriad of programs and activities at
the State and local levels, most agencies find that they will require
additional grants primarily for two major categories:
--core programs; and
--monitoring.
Core Activities.--We are gratified that the President's request
calls for additional grants to support State and local air agencies'
core programs. These activities are the very foundation of our programs
and include current day-to-day activities, as well as new and
innovative efforts to address additional requirements. As EPA issues
updated health-based NAAQS, State and local air agencies must prepare
or update State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Specifically in fiscal
year 2013, State and local air agencies must implement the revised
lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) NAAQS, and the current particulate matter (PM), and
ozone NAAQS. This includes the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (through anti-
backsliding requirements), the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. To develop these SIPs, State and local air agencies
must compile emission inventories, carry out sophisticated modeling,
significantly expand and operate monitoring networks, adopt and enforce
regulations and address complex multi-pollutant and multi-state
transport issues, among others. Additionally, agencies must
continuously reassess and change SIPs as they are implemented. All of
these important activities require significant resources.
Monitoring.--State and local air agencies are facing a host of
ongoing and additional monitoring requirements to address standards for
ozone, lead, NO2 and SO2 that are either new or
have been revised. In addition to monitoring for the health-based
criteria pollutants, additional monitoring of toxic air pollutants is
necessary. These monitoring activities provide information about the
amount of pollution in the air and, later, about how successful our
control strategies have been. In order to accomplish this monitoring,
these agencies must purchase and operate additional ambient air
monitoring equipment. While the budget request for air quality
monitoring in fiscal year 2013 would not address all our additional
monitoring needs, it would certainly help clean air agencies to expand
their monitoring programs.
EPA is proposing to begin the process of shifting funds for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) monitoring from section 103
authority, where no match is needed, to section 105, which would
require additional matching funds. We strongly urge that these funds
remain under section 103 authority, as they have in the past. For
individual agencies that have concerns about the matching requirements,
this will ensure that they can continue receiving these monitoring
funds. Additionally, we are concerned that EPA is proposing to reduce
the total amount specifically set aside for fine particulate matter
monitoring, based on the theory that State and local air agencies will
fill in the reduced amount as part of their matching funds. However, as
many agencies are already overmatched and would not be adding to the
funds set aside for PM2.5 monitoring, this important
monitoring program could suffer. We recommend that EPA allot the same
amount for PM2.5 monitoring as it did last year and leave
the entire amount under section 103 authority.
Conclusion
The President's budget request calls for a much-needed increase in
grants to State and local air quality agencies at a time when they are
required to take on significant new responsibilities and continue their
current efforts. While these increases would not completely address the
enormous funding deficit that these programs face, they would be very
helpful to State and local air quality programs.
NACAA recommends, therefore, that the Congress appropriate an
amount consistent with the President's fiscal year 2013 request for
Federal grants to State and local air quality agencies under sections
103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, which is $305.1 million. This
represents an increase of $65.8 million more than the fiscal year 2012
appropriated amount.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important issue
and for your consideration of the funding needs of State and local air
quality programs as they work to improve and protect public health.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Forest Service
Retirees
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the National
Association of Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR) respectfully submits the
following statement for the record to the Subcommittee on the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies regarding the fiscal year 2013 budget
for the United States Forest Service (USFS). I am Hank Kashdan,
Legislative Director for NAFSR. I retired from USFS in December 2010
having served as Associate Chief immediately prior to retirement. Let
me first express NAFSR's gratitude for this opportunity to provide
recommendations on the proposed budget for USFS. The NAFSR organization
is a national, nonprofit organization of former USFS employees and
associates. Members of the Association possess a unique body of
knowledge, expertise and experience in the management of the National
Forests, other public lands, forestry research, State and private
forestry assistance, agency history, laws and regulations, and
international forestry. Members of NAFSR are devoted to contributing to
understanding and resolving natural resource issues through education,
independent and cooperative analysis, and periodic review and critiques
of agency policies and programs.
This statement will address four areas of the administration's
proposed budget and programs for the USFS:
--the Wildland Fire Management Program;
--the Agency's Focus on Restoration;
--State and Private Forestry and Redesign; and
--Potential Administrative Reforms to be Implemented by the
Department of Agriculture.
Before addressing the specific areas noted above, NAFSR would first
like to express its appreciation to the subcommittee for its clear
commitment to preserving the core programs of USFS during some
difficult budgetary times. In our opinion, the final enacted budget for
fiscal year 2012 clearly indicates the Congress's appreciation of the
importance of the USFS mission in managing the America's precious
natural resources. As the budgetary pressure continues to affect the
discretionary funding in the Federal budget, we are confident that with
your support, the USFS will continue its ability to effectively steward
the Nation's forests and grasslands and maintain a Forest and Rangeland
Research program that is among the best in the world.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
The administration proposes to fund wildfire suppression costs at
the 10-year average and proposes a slight decrease in fire preparedness
while targeting $24 million for ``modernizing the firefighting large
airtanker fleet.'' NAFSR feels it important to raise several concerns
regarding this budget proposal. First pertaining to wildfire
suppression; while we concur that it is appropriate to fund wildfire
suppression at the 10-year average, it is important to note the strong
potential to exceed this amount during the fire season. The last three
wildfire seasons have involved lower than normal large fires and
significantly reduced expenditures. As a result under provisions of the
FLAME Act, unexpended funds would normally have remained available for
use in a season where expenditures exceeded available funds. However
due to significant budgetary pressure, the Congress elected to use
these unobligated funds for other purposes, thus resulting in funds
only being available to the level of the 10-year average. While USFS's
attention to appropriate wildfire suppression response can credited
with some of the reduced wildfire suppression costs, it is clear that
Mother Nature has been the primary contributor. These lower than normal
wildfire seasons should not be expected to continue. The prospect of
suppression costs exceeding available funding raises the very
significant concern about a return to the ``wildfire suppression
transfers'' that so detrimentally affected the agency's mission during
wildfire seasons in the fiscal years of 2000 through 2005. As USFS
ramps up its effort to restore unhealthy and wildfire prone ecosystems,
a return to fire transfers of the past is a serious issue that can be
disruptive to the critical work of the agency. This was pointed out by
the Government Accountability Office in its report entitled ``Funding
Transfers Cause Project Cancellations and Delays, Strained
Relationships, and Management Disruptions, GAO-04-612, June 2, 2004.''
In these challenging budgetary times, NAFSR can only assume that should
fire transfers occur, the prospect of immediate action to provide
supplemental funding will be unlikely. This eventuality is one of the
primary reasons FLAME was enacted, and which would not be redeemed if
the coming season, or that of fiscal year 2013 is severe. NAFSR urges
the subcommittee to prepare for a bad season through some form of
advance emergency suppression provision in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
The President's budget for wildfire preparedness reflects a $2.9
million decrease and specifically targets $24 million for modernizing
the large airtanker fleet. The agency's budget overview indicates there
will be a decreased preparedness staffing level of 438 full-time
equivalents based on this budget request. NAFSR urges the subcommittee
to provide funding to retain a level wildfire preparedness staffing
level. It has been continually demonstrated that the most effective way
to control suppression costs is to be successful upon initial attack.
Any decrease in staffing levels jeopardizes such ability to
successfully suppress a wildfire at the time of initial attack. A
single wildfire could cost as much as $100 million to suppress. Thus
the agency needs to be aggressive in suppressing all wildfires at the
point of initial attack as this will help contain costs; costs that can
be turned into landscape restoration actions which are investments that
will cut the costs to the Federal budget and impacted communities.
In regards to the targeted funding for large airtankers, NAFSR
concurs that any viable option for providing new airframes will cost
more. However, NAFSR strongly discourages the subcommittee from
authorizing any USFS purchase of C-130 aircraft (an option in the
recently released airtanker strategy) at a cost of close to $80 million
each. With the airtanker industry clearly able to provide suitable
airframes if USFS can expand its contracting authorities, there is no
reasonable rationale to use large sums of taxpayer money to purchase
aircraft. This situation has become critical. The continuing loss of
airtankers and medium retardant helicopters is making more perilous the
ability with cooperators to effectively achieve initial wildfire attack
response requirements. In fiscal year 2000 there were 43 available
airtankers. Only 11 are available for the 2012 fire season. Adequate
Federal airtanker capability is essential to keep a balance of local,
State and Federal airtankers available to meet fire response time
standards that are critical to protecting natural resources, watershed
values, communities, public safety, and infrastructure. We encourage
the subcommittee to continue to explore enhanced contracting
authorities that will enable private industry to meet the large
airtanker needs.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE RESTORATION FOCUS
The President's budget reflects a strong focus on restoration
programs to restore ecosystems to healthy and resilient conditions.
NAFSR concurs with this focus and recognizes that such efforts will
improve the economy of local communities and over the long term reduce
the vulnerability to catastrophic wildfire events. Key components of
the restoration focus involve community collaboration, full funding of
the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP), and
achieving permanent authority for Stewardship Contracting. In this
regard NAFSR is fully supportive of the President's budget. However, we
note that the President's budget again reflects a request to
consolidate restoration activities under an Integrated Resource
Restoration (IRR) budget line item. While NAFSR agrees this line item
has potential to improve overall agency performance, and reflects a
better integration of the broad range of agency programs, from the an
accountability standpoint, ``the jury is still out.'' NAFSR is very
appreciative that the Congress authorized a pilot program to test the
IRR concept in three regions, and recommends that further
consolidations of budget line items not be enacted until the agency can
demonstrate improved efficiency and performance over the life of the
pilot. Although the budget reflects a reduction of $12.1 million in
restoration related programs, NAFSR does support the budget overall in
light of the challenging budgetary outlook in fiscal year 2013. In
order to offset this reduction NAFSR recommends full funding of the
CFLRP as requested in the budget. NAFSR further recommends continued
support for implementing permanent authority for Stewardship
Contracting. This contracting authority is a core element of community
collaboration and is quickly becoming the tool of choice for USFS land
managers in achieving desired restoration objectives.
STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY AND REDESIGN
Efforts to significantly improve forest and grassland restoration
objectives must be accomplished in concert with USFS State and Private
Forestry Program. NAFSR notes an overall decrease in State and private
funding of $2.1 million, and recommends that such a reduction not occur
at the expense of International Forestry and Forest Inventory and
Analysis. Rather, NAFSR recommends that the proposed funding level for
the Forest Legacy Program be reduced to levels that will restore Forest
Inventory and Analysis and International Forestry to the fiscal year
2012 level.
The President's budget for the State and Private Program includes a
proposal to combine several budget line items for Federal Lands Forest
Health and Cooperative Lands Forest Health, as well as the
establishment of a Landscape Scale Restoration budget line item which
consolidates six previously separate programs funded under Wildland
Fire and State and Private. NAFSR supports these consolidations.
Although NAFSR expressed concern for a similar consolidation under the
National Forest System account, in the case of State and Private, we
are supportive. This budget proposal is a result of extensive
collaboration with partners over several years which has led to the
``State and Private Redesign.'' The reality of the State and Private
Program's budget is that the individual programs have small amount of
funds (compared to other agency line items) that achieve efficiency
through leveraging with partners. NAFSR supports the consolidated line
item as a way of stretching these funds over the widest possible
restoration focus in cooperation with State and local partners.
POTENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
The NAFSR organization consists of retired employees who reside
across the Nation and who maintain extensive contact with the
organization and partners at all levels. Many of our members are
raising concerns about the prospect of future administrative
consolidations that might be implemented by the Department of
Agriculture (USDA). While the agency has recovered for the most part
from the impacts of major efficiency efforts that resulted in
consolidated services for information technology, human resources, and
financial management, it appears USFS is likely to be forced through
another set of reforms as USDA undertakes significant efforts to
improve efficiency. While NAFSR is supportive of any effort to enhance
efficiency and stretch funding to accomplish the agency's mission, we
do have concerns that the USDA efforts, if not done incrementally and
with full recognition of prior consolidation missteps, will once again
result in chaotic impacts and expense. NAFSR notes that the President's
budget for USFS involves an increased assessment of approximately $7.6
million in ``Central Cost'' and ``Green Book'' programs which currently
total more than $200 million in assessments. While NAFSR understands
that USFS must pay its ``fair share'' of total USDA operating costs,
these increased assessments do not tend to imply that efficiencies will
readily occur and that despite efforts to implement reforms, costs over
the long term will continue to rise. NAFSR strongly encourages the
subcommittee to work with its Agriculture Appropriations counterparts
to assure that future USDA efficiency reforms have a strong potential
to result in improved service to the Nation, and that such reforms are
implemented incrementally based on well established benchmarks for
accountability.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes
NAFSR's statement for the record. We close by once again expressing our
sincere appreciation for your commitment to supporting the mission of
USFS and for your support of a program of work that assures quality
natural resource stewardship will continue into the future. We are
ready to assist the subcommittee at any time.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the subcommittee, I am
David Terry, Executive Director of the National Association of State
Energy Officials (NASEO). NASEO represents the energy offices in the
States, territories and the District of Columbia. NASEO is submitting
this testimony in support of funding for the ENERGY STAR program
(within the Climate Protection Division of the Office of Air and
Radiation) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NASEO
supports funding of at least $55 million, including specific report
language directing that the funds be utilized only for the ENERGY STAR
program. The ENERGY STAR program is successful, voluntary and cost
effective. With energy prices increasingly volatile, ENERGY STAR can
help consumers quickly.
The ENERGY STAR program is focused on voluntary efforts that reduce
the use of energy, promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, and
works with States, local governments, and business to achieve these
goals in a cooperative manner. NASEO has worked very closely with EPA
and more than 40 States are ENERGY STAR Partners. In 2005, EPA and
NASEO announced a State Partnership program, which has many State
members. With very limited funding, EPA's ENERGY STAR program works
closely with the State energy offices to give consumers and businesses
the opportunity to make better energy decisions, without regulation or
mandates.
ENERGY STAR focuses on energy efficient products as well as
buildings. For example, in 2008, 550 million ENERGY STAR products were
purchased. The ENERGY STAR label is recognized across the United
States. It makes the work of the State energy offices much easier, by
working with the public on easily recognized products, services and
targets. In order to obtain the ENERGY STAR label a product has to meet
established guidelines. ENERGY STAR's voluntary partnership programs
include ENERGY STAR Buildings, ENERGY STAR Homes, ENERGY STAR Small
Business and ENERGY STAR Labeled Products. The program operates by
encouraging consumers and working closely with State and local
governments, to purchase these products and services. Marketplace
barriers are also eradicated through education. State energy offices
are working with EPA to promote ENERGY STAR products, ENERGY STAR for
new construction, ENERGY STAR for public housing, etc.
In addition to the State partners, the program has more than 14,000
voluntary partners including more than 2,000 manufacturers using the
label, more than 1,000 retail partners, more than 5,000 builder
partners, 4,500 businesses, 550 utilities and thousands of energy
service providers. The Home Performance with ENERGY STAR activity
allows us to focus on whole-house improvements, not simply a single
product or service. This is extremely beneficial to homeowners. We are
also working closely with EPA in the implementation of the ENERGY STAR
Challenge, which is encouraging businesses and institutions to reduce
energy use by 10 percent or more, usually through very simple actions.
We are working with the building owners to identify the level of energy
use and compare that to a national metric, establish goals and work
with them to make the specified improvements. Again, this is being done
without mandates.
The State energy offices are very encouraged with progress made at
EPA and in our States to promote programs to make schools more energy
efficient, in addition to an expanding ENERGY STAR business partners
program. We hope this expansion will continue. EPA has been expanding
the technical assistance work with the State energy offices in such
areas as benchmark training (how to rate the performance of buildings),
setting an energy target and training in such areas as financing
options for building improvements and building upgrade strategies.
The State energy offices are working cooperatively with our peers
in the State environmental agencies and State public utilities
commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies
are developed recognizing both energy and environmental concerns. We
have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues.
The level of cooperation from the agency has been extraordinary and we
encourage these continued efforts.
CONCLUSION
The ENERGY STAR program saves consumers billions of dollars every
year. The payback is enormous. NASEO supports robust program funding in
fiscal year 2013. Funding for the ENERGY STAR program is justified.
NASEO endorses these activities and the State energy offices are
working very closely with EPA to cooperatively implement a variety of
critical national programs without mandates.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Foresters
The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) appreciates the
opportunity to submit written public testimony to the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies regarding our fiscal year 2013 appropriations recommendations.
Our priorities center on appropriations for the USDA Forest Service
(USFS) State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs. State Foresters
fully appreciate the difficult choices that come with spending
decisions. However, the commitment to the American people must also
include making smart investments in programs that provide significant
benefits to the health of our economy and our environment. We therefore
recommend that fiscal year 2013 appropriations for S&PF be held at $262
million, representing similar funding levels enacted in fiscal year
2012.
State Foresters deliver technical and financial assistance, along
with forest health, water and wildfire protection for more than two-
thirds of the Nation's forests. The USFS S&PF mission area provides
vital support for delivering these services alongside other
socioeconomic and environmental health benefits in both rural and urban
areas. The comprehensive process for delivering such services is
articulated in each of the State Forest Action Plans as authorized in
the 2008 farm bill. S&PF programs provide a significant return on the
Federal investment by leveraging the boots-on-the-ground and financial
resources of State agencies to deliver assistance to forest landowners,
tribes and communities. As State and Federal governments face extremely
tight fiscal conditions, State Foresters, in partnership with the S&PF
mission area of USFS, are best positioned to maximize the effectiveness
of the limited resources available to respond to priority forest issues
and focus efforts in those areas where they are needed most.
RESPONDING TO PRIORITY FOREST ISSUES, TRENDS AND THREATS
Management activities are underway to implement the State Forest
Action Plans and respond to the following trends, issues, and
priorities:
Forest Pests and Invasive Plants
Among the greatest threats identified in the Forest Action Plans
are exotic forest pests and invasive species. The growing number of
damaging pests is often a result of the introduction and spread by way
of wooden shipping materials, movement of firewood and through various
types of recreation. A new pest is introduced every 2 to 3 years. These
pests have the potential to displace native trees, shrubs and other
vegetation types in forests. USFS estimates that hundreds of native and
nonnative insects and diseases damage the Nation's forests each year.
In 2009, approximately 12 million acres suffered mortality from insects
and diseases.\1\ These losses impact the availability of clean and
abundant water, wildlife habitat, clean air, and other environmental
services that may be lost or impacted due to insect and disease
infestation. Further, extensive areas of high insect or disease
mortality can set the stage for large-scale, catastrophic wildfire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Man, Gary. 2010. Major Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in
the United States: 2009 Update. Last accessed on March, 7, 2012 at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/
ConditionsReport_09_final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, the Cooperative Forest Health Management program
provides technical and financial assistance to States and territories
to maintain healthy, productive forest ecosystems on non-Federal forest
lands. Funding for the Program supports activities related to
prevention, suppression, and eradication of insects, diseases, and
plants as well as conducting forest health monitoring through pest
surveys. The Program helped combat native and invasive pests on more
than 766,000 acres of Cooperative lands in fiscal year 2011.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ USDA Forest Service Fiscal Year 2013 President's Budget
Justification. Last accessed February 21, 2012 at http://www.fs.fed.us/
aboutus/budget/2013/fy2013-justification.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASF supports the proposed consolidation of the Forest Health
Program under State and Private Forestry and urges funding the Forest
Health--Cooperative Lands Program at the current fiscal year 2012
enacted level of $49 million. Any further cuts to this program beyond
those made in fiscal year 2012 will necessitate deeper reductions in
support for communities already facing outbreaks and expose more of the
Nation's forests and trees to the devastating and costly effects of
exotic and invasive pests and pathogens. This request is supported by a
strong diversity of organizations in the forestry, conservation, and
environmental community.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Letter of support posted at www.stateforesters.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Loads and Wildland Fire
More people in fire-prone landscapes, high fuel loads, drought and
unhealthy landscapes are among the factors that have led State
Foresters to identify wildland fire as a significant priority issue in
their Forest Action Plans. These factors have created a wildland fire
situation that has become increasingly expensive and complex and, in
many cases, threatens human life and property. In 2011, more than
74,000 wildland fires burned more than 8.7 million acres.\4\ In the
wake of these larger fires, the number of structures destroyed also
surpassed the annual average with more than 5,200 structures, including
nearly 3,500 residences.\1\ Of the 66,700 communities across the
country currently at risk of wildland fire, only 21 percent are
prepared for wildland fire.\5\ NASF and many other organizations in the
forestry, conservation and environmental community agrees that the
Forest Service State Fire Assistance (SFA) Program is essential in
addressing the threat of wildland fire on non-Federal lands.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Interagency Fire Center, Historical Wildland Fire
Summaries, pg. 9. Last accessed February 1, 2012 at http://
www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2011_statssumm/
intro_summary.pdf.
\5\ National Association of State Foresters, Communities at Risk
Report FY2011. Last accessed February 1, 2012 at http://
www.stateforesters.org/files/2011-NASF-finalCAR-report-FY11.pdf.
\6\ Letter of support posted at www.stateforesters.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SFA is the fundamental Federal mechanism that assists States and
local fire departments in developing preparedness and response
capabilities for wildland fire management on non-Federal lands. This
program helps train and equip first responders who can quickly and
efficiently respond to wildland fires. By directing resources to
actions that help reduce the number of large wildland fires--including
prevention education, preparedness activities and fuels mitigation--the
SFA program directly addresses concerns over rising wildland fire
suppression costs, while also reducing wildland fire risks. In fiscal
year 2011, SFA directly funded hazardous fuel treatments on nearly
202,000 acres and provided assistance to 14,724 communities as they
prepare for (and mitigate the risk of) wildland fire.\2\ NASF supports
funding for the program at no less current enacted levels of $86
million and endorses the proposal to consolidate SFA into one line
item.
Working Forest Landscapes
Working forest landscapes are a key part of the rural landscape and
provide an estimated 900,000 jobs, in addition to clean water, wood
products and other essential services to millions of Americans. For
instance, 80 percent of renewable biomass energy comes from wood, 53
percent of all freshwater in the United States originates on forest
land and more than $200 billion in sales of consumer products and
services are provided through the Nation's forests each year.\7\
Working forests are necessary to help the forest products industry
recover and (re)employ nearly 300,000 full-time jobs that have been
lost over the past 5 years as a result of the economic downturn.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Society of American Foresters. The State of America's Forests.
2007.
\8\ Guldin, R.W. and W. B. Smith. Forest Sector Reeling During
Economic Downturn. 2012. Last accessed online at: http://
www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/saf/forestrysource_201201/index.php?startid=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private forests make up two-thirds of all the forestland in the
United States and support an average of eight jobs per 1,000 acres.\9\
The ability of working forests to continue providing jobs, renewable
energy, clean and abundant water and other important services is in
jeopardy as private forests are lost to development. The Forest Service
estimates that 57 million acres of private forests in the United States
are at risk of conversion to urban development over the next two
decades. The Forest Stewardship Program, Forest Legacy Program and
other programs within USDA are key tools identified in the Forest
Action Plans to keep working forests intact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Forest2Market. The Economic Impact of Privately-Owned Forests.
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) is the most extensive family
forest-owner assistance program in the country. Planning assistance is
delivered in cooperation with State forestry agencies primarily through
the development of Forest Stewardship Plans. The program provides
information to private landowners to help them manage their land for
wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, timber production, and many other
purposes. The technical assistance provided through the FSP is a
gateway to other effective USDA, State and private sector programs
designed to help keep working forests intact. For instance, the FSP
enables landowners to participate in USDA programs including the Forest
Legacy Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program. NASF
recommends maintaining current funding at $29 million for the Forest
Stewardship Program in fiscal year 2013. This program (and funding
recommendation) enjoys support from landowners in every corner of the
country.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Letter of support posted at www.stateforesters.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urban and Community Forest Management Challenges
Urban forests provide environmental, social and economic benefits
to the more than 84 percent of Americans who live in metropolitan
areas. Forest Action Plans identified a number of benefits associated
with urban forests including energy savings, improved air quality,
neighborhood stability, aesthetic values, reduced noise, and improved
quality of life for communities across the country. At the same time,
the plans reported a number of threats to urban and community forests
including fire in the wildland urban interface (WUI), urbanization and
development, invasive plants and insects, diseases and others.
Since its expansion under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act
of 1990 (CFAA), USFS's Urban & Community Forestry (U&CF) program has
provided technical and financial assistance to promote stewardship of
urban forests in communities of all sizes across the country. The
program is delivered in close partnership with State Foresters and
leverages existing local efforts that have helped thousands of
communities and towns manage, maintain, and improve their tree cover
and green spaces. In fiscal year 2011, the U&CF program delivered
technical, financial, educational, and research assistance to 7,172
communities in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, U.S.
territories and affiliated Pacific Island nations.\11\ The program
reached nearly 195 million Americans (i.e., more than 60 percent of the
U.S. population) and leveraged an additional $30 million in State and
local support. NASF and the broad urban forestry community support an
appropriation of $31 million in fiscal year 2013 for the Urban and
Community Forestry Program.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ USDA Forest Service Fiscal Year 2013 President's Budget
Justification. Last accessed February 21, 2012 at http://www.fs.fed.us/
aboutus/budget/2013/fy2013-justification.pdf.
\12\ Letter of support posted at www.stateforesters.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANDSCAPE-SCALE RESTORATION AND RESPONSE TO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MANAGER'S
STATEMENT
Members of NASF recognize the value of competitively allocating a
percentage of CFAA funds to encourage innovative approaches to
addressing national, regional and State-specific priorities consistent
with each State's Forest Action Plan. NASF also recognizes that the
ability to provide State Foresters flexibility, with appropriate
accountability, to reapply a portion of their allocations is necessary
to address changing forest conditions and priorities. To that end, NASF
supports the proposed Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) line item with
the understanding expressed in the fiscal year 2013 budget
Justification that the current competitive process would be
``formalized'' and that options for potentially establishing ``funding
flexibility'' (per the fiscal year 2012 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Managers Statement) would not be
eliminated.
NASF greatly appreciates (and requests) the continued support from
the subcommittee to further explore options for providing State
Foresters the ability to apply Federal funds in the highest-priority
areas including, but not limited to, through the new LSR line item. Our
recommended funding level for the LSR line item is contingent upon
further discussions with the subcommittee and with the administration
to better understand the budget relationships between the new line
item, other CFAA programs and funding flexibility. NASF remains
committed to working with the administration, including the USDA Forest
Service, the Congress and other non-Federal partners to further define
how Forest Action Plans can best inform and enhance Federal budget
formulation and funding allocation decisions for CFAA programs.
importance of forest inventory data in monitoring forest issues
The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, managed by Forest
Service Research, is the Nation's only comprehensive forest inventory
system for assessing the health and sustainability of the Nation's
forests across all ownerships. FIA provides essential data related to
forest species composition, forest growth rates, and forest health data
and delivers baseline inventory estimates used in State Forest Action
Plans. The Program provides unbiased information that serves as the
basis for monitoring trends in wildlife habitat, wildfire risk, insect
and disease threats, predicting spread of invasive species and for
responding to priorities identified in the Forest Action Plans.
We urge the Congress to support the FIA program in fiscal year 2013
at no less than current funding levels of $69 million and provide
direction to the Forest Service to look for the most efficient way(s)
to deliver the program including contracting with partners, most
notably State forestry agencies, who can accomplish necessary field
work at lower cost. With efficient delivery, current funding levels can
contribute towards the original goals of providing a fully annualized
inventory in all States and provide policy makers, forest managers,
private investors, and others with the information they need to make
sound decisions regarding the Nation's forests.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI),
thank you for the opportunity to testify on tribal programs in the
fiscal year 2013 budget under the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill. This testimony will address programs in
the Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, and
Indian Health Service. Full funding of the Federal Government's trust,
treaty and statutory obligations to tribes remains a bipartisan goal
for Indian Country.
In preparation for the President's budget, some agencies have
consulted with tribes about programs in the budget. Recommendations
from Indian Country that were included in the President's fiscal year
2013 proposal include increases for contract support costs, some
natural resource and environmental protection programs, public safety
initiatives, and contract health services. While the administration's
budget proposal maintains support for many critical programs, some cuts
proposed represent significant setbacks to progress in Indian Country,
such as for education construction. NCAI looks forward to working with
this subcommittee to ensure that the Federal programs that fulfill the
trust responsibilities to tribes receive bipartisan support in the
appropriations process.
Indian Country recognizes the state of the economy, the pressures
on Government at all levels, and the related challenges for job
seekers. Tribes take the responsibility to manage Federal funds as
seriously as we do the Federal trust responsibility to provide them,
and we propose the following general recommendations for the fiscal
year 2013 budget.
--Continue to promote the successful and efficient initiatives in
Indian Country that work, such as Self-Determination programs.
Critical to implementing these policies are the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) funding streams for Tribal Priority
Allocations, Contract Support Costs at BIA and the Indian
Health Service (IHS), and Tribal Grant Support Costs for tribal
schools.
--Tribes urge the Congress to support legislation that will fully
restore the Secretary of the Interior's authority to take land
into trust for tribes (Carcieri).
NCAI has compiled recommendations on many specific programs and
agencies that affect Indian Country, but, in general, NCAI urges the
Congress to at least hold Indian programs harmless in the fiscal year
2013 appropriations process and exempted from across-the-board
rescissions.
Public Safety and Justice
Although they have taken various forms, the public safety problems
that plague tribal communities are not new. They are the result of
decades of gross underfunding for tribal criminal justice systems, a
painfully complex jurisdictional scheme, and a centuries-old failure by
the Federal Government to fulfill its public safety obligations on
American Indian and Alaska Native lands.
NCAI supports the Department of the Interior's Protecting Indian
Country Initiative and the Priority Goal to reduce violent crime in
Indian communities. Last year, the Department of the Interior launched
the Safe Indian Communities Initiative, a 2-year program that included
targeted community policing on four reservations, and the program has
achieved successful and encouraging results. Since its inception, there
has been a 35-percent overall decrease in violent crime across the four
tribal communities. With an initial target of reducing violent crime by
at least 5 percent, the initiative far exceeded this goal, achieving a
68-percent decrease in violent crime at the Mescalero Reservation in
New Mexico, a 40-percent reduction at Rocky Boy in Montana, and a 27-
percent reduction in violent crime at Standing Rock in North and South
Dakota. The successful program is now being expanded to two additional
reservations:
--the Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota; and
--the San Carlos Apache Reservation in Arizona.
Indian Country would like to see it expanded even further--to reach
even more tribes--and we would like to see the Congress appropriate
adequate funding to ensure the Initiative's continued success. This
Initiative has been a proven success, and these are the types of
efforts that can make a real difference on the ground level, provided
there is funding available to pursue them.
Indian Health Service
The President's budget request demonstrates the administration's
ongoing commitment to Indian Country and the recognition of the trust
responsibility for providing healthcare in perpetuity to all American
Indian and Alaska Native people. The increase of $116 million in the
Indian Health Service (IHS) budget request was a confirmation of that
commitment. Tribal leaders annually, through the National IHS Tribal
Budget Formulation Workgroup, provide IHS with tribal leader priorities
for the upcoming fiscal year. We applaud the administration for
including targeted funding increases that have long been a priority for
the Workgroup, such as for Contract Health Services, staffing, and
contract support costs.
While these increases are much needed, we must be clear that the
IHS budget remains woefully short of providing full funding to the IHS
system; and only full funding will ensure that parity is achieved in
our healthcare system. Providing funding increases that addresses
population growth and inflation so that current services can still be
provided is vitally important.
Tribal leaders provided the Congress and the administration a
blueprint to bring parity to Indian people. The Indian Health Care
Improvement Act (IHCIA) includes programs and services designed to
bring the IHS into the 21st century. However, authorization only
creates the program, appropriations are needed to fulfill its promise.
Currently, there are 23 unfunded provisions in the IHCIA.
Education
The fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Construction program is
a reduction of $17.7 million less than fiscal year 2012. The request
cuts $17.8 million, eliminating new school construction funding. Indian
Affairs will focus on improving existing school facilities as part of
the Department's strategic approach to not fund new construction in
fiscal year 2013. The total fiscal year 2013 request for Education
Construction is $52.9 million. NCAI urges funding for new school
construction to be restored. All students in America deserve a safe,
secure, and culturally appropriate environment in which to attend
school. As cited in the draft No Child Left Behind School Facilities
and Construction Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Report, numerous
research studies have noted the link between inadequate facility
conditions and poor performance by students and teachers. The report
also underscored the fact that the quality of the school environment
impacts student behavior, test scores, and teacher retention, among
other issues. As of December 31, 2009, an estimated $1.34 billion was
needed to bring 64 schools ranked in ``poor'' condition, meaning in
significant need of repair, up to ``fair'' condition. Continued
inadequate support for school facilities will cause the unmet need for
construction and repair funds to balloon. Equally disconcerting is that
the fiscal year 2013 budget directives could result in the continued
elimination of funding for replacement school and replacement
facilities. Delaying the replacement and repair of existing facilities
not only jeopardizes student and staff safety, but also increases the
amount of school funds that must be diverted to emergency repairs and
other facilities maintenance--accounts which are also extremely
underfunded.
Natural Resources
The vitality and sustainability of natural resources is integral to
the health of American Indian and Alaska Native peoples, communities,
cultures, and economies. It also has demonstrable positive impacts on
surrounding communities. The ecological practices tribal peoples have
cultivated for millennia are inherently sustainable and practical.
Environmental Protection Agency
Although the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) fiscal year
2013 budget decreased approximately $105 million overall from fiscal
year 2012, much of the tribal set asides received increased funding.
Recognizing tribes and States as the primary implementers of
environmental programs the EPA continued funding its State and Tribal
Assistance Grants program, which accounts for 40 percent of the EPA's
budget request and is the largest percentage of the EPA's budget
request. Tribes received an increase of approximately $29 million more
than fiscal year 2012 appropriations to the Tribal General Assistance
Program. These additional funds will assist tribes in capacity building
and promote protections for the environment and human health. NCAI
strongly supports the increased proposed for the Tribal General
Assistance Program.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Natural Resources
Tribes have voiced support for increased funding for natural
resources programs in the Bureau of Indians Affairs through the Tribal
Interior Budget Council, which provides input to the Department of the
Interior on tribal budget concerns. The President's fiscal year 2013
budget includes some of the recommendations for natural resources.
Under trust land management, the fiscal year 2013 budget would provide
increases in Trust Natural Resources of $3.5 million for the Rights
Protection Implementation program and $2 million for the Tribal
Management and Development program to support fishing, hunting, and
gathering rights on and off reservations. The budget request would
provide program increases of $1 million for the Forestry program and
$500,000 for the Invasive Species program. An increase of $800,000
supports greater BIA and tribal participation in the Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives, for a total of $1 million. NCAI urges the
Congress to retain these proposed increases in the final fiscal year
2013 appropriations bill.
Supporting Tribal Governments
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget includes $2.5 billion in
current appropriations for Indian Affairs, which is $4.6 million or 0.2
percent less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The budget
proposes a total of $897.4 million in Tribal Priority Allocations.
Critical to implementing the Indian Self-Determination policy is the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funding streams for Tribal Priority
Allocations, Contract Support Costs at BIA, and Tribal Grant Support
Costs for tribal schools. NCAI supports the programmatic increases in
Indian Affairs, which follow the recommendations from tribes. However,
NCAI would note that the President's budget includes rather large
reductions due to streamlining measures in the BIA. These reductions
include $19.7 million in streamlining measures and $13.8 million in
administrative savings. Although tribes appreciate that the
administration is proposing increases to programs, NCAI would urge
caution when cutting so deeply into BIA functions.
Economic Development
Indian Guaranteed Loan Program
The fiscal year 2013 proposed budget would provide $5 million for
the Indian Guaranteed Loan program, a reduction of $2.1 million from
the 2012 enacted level. The Department of the Interior's Office of
Indian Energy and Economic Development (OIEED) Division of Capital
Investment oversees the Indian Loan Guarantee Program that is the only
Federal guarantee program that enables eligible borrowers to obtain
conventional lender financing to develop Native businesses and eligible
construction, while also enabling other companies to obtain
supplemental surety bond guarantees. In the last several years,
significant tightening of the credit markets made loans more difficult
to obtain, reducing demand for loan guarantees. The revolving credit
facility of the OIEED Loan Guarantee Program can greatly assist Native
borrowers seeking guarantees for lines of credit for:
--working capital;
--payrolls for hiring new employees; and
--assurances sufficient for sureties to provide performance bonds to
tribal- and other Native-owned contractors.
The OIEED's Loan Guarantee Program is the most appropriate and
urgently needed source of financing for business, energy, and other
economic development in Indian Country. With the promises of a
broadband-enabled economy in Indian Country looming on the horizon, an
expanded investment in the OIEED Loan Guarantee Program would enable
operating businesses to build their technological capacity as well as
to provide seed financing for new businesses to begin operations. NCAI
encourages the Congress to provide funding for the Indian Guaranteed
Loan Program at a level of at least $10 million.
Transportation
NCAI urges an increase for the BIA roads maintenance program in
fiscal year 2013, which services 29,000 miles of Indian Affairs-owned
roads. As of 2011, the backlog in deferred maintenance was approximated
to be $285 million, yet the funding level for BIA roads maintenance has
been at about $25 million for the last 10 years.
Conclusion
We look forward to working with Members of Congress to continue to
build upon our successes. Tribal leaders urge the Congress to uphold
its solemn promises to tribes, even as policymakers seek to reduce the
deficit through spending reductions and revenue generation. The
obligations to tribal citizens funded in the Federal budget are the
result of treaties negotiated and agreements made between tribes and
the United States in exchange for land and resources, known as the
trust responsibility. The fulfillment of this trust responsibility is a
solemn historic and legal duty.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Cooperators' Coalition
Summary
The National Cooperators' Coalition (NCC) urges the Subcommittee on
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to increase the funding
of the U.S. Geological Survey's Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Units (CFWRUs) by $2.7 million more than the amount in the fiscal year
2010 continuing resolution to fill vacant scientist positions. At a
time when Federal spending needs to be reduced, the CFWRUs are
precisely the type of program that should receive greater support
because they successfully leverage $3 for every $1 of Federal funds
appropriated for the program. With typically just three Federal
scientists, each of the 38 CFWRUs is lean and highly productive and
uses partnerships to avoid the need for Federal spending on
administrative personnel, building space and much of the operating
expenses. This cost-effective program, however, is in jeopardy unless
funds are provided to replace its retiring scientists.
The NCC also recognizes the efforts of several States that want to
establish new unit capacity. Contingent on full funding of the base
CFWRU program, it is vital to these efforts that an additional $2.5
million be appropriated for the new capacity which will add units in
Nevada, New Jersey and North Dakota and complete the wildlife mission
at existing units in Hawaii and California.
Continue To Build on This Subcommittee's Efforts
We greatly appreciate your leadership in adding funding in fiscal
years 2008, 2009, and 2010 for the CFWRU research and training
partnership, which for more than 75 years has brought together State
fish and wildlife agencies, State universities, and Federal agencies
around a local, applied research agenda. As a result, to provide the
capacity in the CFWRU program that existed a decade ago, the fiscal
year 2012 USGS appropriation now needs just $2.7 million more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
Each of the CFWRUs in 38 States is a true Federal-State-university-
private partnership among the U.S. Geological Survey, a State natural
resource agency, a host university, and the Wildlife Management
Institute. The CFWRUs build on these partner contributions to leverage
more than $3 for every $1 appropriated to the program by the Congress.
The CFWRUs have established a record of educating new natural resource
professionals who are management-oriented, well-versed in science,
grounded in State and Federal agency experience, and able to assist
private landowners and other members of the public. Restoration of
funding support would ensure that the Interior Department provides the
Federal scientist staffing agreed to with CFWRU partners so that the
return on the continuing investment in the program by those partners is
realized and fully leveraged. At a time when Federal spending needs to
be reduced, the role of the CFWRU program in facilitating solutions to
natural resources management challenges and training the fish and
wildlife managers of tomorrow should be expanded rather than
compromised by funding shortfalls that result in the absence of
scientist leaders.
State and Federal natural resources agencies are facing
unprecedented challenges posed by energy development needs, invasive
species, infectious diseases, wildfire, and increased demand for
limited water resources. These agencies also face the challenge of
replacing an extraordinary number of natural resource professionals who
are retiring. Finding workable solutions to these challenges requires
the kind of approaches to research emphasized by the CFWRUs, which rely
on leveraging Federal dollars through collaborative, interdisciplinary
efforts to help resolve emerging issues at scales that transcend
individual State boundaries.
With appropriation of $22 million for the CFWRUs for fiscal year
2012, a sound foundation will exist on which new capacity should be
built. With appropriation of an additional $2.5 million will add CFWRUs
in Nevada, New Jersey and North Dakota and complete the wildlife
mission at existing CFWRUs in Hawaii and California. Rutgers
University, University of Nevada--Reno, North Dakota State University-
The University of North Dakota, University of Hawaii--Hilo and Humboldt
State University bring a wealth of research, education and innovative
technology to address contemporary conservation issues at regional and
national scales. The respective State agency partners bring an
extensive history of successful fish and wildlife management skills and
resources that complement those existing at the universities. The State
agency and university partners are well equipped to collaborate with
CFWRUs to help resolve natural resources management challenges that
transcend State boundaries.
We urge you to make greater use of the Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Units and to expand this program in five States. The
program's efficient and cost-effective research and training
partnership brings together State fish and wildlife agencies, State
universities, and Federal agencies around a local, applied research
agenda. With your assistance, this program can make the best use of
limited Federal funds to become even more effective in using science
and collaboration to address the natural resources challenges facing
the Interior Department, other Federal, State, local agencies, and this
country's citizens.
Thank you for consideration of our request.
The National Cooperators' Coalition is an alliance of non-Federal
CFWRU program cooperators and other supporters. Its members include
State fish and wildlife agencies, universities, and nongovernmental
organizations. The mission of the NCC is to build a stronger and more
coordinated base of support to serve research, education, and technical
assistance needs of the non-Federal CFWRU program cooperators.
SPONSORS
University of Arkansas
University of Arizona
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Humboldt State University
Colorado State University
Colorado Division of Wildlife
University of Florida
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
University of Georgia
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
University of Hawaii
University of Idaho
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Purdue University
Iowa State University
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Louisiana State University
Maine Department Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
University of Minnesota
Minnesota Department Natural Resources
University of Missouri
Missouri Department of Conservation
University of Montana
Montana State University
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
University of Nebraska
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
University of Nevada, Reno
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
New Mexico State University
North Carolina State University
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Oklahoma State University
Oregon State University
Pennsylvania Game Commission
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
Clemson University
Rutgers University
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks
South Dakota State University
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Texas Tech University
Utah State University
Virginia Tech University
Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department
Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources
University of Wisconsin--Madison
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
University of Wyoming
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Izaak Walton League of America
Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
National Association of University Fish and Wildlife Programs
North American Grouse Partnership
The Wildlife Society
Wildlife Management Institute
______
Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers
Fiscal Year 2013 Request
--$46.925 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs);
and
--$10 million for a Historic Preservation Grant Program to be run
though the SHPOs.
Funded through withdrawals from the Historic Preservation Fund (16
U.S.C. 470h) U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service
Historic Preservation Fund (HPF).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NCSHPO also supports the Tribal Historic Preservation
Officer's fiscal year 2013 request of $9.7 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preservation = ROI = Federal-State Partnership
In 1966, the Congress, recognizing the importance of our heritage,
enacted the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 16 U.S.C. 470),
which established historic preservation as a Federal Government
priority. Instead of using Federal employees to carry out the Act, the
Department of the Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation opted to partner with the States and use SHPOs to:
--locate and record historic resources;
--nominate significant historic resources to the National Register of
Historic Places;
--foster historic preservation programs at the local government level
and promote the creation of preservation ordinances;
--provide funds for preservation activities;
--comment on Federal preservation tax projects;
--review all Federal projects for their impact on historic
properties; and
--provide technical assistance to Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and the private sector.
And, States contribute to the Federal Government half the operating
cost.
Preservation = ROI = Job Creation
Historic preservation creates jobs. Whether it is through the
historic tax credit program, preservation grants, or other
rehabilitation avenues, preservation creates skilled, principally
local, jobs. The following are excellent examples of how historic
preservation creates jobs and job training:
--In 2011, while slowly climbing out of a national recession, there
were nearly 1,000 new historic tax credit projects started,
averaging 55 jobs per project. The private investment in the
approved and completed projects in 2011 totaled $4.02
billion.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings--Statistical Report and Analysis for Fiscal Year 2011''
National Park Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--When compared to new construction, $1 million spent to rehabilitate
a building will create 5-9 more construction jobs and 4.7 new
jobs will be created elsewhere in the community.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Economics of Rehabilitation, Donovan Rypkema.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--In California $1 million of rehabilitation creates five more jobs
than manufacturing $1 million worth of electronic equipment. In
Oklahoma $1 million of rehabilitation creates 29 more jobs than
pumping $1 million worth of oil.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Economics of Historic Preservation, Rypkema 1998:13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preservation = ROI = Economic Development
From Providence, Rhode Island to Anchorage, Alaska historic
preservation plays a key role in creating, maintaining, and growing
these communities while preserving their historical significance. The
Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit program is an important driver in
economic development. The program benefits communities by:
--Increasing the value of the rehabilitated property and returning
vacant or underutilized structures to the tax roles.
--Encouraging protection of landmarks through the promotion,
recognition, and designation of historic structures, and acting
as a catalyst for further community renewal.
--Upgrading downtowns and neighborhoods and often increasing the
amount of available housing within the community.
In 2011, still in the midst of a recession, the Federal
rehabilitation tax credit spurred $4.02 billion in private investment,
created more than 55,400 skilled, local jobs and nearly 7,500 moderate-
and low-income housing units. All of which brings in both short and
long-term economic opportunities for the community.
According to the Major of Dubuque, Iowa, Roy D. Buol, ``The City of
Dubuque views historic preservation as a key component of
sustainability with its economic, environmental, and social/cultural
benefits. Preservation enhances the vibrancy of neighborhoods and our
community, instilling pride and value through increased property
values, as well as enhanced quality of life, sense of place and
neighborhood pride. Preservation translates into economic prosperity
through creation of new jobs, retention of existing jobs especially in
construction trades, stimulation of private investment, tourism and
business growth, and financial investment in property improvements.''
Heritage tourism also creates jobs, new businesses, builds
community pride and can improve quality of life. SHPOs are essential,
ground level partners in identifying historic places and providing
research for tourism interpretation. According to the Department of
Commerce's ``2010 Cultural Heritage Traveler'' report of activities
that international visitors participate in, touring America's non-
National Park historical places ranks third, behind only shopping and
dining. Visiting America's non-National Park Historical Places,
Cultural Heritage Sites, and America's Small towns all rank above
visiting National Parks--where the bulk of Federal money is spent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010 Percentage
Activity participation while in the United States (percentage) (percentage) change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shopping........................................................ 90 90 0.3
Dining in restaurants........................................... 86 86 ..............
Visit historical places......................................... 68 68 0.2
Sightseeing in cities........................................... 60 59 -0.9
Art gallery/museum.............................................. 41 41 -0.1
Cultural heritage sites......................................... 40 41 0.7
Visit small towns............................................... 36 37 1.5
Amusement/Theme parks........................................... 32 34 2.1
Visit National Parks............................................ 34 34 0.2
Concert/Play/Musical............................................ 30 29 -0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Commerce, Office of Travel and Tourism Industries ``2010 Cultural Heritage Traveler''.
Preservation = Return on Investment = America's Heritage
Preservation honors the significant places of American history at
the local, State and national levels through creating historic
districts and listing resources in National and State Historic
Registers. State Historic Preservation Officers, through the authority
of the National Historic Preservation Act are there to assist, support,
and encourage communities with their efforts. National Register
recognition by the Secretary confirms citizens' belief in the
significance of their community. That recognition, in turn, builds
community pride and stable, livable communities such as Deadwood, South
Dakota and Knoxville, Tennessee. Further, this neighborhood improvement
comes from individual, private investment, not from Federal programs.
The National Historic Preservation program is one of assistance,
not acquisition. The Federal Government does not own, manage, or
maintain responsibility for the historic assets in the National
Historic Preservation program. Instead, the program, through the SHPOs,
provides individuals, communities, and local and State governments the
tools they need to preserve and utilize their historic heritage for the
betterment of their community and the Nation.
Preservation = Return on Investment = Money Well Spent
Federal funding for SHPOs is money well spent. Under the
administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool, management of Historic
Preservation Programs received a score of 89 percent, indicating
exemplary performance of mandated activities. Reinforcing this finding
is the December 2007 National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
report ``Back to the Future: A Review of the National Historic
Preservation Program'', and the 2009 National Parks Second Century
Report, which called for fully funding the Historic Preservation Fund.
NAPA, a nonprofit, independent coalition of top management and
organizational leaders, found that the National Historic Preservation
Program ``stands as a successful example of effective Federal-State
partnership and is working to realize the Congress's original vision to
a great extent. However, the Panel concluded ``that a stronger Federal
leadership role, greater resources, and enhanced management are needed
to build upon the existing, successful framework to achieve the full
potential of the NHPA on behalf of the American people.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ NAPA, ``Back to the Future: A Review of the National Historic
Preservation Programs'' December 2007, p. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 State Historic Preservation Offices' Accomplishments
SHPOs used their HPF allocations well in 2011. While virtually
every State continues to experience staffing and operation reductions,
SHPOs are still charged with implementing the requirements of the NHPA
to the fullest extent. Highlights of 2011 historic preservation
accomplishments include:
--Reviewing 140,000 Federal undertakings within 30 days.
--Leveraging more than $4.02 billion of private investment in the
rehabilitation of commercial historic properties under the
Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit (FRTC) program.
--An estimated 55,458 jobs created by the FRTC program in 2011.
--7,470 low- and moderate-income housing units created through the
FRTC.
--Approximately 20.5 million acres surveyed for the presence and
absence of cultural resources and more than 610,700 properties
evaluated for their historical significance.
--1,061 new listings in the National Register of Historic Places.
--104,700 National Register eligibility opinions.
--37 new communities became Certified Local Governments (CLGs).
--Under local law, CLG's newly designated 57,000 properties, and
66,300 properties took part in local preservation review,
programs, and incentives.
Conclusion
On behalf of all 57 SHPOs, I'd like to thank you Chairman Reed,
Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies for the
opportunity to submit testimony.
Historic preservation recognizes that what was common and ordinary
in the past is often rare and precious today, and what is common and
ordinary today may be extraordinary 50, 100, or 500 years from now. I
would like to thank the committee for their commitment to historic
preservation. The Federal Government plays an invaluable role in
preserving our Nation's history and through our partnership, SHPOs
stand committed to identify, protect, and maintain our Nation's
historic heritage. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Federation of Federal Employees
Local 1957
I am writing on behalf of the National Federation of Federal
Employees (NFFE) Local 1957, the bargaining unit for the National
Minerals Information Center (NMIC), USGS, Reston, Virginia. The
President's proposed fiscal year 2013 budget for the USGS includes a
$1.2 million cut (8 percent) to the NMIC's current funding level of
$14.8 million, and $3.96 million (8 percent) cut from $49.2 million for
the entire Mineral Resource Program (MRP), of which we are a part. This
is on top of the enacted fiscal year 2012 MRP budget cut of $2.94
million, of which $588,000 is expected to be allocated to the National
Minerals Information Center. We have three things to ask of you.
First: Reject the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget cuts to the USGS
National Minerals Information Center and, at a minimum, set the fiscal
year 2013 at the fiscal year 1996 funding level of $16 million.
The proposed budget cut would render NMIC ineffectual and the USGS
noncompliant with its congressional mandate by severely limiting NMIC's
international information function. Without international data, NMIC's
ability to meet its core mission--to collect, report, and analyze data
on the supply of nonfuel minerals critical to the Nation's economic and
defense needs--would be severely and irreparably compromised. This is
because of the global nature of the minerals industry. The U.S. import
dependence for most strategic and critical nonfuel minerals and metals
exceeds 75 percent, which is greater than the country's dependence on
foreign oil. In 2011, NMIC found that U.S. import reliance was more
than 50 percent for 43 minerals critical to national security and the
U.S. economy. Of those, the import reliance was 100 percent for 19
minerals.
With limitations to NMIC's international function, the USGS,
therefore, could not fulfill its congressional mandate to assure there
is an adequate and dependable supply of mineral materials for national
defense, as established by The Defense Production Act of 1950, as
amended (1980 and 1992).
NMIC would lose an estimated 10 FTEs on top of the 11 incurred in
fiscal year 2012, which would require a reduction in force. This would
result in the loss of existing expertise and the inability to attract
new hires for succession planning. Commodity and country report
coverage would also be significantly reduced. NMIC is relied upon as an
objective source of nonfuel minerals information and expertise by
Federal, State, and local governments, as well as by private, academic,
and nongovernmental organizations. NMIC produces more than 800 reports
per year covering nonfuel minerals, including Mineral Commodity
Summaries for the congressional offices. In 2011, our Web site had
about 14.5 million hits and more than 9.7 million publication
downloads.
Second: Add $7.7 million to NMIC's fiscal year 2012 funding level
for a total of $22.5 million. We would not ask for added funding in a
time of such record deficits if we did not sincerely believe it was
necessary. NMIC is unique to the Federal Government--it is the only
comprehensive source of nonfuel mineral analysis to the Nation. In
fiscal year 1996, the Congress recognized this fact when it transferred
the NMIC function to the USGS from the former U.S. Bureau of Mines with
specific responsibility for analyses of domestic and foreign mineral
supplies. Since then, NMIC has endured a continually shrinking budget
both in current and real terms (1996 dollars). NMIC's budget has
declined by 36 percent in real dollars to $10.3 million through fiscal
year 2012. The proposed fiscal year 2013 budget would result in a 41
percent reduction in NMIC funding from that of fiscal year 1996 to $9.5
million in real dollars (Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Compounding the problem, NMIC has had to absorb mandated increases
in salaries and cost of living adjustments. Not surprisingly, filled
FTE positions have fallen--by 33 percent (55 positions) from fiscal
year 1996 to fiscal year 2012. Quite frankly, NMIC is now at the point
that even flat levels of funding will prevent the group from fully
accomplishing its mission. Additional funding would allow NMIC to make
much needed improvements, such as increasing the voluntary reporting of
mineral production and consumption by U.S. companies; upgrading its
data management system; and expanding data collection and analysis
further down the supply chain.
Third: Support Realignment of NMIC within the Federal Government so
NMIC can be more autonomous, adaptable, and stable. NMIC's budget has
been arbitrarily maintained at roughly 30 percent of the USGS MRP
budget since fiscal year 1996. This is despite increasing requests for
further collaboration by NMIC customers and recommendations by the
National Research Council in 2008 in the report, ``Minerals, Critical
Minerals, and the U.S. Economy,'' as well as the 2011 report by the
American Physical Society and Materials Research Society entitled,
``Energy Critical Elements: Securing Materials for Emerging
Technologies.'' The 2008 report recommended that ``the Federal
Government should continue to carry out the necessary function of
collecting, disseminating, and analyzing mineral data and information.
The USGS Minerals Information Team [now National Minerals Information
Center] . . . should have greater authority and autonomy than at
present. It also should have sufficient resources to carry out its
mandate . . .''
NMIC has never been well supported by the USGS. In addition to the
proposed fiscal year 2013 budget cuts, NMIC and MRP budgets were
proposed to be reduced in fiscal year 2004-2009. Prior Congresses
strongly rejected those attempts. For example, the 2006 congressional
joint committee managers wrote, ``[we] strongly disagree with the
administration's proposed reductions to the mineral assessment program
and believe it irresponsible for the Administration to decrease or
eliminate funding for what is inherently a Federal responsibility.''
(See Box 1 for our rebuttal to several of the principles used to
prioritize the fiscal year 2013 budget.)
NMIC realignment would greatly enhance its position as the leading
Government source of nonfuel minerals information and analyses. See Box
2 for additional rationale and options.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues that affect both
our Union's and the Nation's interests.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Box 1: Rebuttal to Fiscal Year 2013 USGS Budget Formulation
The USGS budget justification for fiscal year 2013 states that the
2013 budget ``builds on the core historical mission of the USGS''. NMIC
and the MRP were one of only several USGS programs slated for reduction
in fiscal year 2013--this at a time when the USGS would receive greater
than a 3-percent increase in funding to $1.1 billion.
Some of the principles used to prioritize the fiscal year 2013 USGS
budget formulation include:
--Maintaining programs that are unique to the USGS and conducted on
behalf of the Nation;
--Retaining programs that are legislatively mandated; and
--Aligning targeted increases with emerging science priorities that
are of national and global significance.
Principle 1 is met. NMIC is the only group within the Federal
Government that provides comprehensive nonfuel mineral analyses for the
Nation.
Principle 2 is met. The NMIC function is mandated by Defense
Production Act of 1950, as amended; various sections under title 30 of
the U.S. Code (U.S.C.)--Mineral Lands and Mining; and section 98 of 50
U.S.C.--Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act of 1946, as
amended.
Principle 3 is met. The increasing need for more and more minerals
information by NMIC is well documented. This has been recognized by the
National Research Council in its 2008 report, ``Minerals, Critical
Minerals, and the U.S. Economy'', and the 2011 report by the American
Physical Society and Materials Research Society entitled, ``Energy
Critical Elements: Securing Materials for Emerging Technologies''.
Further, the Congress introduced seven bills in 2011 alone regarding
the need for additional studies by the USGS on the availability and use
of rare earth elements (REE) and other critical mineral materials.
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Box 2: NMIC Realignment Rationale and Options
NMIC is artificially located within a sub-regional reporting
structure within the USGS. Such a reporting structure is contrary to
NMIC's assessment of mineral materials availability for the United
States within national and international contexts. This forces some
NMIC resources to be diverted on unrelated activities that could be put
to better use for the USGS, such as improving the voluntary reporting
of mineral production and consumption by U.S. companies; upgrading the
data management system; and expanding data collection further down the
supply chain.
NMIC's research is fundamentally different from other programs
within the USGS. NMIC's research necessarily requires strong economic
and social-science expertise that is quite different from traditional
USGS scientific investigations. The mainstay of NMIC information comes
from regional, commodity, and minerals industry analysts with
multidisciplinary backgrounds (chemists, economists, engineers,
geologists, etc.).
NMIC's mission is fundamentally different from most other USGS
programs. NMIC's mission requires quick turnaround, high-volume data
gathering, analysis, and dissemination, unlike the research and
assessment component of the MRP and many other USGS programs, which
engage in long-term, project-oriented, fundamental scientific studies.
Options for realignment include:
--Reporting directly to the Office of Director, USGS. NMIC would have
greater flexibility to enable USGS management to respond to
mineral issues of national and international significance and
in seeking cross-disciplinary solutions to these issues.
--Reporting directly to the Office of Secretary, Department of the
Interior. This would be similar to how the Energy Information
Administration is organized under the Department of Energy.
--Transfer to some other Federal agency.
----------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year 2013 funding for
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). NFWF's fiscal year
2013 appropriations request will be matched dollar-for-dollar with non-
Federal funds to conserve fish, wildlife and their habitats through
local partnerships.
We believe that NFWF is a sound investment in a time of constrained
budgets because of our proven track record and statutory requirement to
leverage Federal funding with private contributions to maximize
conservation benefit. We appreciate the subcommittee's past support and
respectfully request your approval of funding at the following levels:
--$7.525 million through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS)
Resource Management General Administration appropriation;
--$3 million through the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM)Management
of Lands and Resources appropriation; and
--$3 million through the United States Forest Service's (USFS)
National Forest System appropriation.
Since its inception, NFWF has leveraged nearly $576 million in
Federal funds into $2 billion in on-the-ground and in-the-water
conservation with less than 5-percent aggregate overhead to the Federal
Government and fewer than 100 staff nationwide.
NFWF was established by the Congress in 1984 to catalyze private
investments to conserve fish, wildlife and their habitats. NFWF is
required by law to match each federally appropriated dollar with a
minimum of one non-Federal dollar. We consistently exceed this
requirement by leveraging Federal funds at a 3:1 average ratio while
building consensus and emphasizing accountability, measurable results,
and sustainable conservation outcomes.
The goal of NFWF is to ensure abundant wildlife species in order to
allow the economic health of our Nation to continue. The key elements
of our approach include:
--leverage;
--efficiency;
--partnerships;
--transparency; and
--measurable outcomes.
A positive example of this approach is our ongoing response to the
2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As you know, NFWF took immediate
action following the oil spill to help protect the species most at
risk. NFWF's longstanding relationships with Federal and State
agencies, scientists, and on-the-ground conservation organizations were
invaluable in assessing local wildlife needs and shaping effective
responses. In the first phase of its gulf response, NFWF invested in 22
projects which are now delivering results in Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, Florida, and Texas. This first phase of projects was financed
using $8.8 million from the Recovered Oil Fund for Wildlife,
established by BP with proceeds from the sale of oil recovered from the
spill site, as well as a $2.25 million commitment from Walmart. Since
then, NFWF has invested an additional $14.1 million from the Recovered
Oil Fund for Wildlife and other sources--$22.9 million total--to
bolster populations of species affected by the spill in advance of
formal restoration efforts. These investments have helped to pilot
cost-effective conservation approaches and build capacity in the region
to sustain conservation outcomes. With our Federal and private
partners, more than 500,000 acres of coastal of freshwater wetland
habitat was established to benefit a variety of migratory birds. Other
investments have increased the number of sea turtle hatchlings by more
than 100,000 and are ensuring the survival of an additional 800-1,000
adult and juvenile sea turtles annually.
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION PARTNERSHIPS
With the subcommittee's support, fiscal year 2013 funds will
support our longstanding partnerships and new initiatives with FWS,
BLM, and USFS. Some of our priority initiatives for fiscal year 2013
are described below.
Longleaf Pine Ecosystem.--Building on nearly a decade of investment
to protect and restore vanishing longleaf pine forests in the
southeastern United States, NFWF established the Longleaf Stewardship
Fund in 2011. This landmark public-private partnership will award
approximately $3 million in fiscal year 2012 with support through FWS,
USFS, USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of
Defense, and Southern Company. With the combined financial and
technical resources of the public-private partnership, the expanded
program will support accelerated restoration of the longleaf pine
ecosystem and implementation of the Range-Wide Conservation Plan for
Longleaf Pine. NFWF is working with partners to establish specific
measurable conservation goals that can be tracked over time. These
goals will support the recovery of important keystone species of the
longleaf pine ecosystem including red cockaded woodpecker, gopher
tortoise and Northern bobwhite quail and advance specific habitat
restoration goals outlined in the Range-Wide Plan.
Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Long Island Sound.--Watershed
health plays an important role in fish and wildlife conservation and
has been a feature of NFWF's grantmaking since establishing our
partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1998. In
the last decade, NFWF has formed strategic public-private partnerships
to restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat while improving water
quality in the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Long Island Sound.
Federal partners in the programs include EPA, Department of the
Interior agencies, USFS, USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service,
NOAA, and others. NFWF leverages various Federal funds for these
partnerships but, more importantly, has attracted private contributions
from corporations and other private foundations. Through these
partnerships, Federal agencies are able to leverage resources with
NFWF's corporate sponsors to increase the impact any one of them could
have alone. NFWF's watershed grant programs continued positive results
in 2011 with priority project requests far exceeding available funds.
JOBS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS
In 2011, NFWF commissioned a report by Southwick Associates that
revealed that investments in natural resource conservation have a
strong positive impact on local jobs and economies. The report examines
existing data on the economic value of natural resource conservation,
outdoor recreation and historic preservation. It calculates the total
U.S. economic impact of these three areas as $1.06 trillion. This
includes 9.4 million jobs and $107 billion in Federal, State, and local
tax revenues.
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION REAUTHORIZATION
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act (S.
1494) was introduced in August 2011 with strong bipartisan support. S.
1494 renews NFWF's direct appropriations authorization level of $30
million for an additional 5 years. The $30 million authorization
includes $20 million annually through the Department of the Interior;
$5 million annually through USDA; and $5 million annually through the
Department of Commerce. S. 1494 affirms the original purposes of NFWF
and strengthens NFWF's ability to raise private dollars, work with
Federal agencies more effectively, reduce bureaucratic burdens, and
maximize conservation outcomes. Importantly, S. 1494 will ensure NFWF's
ability to save money for the Federal Government through efficient
grant administration, effective collaboration, and significant leverage
through private sector contributions.
S. 1494 is sponsored by Chairwoman Boxer and includes the following
co-sponsors:
--Baucus (D-MT);
--Bingaman (D-NM);
--Cardin (D-MD);
--Cochran (R-MS);
--Collins (R-ME);
--Murkowski (R-AK);
--Roberts (R-KS);
--Snowe (R-ME);
--Tester (D-MT);
--Thune (R-SD);
--Udall (D-NM); and
--Whitehouse (D-RI).
A legislative hearing by the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works was held on April, 24 2012. A companion bill in the House
of Representatives is pending.
CONCLUSION
For nearly three decades, NFWF has been at the forefront of
national conservation activity. With our partners, NFWF has contributed
to some of the Nation's most important conservation programs, invested
millions in worthy and successful projects, and spearheaded programs to
conserve our Nation's most treasured natural resources. We have a
successful model of coordinating and leveraging Federal funds and
attracting support from the private sector to address the most
significant threats to fish and wildlife populations and their
habitats. NFWF currently has partnerships with 14 Federal agencies and
more than 50 corporations and private foundations.
Meaningful and measurable outcomes, evaluation, and accountability
are NFWF's building blocks to ensure maximum conservation impact. We
are working directly with the Federal agencies and our other partners
to maximize results and produce sustainable conservation outcomes. To
that end, the Foundation is incorporating monitoring and evaluation
into our programs to measure progress, promote adaptive management,
demonstrate results, and continuously learn from project investments.
We look forward to building on our partnerships with FWS, BLM, and USFS
in fiscal year 2013 and appreciate the subcommittee's continued support
of these collaborative efforts.
BACKGROUND ON THE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION
As of fiscal year 2011, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
has awarded more than 11,600 grants to national and community-based
organizations through successful partnerships with the Department of
the Interior agencies, USDA's USFS and Natural Resources Conservation
Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and others. This collaborative model brings
together multiple Federal agencies with State, tribal, and local
governments and private organizations to implement coordinated
conservation strategies in all 50 States.
We work directly with Federal and State agencies and our other
partners to measure progress, promote adaptive management, demonstrate
results, and continuously learn from project investments. NFWF's grant-
making involves a thorough internal and external review process. Peer
reviews involve Federal and State agencies, affected industry,
nonprofit organizations, and academics. Grants are reviewed by the
NFWF's science and evaluation team before being recommended to the
Board of Directors for approval. By law, congressional offices are
notified 30 days in advance of any grant that will be given out in
their district or State that includes more than $10,000 in Federal
funds.
Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciate your continued support and hope
the subcommittee will approve funding for National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation in fiscal year 2013.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Ground Water Association
The National Ground Water Association (NGWA) requests that $10
million be included in the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Groundwater
Resources Program account to begin implementation of a national
groundwater monitoring network. NGWA is the world's largest association
of groundwater professionals, representing public and private sector
engineers, scientists, water well contractors, manufacturers, and
suppliers of groundwater-related products and services.
Water is one of the most critical natural resources to human,
ecosystem and economic survival. In the United States, 78 percent of
community water systems, nearly all of rural America's private
household wells; and 42 percent of agricultural irrigation water are
supplied by groundwater. While the Nation's people, food supply,
economy and ecosystems depend on groundwater, no systematic nationwide
monitoring network is in place to measure what is currently available
and how groundwater levels and quality may be changing over time. As
with any valuable natural resource, our groundwater reserves must be
monitored to assist in planning and minimizing potential impacts from
shortages or supply disruptions. Just as one cannot effectively oversee
the Nation's economy without key data; one cannot adequately address
the Nation's food, energy, economic, and drinking water security
without understanding the extent, availability and sustainability of
the critical commodity--groundwater.
In the face of current and anticipated water supply shortages,
public and private sector water professionals have put out the call
over the years for increased groundwater monitoring and the
dissemination of the resulting data to the Nation.\1\ And the need to
take action continues to this day.\2\ \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. Freshwater Supply:
States' Views of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the
Challenges of Expected Shortages. (GAO-03-514). July 2003. Page 1.
\2\ White House Council on Environmental Quality. Progress Report
of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force: Recommended
Actions in Support of a National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.
October 5, 2010. Page 11.
\3\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. Energy-Water Nexus: A
Better and Coordinated Understanding of Water Resources Could Help
Mitigate the Impacts of Potential Oil Shale Development. (GAO-11-35).
October 2010. Page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congress responded to these requests for enhanced groundwater
monitoring by authorizing a national groundwater monitoring network
with passage of Public Law 111-11 (Omnibus Public Land Management Act)
in 2009. In 2010, six States \4\ voluntarily pilot tested concepts for
a national groundwater monitoring network as developed by the Federal
Advisory Committee on Water Information's (ACWI) Subcommittee on Ground
Water (SOGW). If this effort moves forward, consistent, comparable
nationwide data would become accessible through a web portal for
Federal, State, and local government, and private sector users. In
these tight fiscal times, the proposed network would build on existing
State and Federal investments, maximizing their usefulness and
leveraging current dollars to build toward systematic nationwide
monitoring of the groundwater resource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The six pilot States were:
-- Illinois;
-- Indiana;
-- Minnesota;
-- Montana;
-- New Jersey; and
-- Texas.
Additionally, Idaho, North Carolina, South Carolina, Washington,
and Wyoming volunteered as pilots but were not included given limited
oversight resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration's fiscal year 2013 USGS budget request allocates
$2.5 million under the heading National Ground Water Monitoring
Network. But the UGSG budget justification suggests spreading these
funds over three different programs:
--the National Ground Water Monitoring Network;
--a groundwater climate response network; and
--a brackish aquifer assessment.
Apart from the other two programs referenced, as part of the fiscal
year 2013 Ground Water Resources Program, we ask the subcommittee to
allocate $10 million exclusively for the National Ground Water
Monitoring Network to do the following:
--Provide grants to regional, State, and tribal governments to cost
share increased expenses to upgrade monitoring networks for the
50 States to meet the standards necessary to understand the
Nation's groundwater resources. The shared funding arrangements
should be modeled after highly successful cooperative programs
(e.g., STATEMAP) that already exist between USGS and the
States; and
--Support the additional work necessary for USGS to manage a national
groundwater monitoring network and provide national data access
through an Internet web portal.
The redirection of an appropriation of $10 million for groundwater
monitoring requested here is small in comparison to the entirety of the
Department of the Interior's appropriations. But the $10 million
appropriation is vital when we understand that for a small investment
we can begin finally to put in place adequate monitoring of the hidden
resource that provides nearly 40 percent of the Nation's drinking water
supply. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
The National Ground Water Association is a not-for-profit
professional society and trade association for the groundwater
industry. NGWA is the largest organization of groundwater professionals
in the world. Our members from all 50 States and 72 countries include
some of the leading public and private sector groundwater scientists,
engineers, water well contractors, manufacturers, and suppliers of
groundwater related products and services. NGWA's vision is to be the
leading community of groundwater professionals that promotes the
responsible development, use, and management of groundwater resources.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Humanities Alliance
FUNDING OVERVIEW
For fiscal year 2013 the National Humanities Alliance strongly
urges the subcommittee to provide no less than $154.3 million in
funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the same
amount requested by the administration. This represents an $8.2 million
increase more than the final fiscal year 2012 appropriation ($146
million). The NEH budget has suffered a significant funding reduction
over the last 2 years--more than $21 million (13.2 percent) between
fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2012, almost entirely in program
funds. In addition, the agency is still trying to recover from cuts
totaling nearly 40 percent that were made in the mid-1990s.
At its nominal funding peak in fiscal year 1994, NEH's total budget
was equivalent to $271.5 million in 2012 inflation-adjusted dollars. At
its peak in real dollars in fiscal year 1979, the agency's
appropriation equaled $455.8 million in current dollars--three times
the fiscal year 2012 level.
IMPACT OF THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
Program Funds.--At the level proposed by the administration, the
fiscal year 2013 NEH budget would nearly equal its fiscal year 2011
level ($154.7 million). However, the proposed increase would still
restore only $5 million in program funds, which are proposed at $124
million in fiscal year 2013, compared to $118.6 million enacted for
fiscal year 2012 (still far less than the $140 million enacted for
fiscal year 2010). The remaining $3 million of the proposed increase
for fiscal year 2013 would be set aside for administration to help
cover anticipated relocation costs associated with the pending
redevelopment of the Old Post Office.
Competitive Grants.--Within the President's request, funding for
NEH competitive grants would increase by $2.6 million, from $68.8
million in fiscal year 2012 to $71.4 million in fiscal year 2013. This
includes small increments for each of the NEH's core program divisions
and offices:
--Research;
--Education;
--Preservation and access;
--Challenge grants;
--Digital humanities; and
--Public programs.
We are pleased to see these increases, as we have been especially
concerned about the long-term erosion of funding suffered by
competitive grants programs, which stand at only 40 percent of their
value (in real dollars) in fiscal year 1994.
Although modest, the increments proposed by the President would
have a significant impact. For example, at the proposed fiscal year
2013 level, the NEH Research Division could make 24 more awards than in
fiscal year 2012. This means that an additional 22 individual scholars
could receive fellowships, and two more collaborative research projects
could receive continuing support. This kind of support is vital for
humanities faculty. It enables recipients to devote themselves to
intensive, systematic research--the kind of research needed to produce
new understandings of American and world history and literature. NEH's
continuing support can enable a long-term project to continue,
leveraging additional institutional support, and providing unique
research opportunities for participating graduate and undergraduate
students. Similarly, the NEH Education Research Division could enable
265 additional teachers to revitalize their knowledge of the humanities
through participation in summer workshops; approximately 33,000 high
school students would benefit from this valuable professional
development for teachers.
NATIONAL NEEDS
The NEH founding legislation articulates the imperative of Federal
support for the humanities: ``An advanced civilization must not limit
its efforts to science and technology alone, but must give full value
and support to the other great branches of scholarly and cultural
activity in order to achieve a better understanding of the past, a
better analysis of the present, and a better view of the future.'' At a
time when globalization has connected the world's societies and
economies, and when America plays a central role in political
developments in every continent, the wisdom of this statement is more
evident than ever. We cannot afford to abandon the study of America's
and the world's languages and literatures, religions and governments,
traditions and innovations. Without the knowledge that the humanities
provide, we cannot understand our own past or the present condition of
the world.
We do our humanities work well in the United States. American
higher education remains the best in the world--a beacon for students
across the liberal arts disciplines and an inspiration for the teaching
and modeling of creative and critical thinking. The research funded by
the NEH is essential to maintaining that standing, which enables
American universities to attract students from every continent eager
for the value of an American liberal education.
This is not, however, an argument for complacency; it is not a
defense of the status quo. The same technological forces that are
transforming the physical, biological, and social sciences are
transforming the humanities as well. Humanists are using the new
resources of the digital age to reformulate age-old questions about
human experience and find new answers for them; to explore new ways of
making the humanities accessible and relevant. The NEH has played a
leading role in supporting this work, not only financially but through
such initiatives as its acclaimed ``EDSITEment'' Web site, which
effectively spreads the word about the superb digital resources that
NEH grants have made available to teachers.
The NEH's impact extends well beyond our classrooms and research
institutes. The humanities are a lifelong enterprise and a public
resource. America's museums, libraries, and other cultural institutions
play a central role in humanities education. Partly thanks to the NEH,
they now offer a range of digital resources that have already
transformed the way in which the general public discovers and
experiences the past and the world of culture. Like universities, these
institutions can do more--especially if the NEH, which has played a
vital role in mobilizing new digital techniques and designing more
creative approaches to the integration of educational and cultural
institutions, can continue to support these efforts.
THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES ROLE
The NEH is the lead Federal agency with the mission to create,
preserve, and disseminate knowledge in the humanities--knowledge that
is essential to healthy public culture in a democratic society. Each
year, NEH awards hundreds of competitive, peer-reviewed grants to a
broad range of nonprofit educational organizations and institutions,
and to individual scholars, throughout the country. Grantees include 2-
and 4-year colleges, universities, research institutes, museums,
historical societies, libraries, archives, scholarly associations, K-12
schools, television/film/radio producers, and more. These grants help
support educational advancement; professional development; and
institutional activities for thousands of students, teachers, faculty,
and others engaged in the humanities in communities across the United
States every year. By enhancing the work of our cultural institutions,
colleges, and universities, they create jobs because such institutions
attract tourists and students from abroad. The American economy, as
much as its public culture, benefits from high-quality work in the
humanities.
The NEH stands at the center of much of this work. The reputation
of the NEH's peer review process helps its grantees attract significant
non-Federal funding for humanities projects nationwide. NEH funded
projects attract and benefit from further support provided by
corporations and foundations. These funders view NEH peer review as a
certification of quality.
But the support that the NEH can provide for such projects today
does not meet the needs of our Nation's best work in the humanities.
The demand for humanities project support far exceeds available
funding, rendering NEH grants extremely competitive. In fiscal year
2011, NEH received 5,710 grant proposals representing $552.6 million in
requested funds, but could fund only 905 (15.8 percent) of these
applications. This figure is strikingly low when compared to recent
rates as high as 32 percent reported by grant-making agencies like the
National Science Foundation.
Underfunding is pervasive. There is too little money for digital
humanities projects, which often represent the cutting edge in teaching
and research, and for the public film, radio, television and digital
media projects that reach a national public; for professional
development for teachers who need (and want) to learn how to use new
media in humanities education; for preserving great collections, many
of them fragile and in need of conservation, as State support dwindles;
for challenge grants to help institutions build their own capacities
and offer the kind of leverage that attracts new donors and builds
habits of philanthropy; and for the individual fellowships and
collaborative research projects that promote new understandings of the
past and the present. Without stronger support, enterprises from
university research to public education will lose capacity, and as they
do our ability to deal with the complexities of the world will dwindle.
CONCLUSION
The National Humanities Alliance is grateful for the opportunity to
submit testimony on behalf of funding for the National Endowment for
the Humanities.
This subcommittee stands as steward to many of our Nation's
greatest shared cultural and natural resources, and we recognize that
you face especially difficult and complex choices in crafting the
fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. We are also deeply grateful for the strong support
that the subcommittee has demonstrated for the NEH over the years. We
hope that you will continue to consider the NEH as a vital investment
in the Nation's global competitiveness, the strength and vitality of
our civic institutions, the preservation and understanding of our
diverse cultural heritage, and the lives of our citizens. Thank you for
the opportunity to be heard.
The National Humanities Alliance was founded in 1981 to advance
public support for the humanities. With 104 organizational and
institutional members, the Alliance encompasses a broad range of
humanities-related disciplines and institutions, and is the only
organization that represents the humanities community as a whole. Its
members, and the thousands of teachers, scholars, humanities
organizations and institutions they represent, use NEH grants to
maintain a strong system of academic research, education and public
programs in the humanities.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources
Mr. Chairman, I am Jeff Allen, Director of the South Carolina Water
Resources Center at Clemson University's Strom Thurmond Institute. My
statement is submitted on behalf of the National Institutes for Water
Resources (NIWR), the organization that collectively represents the
State water resources research institutes. My statement is in support
of restoration of funding for the Water Resources Research Act programs
as part of the fiscal year 2013 U.S. Geological Survey's budget.
The Water Resources Research Act (42 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.)
establishes a Federal, State, and university partnership in water
resources research, education, and information transfer and
dissemination. There are 54 Water Resources Research Institutes located
at the land grant universities of the 50 States, as well as in the
District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The
Act authorized a State-based network of institutes dedicated to solving
problems of water supply and water quality in partnership with
universities, local governments, and the public. It is the only
federally mandated research network that focuses on applied water
resources research, education, training and outreach. These institutes
provide a direct, vital link between Federal water interests and public
needs with the academic expertise located within the States' research
universities. It is a mechanism for ensuring State, regional, and
national coordination of water resources research, the education of
future water professionals, and the transfer of results and outcomes to
State and Federal water professionals. The Act's significant matching
requirements ensure that States invest in water research and training.
The Water Resources Research Act authorizes the two grant
components. The first component is the base grant program which is
allocated among the institutes. Institutes are required to match each
Federal dollar with two non-Federal dollars. Federal funds cannot be
used to pay indirect costs at the universities. This is the strictest
match requirement of any Federal research program. Each Institute uses
these funds to leverage research and/or student training through a
statewide competitive grants process. In fiscal year 2012, each
Institute received $92,335, equaling a total appropriation for the base
component of $5.2 million. NIWR respectfully requests the subcommittee
provide $7 million in fiscal year 2013 for competitive water supply
research seed grants, technology transfer, professional education, and
outreach to the water-user community by the Institutes, approximately
$125,000 per institute.
The second grant component is a national competitive grants program
that has the objective of supporting research on water resources
problems that are regional or national in nature. In 2011 this
competition received 40 applications, which underwent rigorous peer
review from a national panel. This panel selected five projects from
Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas and New Jersey for funding. The
selection is as competitive and as rigorously peer-reviewed as other
Federal research programs. The NIWR respectfully recommends the
subcommittee provide $1.5 million in fiscal year 2013 to support the
national competitive research grants program.
I would like to share with you some personal stories from the South
Carolina Water Resources Center. First, let me talk about research
quality and impact. Our Center awards approximately 2 grants per year,
generally to researchers in the university community of South Carolina.
While numerous water institutes across the country provide matching
funds to investigators through other State appropriations, that is not
the case in South Carolina. So, researchers who apply to the South
Carolina research competition must provide their own match at the 2:1
required rate. It is always refreshing that they value the research so
much that they find the matching funds. We have funded research
projects across a range of water issues, from land use change effects
on streams to assessing stream conditions based upon fish health to the
development of remote sensing wireless monitoring technologies. In
fact, one of our projects helped build remote sensors for stream buoys
that jump-started a multi-million dollar stream-monitoring network on
the Savannah River. It is a technology, which we think could be used
around the country and even around the world to monitor stream health
without requiring extensive fieldwork.
The South Carolina Water Resources Center also co-sponsors a
biennial conference for water professionals, managers, educators and
researchers. Other water institutes hold similar meetings in their
States. We are proud to say that for our relatively small State, we had
an attendance of more than 300 water professionals in 2010 and expect
at least as many this fall in 2012. Conference participants come from
the State agencies to water organizations to private consultants to
college and university researchers. This is the one time each year that
the entire water resources community comes together under one roof. The
feedback is continually positive with participants telling us it is
critical to keep these types of meetings ongoing.
The Water Resources Research Act holds all of this together as a
network. The Act places the Institutes at land-grant universities,
where in coordination with their Extension services, they specialize in
identifying problems within their States, developing solutions to those
problems, and engaging with the public to implement those solutions.
One of the Institute program's greatest strengths is that the research
funded by each Institute is tailored to that State's needs, based on
priorities set by consultation with an advisory panel. I would like to
cite several examples of research conducted by institutes across the
country.
The Rhode Island Water Resources Center has an outreach program for
water resource professionals and nonprofessionals targeted equally
through the combination of an established conference for industry
professionals and a summer camp for high school students. The primary
objectives of the conference and the camp are the same; to advance
awareness and knowledge of the importance of clean water in Rhode
Island and to discuss and provide insight into the various factors
affecting the State's ability to obtain clean water for multiple uses.
The Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities lacks
sufficient hydrologic information to obtain permits for construction of
transportation corridors to important resource-rich areas of the State.
The Alaska Water and Environmental Research Center is conducting a
series of modeling and measuring projects providing ADOT&PF with the
data required to design and permit roads and bridges on the North Slope
and elsewhere.
The Montana Water Center has developed the Montana Watercourse, a
statewide program for schools and citizens, providing water
information, resources, tools and education. Among the projects
sponsored as part of the Watercourse are:
--a series of water-rights trainings for conservation district
supervisors;
--recruiting and training student interns from Montana's tribal
colleges for a cutting-edge water-informatics research project
that assembles streaming sensor data for visualization and
modeling; and
--water information sharing with audiences throughout the State,
including individuals, watershed groups, conservation
districts, cities, and counties.
In a study of forest management and water yields, in collaboration
with several nonprofit agencies, researchers supported by the
California Institute for Water Resources will undertake a three-part,
multi-year, multi-disciplinary project to research and assess issues
related to climate change, vegetation manipulation and the forest water
cycle in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Sierras harbor globally
distinctive forest resources that deliver hydropower and water supply
to downstream users in California and elsewhere.
Mississippi relies heavily on agricultural commodity production as
a source of revenue and jobs. And rice, one of Mississippi's top
commodities and exports, relies heavily on water for germination and
growth. Demand for water use from irrigated crop production has put
enormous pressure on Mississippi Delta's groundwater supply. Research
sponsored by the Mississippi Water Resources Research Institute has
shown that intermittent irrigation can reduce the amount of water
needed to grow a successful rice crop by up to 50 percent, compared
with the conventional method of continuous flooding. Researchers
designed a rain gauge that helps farmers tell from a distance how wet
their fields are, and is now developing ways to remotely and
automatically shut off water pumps to save rice producers time and
money. The goal is to maximize the use of rainfall, relying on precious
groundwater reserves only during dry spells. Data generated by this
research also indicates savings of millions of dollars in production
fuel costs for Mississippi's farmers.
The Louisiana Water Resources Research Institute advised the State
of Louisiana on the environmental impact of the BP oil spill on coastal
wetlands. The LWRRI is coordinating research and damage assessment for
the ecologically important coastal headland ``Fourchon Beach'' and
adjacent marshes that remain heavily impacted by the spill. This
research has resulted in changes in the response techniques for these
unique environments and a better understanding of how to respond to
future spills. In addition, it has helped organize scientific
conferences and symposia related to the BP spill and researchers have
presented more than 20 invited presentations on spill response and
impacts around the United States.
The University of Wisconsin Institute of Water Resources funded a
number of projects dealing with groundwater protection. Projects
include the development of a new remote-sensing method to detect
infiltration areas for the replenishment of the groundwater that feeds
aquifers across the State and the development of new management tools
to help rural water managers implement groundwater protection measures
more effectively. In addition, the Institute also supported the
development of new molecular techniques to detect and measure pathogens
and viruses such as E. coli in groundwater. Currently, the occurrence
of such pathogens in groundwater are not well documented.
We often tout the value of the network of institutes supported by
the Water Resources Research Act program and their ability to work
together to serve the public on regional water issues.
In May 2011, the Water Resources Research Institutes in Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington collaborated on a conference on
exempt wells. The most common water-use exception is the exemption of
certain water uses from many States' water rights management processes
in the West. The goal of the conference was to identify the critical
issues associated with the management and impacts of exempt domestic
wells and to stimulate new ideas to solve the conflicts that have
arisen between traditional water rights holders and water users that
rely on exempt wells.
The short supply in the Western States and fears that there will
not be enough water for all projected future demands, is creating
strained relationships between those in the agricultural, urban and
environmental sectors. The Institutes in Arizona and Colorado are
working together to improve the relationship between these groups by
facilitating discussions about creative ways they can share water and
contribute to viable solutions. The institutes' efforts have already
been successful in generating action at the State level and through
industry groups that have initiated roundtable discussions, retreats
and tours among water industry leaders.
Several Water Resources Research Institutes in the Southeast are
helping water utilities reduce water usage because of research
supported by the North Carolina Water Resources Research Institute.
Researchers collected water data from utilities in Georgia, South
Carolina and North Carolina and then developed five case studies for
use in workshops and presentations. Using the results of the research,
utilities have been able to conserve water without sacrificing revenue
by adjusting their rate structures, billing, customer communication and
conservation programming.
For more than 4 decades the Water Resources Research Institutes
have provided research results and impacts to our Nation, and proved
successful at bringing new water professionals into the work force.
NIWR recommends the subcommittee provide $8.8 million to the USGS for
the Water Resources Research Institute Program for fiscal year 2013.
This includes $7 million for institutional grants, $1.5 million for
national competitive grants, and $300,000 for USGS administration.
The water institute directors recognize the fiscal challenges
facing the Nation and the Congress, but NIWR strongly supports the USGS
Coalition request that the Congress appropriate at least $1.2 billion
for the USGS in fiscal year 2013, a level that will support critical
USGS programs that improve the Nation's environment, health, safety,
quality of life, and future economic growth.
On behalf of all the Institute directors, I thank you for your
continuing support of the Water Resources Research Act program.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, I am Tom Kiernan, president of the National Parks
Conservation Association (NPCA). I appreciate the opportunity to
testify on behalf of our more than 600,000 members and supporters from
every State and congressional district to provide our views regarding
appropriations for the National Park System for the upcoming fiscal
year. Since 1919, NPCA has been the leading, independent, private voice
in support of promoting, protecting and enhancing America's national
parks for people from all walks of life to learn from, be inspired by
and enjoy--now and on into the future.
We respect that it will be a challenge again for you to sort out
and balance competing, often conflicting demands for limited Federal
resources; we understand the difficult task you face. I commend each of
you for your commitment and for your fortitude in going forward even
with the specter of an unprecedented sequestration looming over all our
heads. I particularly want to compliment the members of this
subcommittee for working so hard last year to keep out of your bill any
policy riders that could harm national parks. We were deeply grateful
that we did not have to fight that battle in this chamber.
I am here to argue that during these times especially, investing in
the national parks should be an American priority. Providing adequate
funding for the national parks is more than simply another expenditure;
it is an investment in our Nation's future with tangible returns that
are particularly significant now as we continue to try to recover from
this long economic downturn.
We've noted before that for every Federal dollar spent on the
national parks, at least $4 are generated in economic value to the
public at large. Adequately funded national parks create jobs,
sustainable businesses and vibrant communities. The national parks are
reliable economic engines: visitors to the National Park System
contributed more than $31 billion to local economies and supported
258,000 jobs in 2010, an increase of $689 million and 11,500 jobs more
than 2009, according to recently published data by the park service and
Michigan State University. The same data showed that visitors to
Yellowstone spent $334 million, supporting almost 5,000 jobs, and City
of Rocks supported 85 jobs through $6.3 million in visitor spending.
These are just two illustrative examples of the economic impact of park
units on local communities.
According to a 2011 study from the McKinsey Global Institute
commissioned by the Interior Department, the national parks make up 60
percent ($33 billion) of Interior's overall contribution to the economy
due to outdoor recreation. The study also determined that for every two
people employed by the national parks, another job was created in local
economies. In one example, Glacier National Park led to 18,000 local
jobs, accounting for 25 percent of the jobs in the restaurant sector,
and 50 percent of jobs in the lodging sector.
But people won't come to the parks if their experience isn't
enjoyable or if it's marred by parks in poor condition and lacking
necessary staff.
In January, NPCA, the National Park Hospitality Association, and
the National Parks Foundation, in collaboration with the National Park
Service, convened an unprecedented event called America's Summit on
National Parks. The gathering, which included hundreds of diverse
community, education, economic, business, tourism, healthcare,
conservation, youth, and political leaders, reinforced the strong
support for national parks among a wide cross-section of the American
public. The nonpartisan nature of support for national parks was
evident there, and at the subsequent White House Conference on
Conservation. Summit participants agreed on a set of principles to
guide national park-related policies, opportunities and funding as we
prepare for the 2016 centennial. The principles--which include a focus
on funding--quickly garnered endorsements from nearly 100 businesses,
philanthropic, conservation, tourism and recreation groups, and many
more continue to sign on. Efforts launched at the summit continue. We
all look forward to working with you to help ensure the Federal
Government does its part to perpetuate the American story and values
through the national parks.
This February, President Obama signed an Executive order to promote
tourism in the United States, and at the time Secretary Salazar noted
that, ``By investing in our parks and promoting them to visitors,
especially internationally, we can have the dual benefit of an improved
National Park System and a stronger economy that produces more jobs.''
Unfortunately, the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request for
the National Park Service is just not consistent with their lofty and
ambitious pronouncements. We ask you to find a way to do better.
With an overall request for the National Park Service that is
essentially flat, the administration would increase funding for
specific, targeted activities under park service operations by $13.5
million. These include some additional money for the administration's
priorities, but mostly funding for a lot of things that really just
have to be paid for, such as the Presidential Inauguration. The problem
is that under the administration's budget, these worthwhile things
would come at the expense of base park operations--the very account
that keeps the parks open and functioning and keeps rangers on the job.
We were disappointed that the administration simultaneously claimed to
provide funding for fixed costs while cutting budgets at the park level
by nearly $22 million; we respectfully ask your subcommittee to find
the funds to prevent this staff cut at a time when we are seeking to
enhance the tourism economy and keep parks protected. The damage these
cuts would do to the gains and improvements made as a result of this
subcommittee's laudable efforts are not theoretical. This cut would
result in the loss of more than 200 FTE, which depending on how those
cuts are apportioned, could eliminate as many as 600 seasonal ranger
positions. It makes no sense to market our national parks to
international visitors while cutting the funding necessary for the
parks to serve those very visitors when they arrive.
National parks are among the most visited locations in America.
According to Forbes, 8 of the top 25 U.S. travel destinations are
national parks. If the administration is serious about promoting
tourism as a boon to the economy, funding for the national parks--and
especially base park operations--should really be increased rather than
kept flat or reduced. What kind of impression will it make on visitors
if the parks are allowed to return to the days of missing rangers,
shuttered visitor centers, dirty restrooms, deteriorating resources,
dangerous roads and trails, and reduced interpretive and educational
programs? Not a very good one, I suspect. At the very least, we are
hopeful the subcommittee will improve on the administration's request
and provide more adequate and realistic funding for base park
operations and fixed costs.
NPCA fully supports helping the National Park Service understand,
prepare for, and respond to climate-driven changes unfolding in
national parks throughout the country. Planning in advance for things
such as increasing wildfires, invasive species, and coastal flooding is
needed.
We're also worried about the continuing trend of reductions in the
national parks construction account and the impact that will have on
the continually growing deferred maintenance backlog.
Last fall, NPCA released a report entitled ``Made in America:
Investing in National Parks for our Heritage and Our Economy'', which
highlighted the jeopardy in which continual, incremental cuts place our
national parks, the heritage they protect, and the experiences they
provide. Over the last 2 years, NPS discretionary funding has been
reduced 6 percent; operations funding has been reduced $25 million; and
construction has been cut by 35 percent, or $84 million, contributing
to a 66-percent decline in that account since fiscal year 2002 in
today's dollars. Total discretionary funding for the National Park
Service is more than $400 million--or 14 percent--less than fiscal year
2002 in today's dollars.
The construction cut is proposed despite a maintenance backlog of
more than $3 billion for the most critical systems, and a total
deferred maintenance backlog of more than $11 billion. The backlog is
attributable to chronic funding deficiencies in several categories,
including operations, transportation, and construction. These
deficiencies have forced park managers to make choices between what
needs to be done and what absolutely must be done immediately to keep
facilities up and running and visitors safe and satisfied for the time
being. The longer needed repairs and maintenance to facilities is put
off, the more expensive and difficult they become. The National Park
Service needs almost $700 million annually just to keep up with the
backlog, yet receives just half that. We realize deferring projects is
one mechanism to minimize cuts to other accounts in an austere climate,
but we fear we are getting to the point where there is nothing left in
that account, and that is compounding the problem and the long-term
threat to our national heritage.
We are pleased that the administration recognizes the need to
continue to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), so that
critical lands like the State lands in Grand Teton National Park can be
protected. It's important to recognize that there are so many LWCF
needs that continue to go unfunded, with a backlog of more than $2
billion for NPS acquisitions. There are currently more than 2.6 million
acres of private inholdings in national parks, and when there are
willing sellers, there is broad public support for acquisition because
people want to see public access for recreation and intact parks that
don't suffer from incompatible development.
Removing privately owned inholdings and completing parks actually
makes their administration and resource management more efficient and
cost effective, thereby freeing up money for other needs. Purchasing
inholdings from willing sellers can help facilitate better invasive
species control and water quality, reduce fire risks, remove obstacles
to recreation and wildlife management, and facilitate conservation of
historic resources. At the moment, with real estate prices at rock
bottom, there are many good deals to be had from willing sellers. We
are hopeful the President's LWCF request will accommodate what is
necessary to carry out the purchase and exchange of Wyoming State lands
to benefit Grand Teton National Park and other timely needs. We
appreciate this subcommittee's bipartisan understanding of the value of
the program and your effort to modestly restore some funding for the
program in fiscal year 2012. We hope we can work with you to continue
support in fiscal year 2013.
It seems as if there's always a good deal of talk on Capitol Hill
about what the American people want, expect and deserve. Phrases such
as those are thrown about fairly readily on both sides of the Capital
on both sides of the aisle. The views of the American people about
their national parks are pretty clear. Their love affair with the
national parks spans time, region, economic status, and political
persuasion. As reflected in a recent Harris poll, national parks are
among the most popular roles for the Federal Government. The National
Park Service is arguably the most popular Federal agency and the park
ranger may be the most recognizable and appreciated Federal public
servant. Statistics show that support for national parks has remained
strong and even increased with the recent downturn in the economy. A
2010 poll found that 9 out of 10 Americans have visited a national park
and 6 out of 10 did so within the past 2 years. Despite concerns about
the economy and the Federal deficit, 88 percent of Americans say it is
either extremely important or quite important to protect and support
the national parks. And with the National Park Service centennial in
mind, 85 percent of voters surveyed favor giving national parks enough
funding so they are fully restored and ready to serve the public for
the next 100 years.
By taking care of our national parks, this subcommittee can show
that the Congress can still do some things well. Despite a political
scene that is so divisive and dysfunctional at so many levels,
Americans from all walks of life and political persuasions cherish our
national parks and want them protected. This subcommittee can make a
statement that it understands that, and that the Congress is still
capable of hearing them. And at the same time, it can make an
investment in local economies and help recapture the U.S. share of the
tourism market by ensuring parks are well protected and maintained and
visitors have a safe and inspiring experience.
As the milestone 100th anniversary approaches, the parks will be
more and more at the forefront of people's minds, and more and more
Americans will be drawn to visit a national park or park unit. We hope
they will be proud of what they find and take pride in their experience
and heritage. Whether this happens or not is, in no small measure, a
function of the actions this subcommittee and your colleagues in the
Congress undertake.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association
Thank you Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and other
honorable members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to submit
written testimony on the fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill and, specifically, the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) is a nonprofit
organization working to advance parks, recreation and environmental
conservation efforts nationwide. Our members touch the lives of every
American in every community every day. Through our network of
approximately 20,000 citizen and professional members we represent park
and recreation departments in cities, counties, townships, special park
districts, and regional park authorities, along with citizens concerned
with ensuring close-to-home access to parks and recreation
opportunities exist in their communities.
In fiscal year 2012, you provided $322.9 million for LWCF, with $45
million of that amount allocated to the State Assistance Program. You
also specified that zero State Assistance dollars were to be used for
the Department of the Interior's (DOI) proposed competitive grant
program. We thank you for investing in conservation through the LWCF,
and especially thank you for investing in States and local communities
through the State Assistance Program and for protecting the integrity
of that program.
As this subcommittee works to craft the fiscal year 2013 Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, NRPA makes three
requests. First, we ask that you provide ample funding for the LWCF;
second we ask that you choose to invest in local communities by
allocating 40 percent of total LWCF appropriations to the State
Assistance Program; and third we ask that you, once again, deny the DOI
the ability to deprive States and local communities of funding by
specifying that zero State Assistance dollars are to be used for the
DOI's proposed competitive grant program.
We recognize that you face difficult decisions relative to fiscal
year 2013. However, the LWCF is budget neutral, having been authorized
with a dedicated funding source of oil and gas leasing revenues. More
than $6 billion a year is provided through these leases, and the
funding provided to the LWCF is a minuscule fraction of this amount.
Zeroing out the LWCF would negatively impact our country, especially at
the State and local levels. There is a common misconception that LWCF
is merely a Federal land acquisition program. Nothing could be further
from the truth, as the LWCF State Assistance Program provides dollar-
for-dollar matching grants to States and local communities for the
construction of outdoor recreation projects. The land purchased with
LWCF State Assistance funding remains the property of the State or
local government, and the facilities developed through the LWCF remain
publicly accessible in perpetuity.
The LWCF State Assistance Program ensures that local communities,
such as Blackfoot, Idaho, have places where adults and children can go
to recreate and enjoy the outdoors. It is a means by which this
committee can provide investment to local communities, and for fiscal
year 2013, we are asking this committee to make the investment by
allocating a minimum of 40 percent of total LWCF appropriations to the
State Assistance Program. Current law requires that a minimum of 40
percent of LWCF appropriations be provided to the Federal land
acquisition program, and we are merely asking for you to invest in
local communities by allocating the same percentage amount to the State
Assistance Program. Evidence of the impact of such an allocation is
clear when you consider that in fiscal year 2012 California received
approximately $3.6 million through the State Assistance Program. Had 40
percent of LWCF appropriations been allocated to the State Assistance
Program, the State would have received more than $11 million. Rhode
Island received $426,000 in fiscal year 2012, but would have received
more than $1.3 million with a 40-percent allocation.
There are many viable reasons for such an allocation. One seemingly
simple reason is access. Not everyone in America has access to our
amazing National Park System, but everyone does have access to local
outdoor spaces and recreational facilities provided through their State
and local community. Additionally, accessibility to physical activity
through outdoor recreation is crucial to reaping the benefits of
healthy lifestyles and reducing healthcare epidemics such as childhood
obesity.
Close-to-home public parks and recreation are available to every
age, ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic class in every community,
both urban and rural, of every State. Is there any other program that
so effectively treats all individuals so equally? This is made possible
because LWCF funding has always been allocated by formula through the
State Assistance Program, whereby a portion of funds are equally
allocated among all States and territories and the remainder is
allocated based on population. This ensures that 100 percent of the
State Assistance funding is equitably distributed throughout the
Nation. This formula currently does not favor one congressional
district or party affiliation over the other, or projects that can gain
the most national visibility. That would radically change under the
DOI's proposal whereby more than one-third of the State Assistance's
funding would be used for a DOI-administered competitive grants
program. The DOI proposal would effectively decrease the amount of
funding provided to each State as only a small number of projects would
likely be funded. For example, Ohio would have lost approximately
$950,000 in fiscal year 2012 LWCF funding under the DOI proposal.
Additionally, more rural States, such as Alaska or Wyoming, would have
to expect a loss of funding as only urban projects of national
significance could compete for the grants. The distribution formula
used for the past 47 years has yielded equitable results as 98 percent
of America's counties have received State Assistance funds. In fiscal
year 2012, this subcommittee ensured equal allocation among the States
by specifically directing that zero dollars were to be spent on a
competitive grant program in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill.
NRPA supports repeating that language in fiscal year 2013 and rejecting
any ongoing or future efforts by DOI to do otherwise. Absent directive
language, the DOI has authority to implement its program.
Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance: Addressing National
Issues on the Local Level
Few programs can address so many national priorities as effectively
as the LWCF State Assistance Program does, with so few dollars and
without negatively impacting the Federal budget.
The National Park Service documented in a March 2011 report that
the $40 million appropriated to LWCF State Assistance in 2010 made a
direct impact on park and recreation facilities in or near 221 local
communities, helped communities make 5,905 new acres available for
outdoor recreation use and enjoyment, and helped ``encourage active
participation to strengthen the health and vitality of the citizens of
the United States pursuant to the original intent of the Act.'' While
the LWCF State Assistance program annual benefits hundreds of local
communities, local communities are in need of more recreational
resources. As documented by the National Park Service, our country
faces more than $18 billion in unmet need for outdoor recreational
resources.
Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Stimulates Jobs and
Local Economies
According to a study by Southwick in October 2011, the economic
impacts of outdoor recreation, natural resource conservation, and
historic preservation activities in the United States contributed a
minimum of $1.06 trillion to the economy, created a $107 billion return
on investment to Federal, State and local governments through tax
revenue, and supported 9.4 million jobs. The National Association of
State Park Directors reports that America's State park system
contributes $20 billion to local and State economies. Impressively,
this section of the economy continues to grow even during the ongoing
economic recession, and thus has enormous potential to immediately
create new jobs. For example, the Outdoor Industry Association reported
in October 2011 that the outdoor recreation industry grew at a rate of
4.1percent in 2010 and 5.9 percent in 2011. As more people are using
the outdoors, more jobs are being created, and nowhere is outdoor
recreation more prevalent than State and local outdoor recreation
areas.
Virtually every community in New York has acquired and/or developed
outdoor recreational facilities with the help of the LWCF State
Assistance Program. As a result, the New York active outdoor recreation
economy supports 130,000 jobs across New York, generates nearly $800
million in annual State tax revenue, and produces $11.3 billion
annually in retail sales and services.
Arizonans also recreate close-to-home in local parks and venues.
Parks like the De Anza Trail help the Arizona active outdoor recreation
economy support 82,000 jobs across Arizona, generate nearly $350
million in annual State tax revenue, and produce almost $5 billion
annually in retail sales and services.
Without the continued support of this subcommittee for the Nation's
treasured State and local parks and recreation sites, the Congress
would effectively contribute to State and local unemployment rates and
deeper budget deficits.
Public Health
The LWCF State Assistance Program plays a critical role in
advancing parks and recreation that directly contributes to fighting
our Nation's obesity and Type 2 diabetes epidemics. Several medical
studies have shown that there is a strong correlation between proximity
to recreational facilities and parks and increased participation in
physical activity. It is estimated that obesity costs the United States
Government about $344 billion in medical-related expenses by 2018,
accounting for approximately 21 percent of healthcare spending. The CDC
currently estimates 65 percent of adults and 16 percent of children are
overweight or obese, and even small improvements in the lifestyles of
Americans would yield marked health improvements and contribute
substantially to decreasing the Nation's rising healthcare costs. In
fact, CDC notes that the creation of or enhanced access to places for
physical activity led to a 25.6-percent increase in the percentage of
people exercising on 3 or more days per week. Investing in programs
such as the LWCF State Assistance Program would provide a significant
return on investment through the reduction in healthcare costs by
ensuring access to places for physical activity.
Environmental Benefits
The LWCF State Assistance Program not only meets important national
goals and delivers tangible health and economic benefits to everyone;
it also significantly contributes to protecting the environment and
promoting environmental stewardship. LWCF State Assistance projects
have a historical record of contributing to reduced and delayed
stormwater runoff volumes, enhanced groundwater recharge, stormwater
pollutant reductions, reduced sewer overflow events, increased carbon
sequestration, urban heat island mitigation and reduced energy demands,
resulting in improved air quality, increased wildlife habitat, and
increased land values on the local level.
For example, LWCF State Assistance funding allowed the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management to complete the construction of
a new beach facility at Salty Brine State Beach in Narragansett, Rhode
Island. One of Rhode Island's most popular beaches, the new fully
accessible facility is LEED Certified to the Silver Standard. According
to DEM Director W. Michael Sullivan, the new bathhouse will generate
more energy than it will use, making it the first State facility that
is self-sufficient.
In Clark County, Washington, LWCF funding enabled the Salmon Creek
Greenspace to acquire uplands and riparian wetlands at the confluence
of Salmon Creek and Morgan Creek will provide new trail access for
hiking, walking and trail running. The 64-acre acquisition protects
critical open space within the City of Battle Ground.
In Juneau, Alaska, LWCF State Assistance funding was used to
construct a ski lift, lodge, warming hut, trails, and maintenance
buildings at the Eaglecrest Recreation Area.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, local parks and
recreation agencies are not merely community amenities; they are
essential services necessary for the economic and environmental
vitality, as well as physical wellness, of communities throughout this
country. LWCF's State Assistance Program has proven itself invaluable
to improving State and local economies, while simultaneously reducing
long-term healthcare costs through increased access to physical
activity. This subcommittee and the Congress have the rare opportunity
to achieve national goals without increasing spending or adding to the
deficit, and can do so by adopting three simple recommendations: do not
zero out the LWCF; allocate a minimum of 40 percent of LWCF funding to
the State Assistance Program; and prohibit any diversion of formula
funds to a DOI competitive grant program.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
Coalition
My name is Lloyd Miller and I am a partner in the law firm of
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP, of Washington, DC. I
appear here today as counsel to the National Tribal Contract Support
Cost Coalition, comprised of 20 tribes and tribal organizations
situated in 11 States and collectively operating contracts to
administer more than $400 million in Indian Health Service (IHS) and
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) facilities and services on behalf of
more than 250 Native American tribes.\1\ Thank you for the opportunity
to appear once again to discuss the legal duty and urgent need to fully
fund the ``contract support costs'' that are owed these and other
tribes performing contracts and compacts on behalf of the United States
pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act--specifically $571
million for IHS contract support cost requirements and $228 million for
BIA contract support cost requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NTCSCC is comprised of the:
-- Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (Alaska);
-- Arctic Slope Native Association (Alaska);
-- Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes (Alaska);
Cherokee Nation (Oklahoma);
-- Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation (Montana);
-- Choctaw Nation (Oklahoma);
-- Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (Montana);
-- Copper River Native Association (Alaska);
-- Forest County Potawatomi Community (Wisconsin);
-- Kodiak Area Native Association (Alaska);
-- Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (Michigan);
-- Pueblo of Zuni (New Mexico);
-- Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health (California);
-- Shoshone Bannock Tribes (Idaho);
-- Shoshone-Paiute Tribes (Idaho and Nevada);
-- SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium (Alaska);
-- Spirit Lake Tribe (North Dakota);
-- Tanana Chiefs Conference (Alaska);
-- Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation (Alaska); and
-- the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board (43 tribes in
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No single enactment has had a more profound effect on more tribal
communities than has the Indian Self-Determination Act (ISDA). In just
three decades tribes and inter-tribal organizations have taken over
control of vast portions of the BIA and IHS, including Federal
governmental functions in the areas of healthcare, education, law
enforcement, and land and natural resource protection. Today, not a
single tribe in the United States is without at least one self-
determination contract with each agency, and collectively the tribes
administer more than $2.82 billion in essential Federal governmental
functions, employing an estimated 35,000 people.
In the IHS Aberdeen area, more than 20 percent of the IHS budget is
under contract to the tribes. In Alaska, 100 percent of the IHS budget
and most of the BIA budget has been contracted over to the tribes. From
the Navajo Nation to the Pacific Northwest to California, tribes in 35
States have demanded their self-determination rights and secured
control over IHS and BIA programs.
The ISDA employs a contracting mechanism to carry out its goal of
transferring essential governmental functions from Federal agency
administration to tribal government administration. To carry out that
goal and meet contract requirements, the act requires that IHS and the
BIA fully reimburse every tribal contractor for the ``contract support
costs'' that are necessary to carry out the contracted Federal
activities. (Cost-reimbursable Government contracts similarly require
reimbursement of ``general and administrative'' costs.) Full payment of
fixed contract support costs is essential: without it, offsetting
program reductions must be made, vacancies cannot be filled, and
services are reduced, all to make up for the shortfall. In short, a
contract support cost shortfall is equivalent to a program cut.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Contract support costs are the necessary costs of operating a
Federal program under contract. When the BIA and IHS operate these
programs, the agencies are supported by their own bureaucracies and
other Federal agencies (i.e., the Department of Justice, the General
Services Administration, and the Office of Personnel Management ) to
provide personnel and financial management systems, legal resources,
procurement systems and the like. Tribal contractors require similar
resources, as well as resources to meet mandatory Federal requirements
such as annual audits. They cover those requirements with contract
support costs. Most fixed contract support costs are set by Government-
issued indirect cost rates, with the rates issued based upon certified
independent audits and adjusted based upon post-year audits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For years the administration failed to request full funding for its
contract support cost obligations, and the resulting shortfalls grew.
The first major effort to address this deficiency in the past 10 years
occurred in fiscal year 2010, when the Congress enacted a $116 million
increase to narrow the IHS contract support cost shortfall by about
one-half, and a $19 million increase to address BIA contract support
cost shortfalls. The IHS increase, alone, will eventually restore 2,820
health sector jobs in Indian country.
Today IHS refuses to disclose its shortfall projections for fiscal
year 2012 and fiscal year 2013. Based upon our own projections, we
believe the shortfall this year will be approximately $60 million, and
that the shortfall in fiscal year 2013 will approach $99 million. Our
calculations and assumptions are attached to my testimony.
(Unfortunately, IHS's failure to disclose data for the past 2 years
means our projections are subject to change.) Unless remedied, we
foresee a $99 million cut in tribally contracted programs next year--
not IHS-administered programs, but tribally administered health
programs alone--to cover the shortfall that will be left unaddressed.
In this context, IHS's request for a $5 million increase is
shocking, all the more so given this subcommittee's instruction to IHS
last year that the agency must prioritize fully funding these contracts
before requesting other discretionary increases. In contrast, the BIA
has responded to Indian Country, and it has heeded this subcommittee's
instruction, by requesting $228 million--an amount the BIA says will
fully fund all contract support cost requirements.
It is not acceptable for the agency to prioritize discretionary
increases over its contract obligations. It is not acceptable to seek
deficit reduction by cutting contract payments. It is not acceptable to
treat tribal contractors differently from other contractors. And it is
not acceptable to single out tribally administered health programs for
grave cuts in essential governmental services, while the agency seeks
enhancements to the rest of its budget. The Congress 24 years ago
warned that the agencies ``must cease the practice of requiring tribal
contractors to take indirect costs from the direct program costs, which
results in decreased amounts of funds for services'', S. Rep. No. 100-
274, at 9 (1987). At long last this practice must stop.
Last year we detailed for the subcommittee the extraordinary impact
that addressing CSC shortfalls has on job creation across Indian
country. Just as the shortfall costs jobs, eliminating the shortfall
restores jobs. Addressing the IHS shortfall in contract payments is
therefore not just a matter of legal obligation and sound policy; it is
good economics at a time of terrible unemployment.
The National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition recommends the
following:
--The Coalition recommends that in fiscal year 2013:
--the IHS contract support cost line be increased to $571 million;
and that
--the BIA's request to increase its contract support cost line to
$228 million be accepted.
--The Coalition recommends that the Committee adopt language
requiring IHS and BIA to promptly disclose each year all
available contract support cost data--precisely as both
agencies have historically done up until the past year.
Language to address this issue accompanies my testimony. The
agencies are suddenly claiming that, because CSC data is
eventually wrapped up inside a formal Report to Congress, the
otherwise disclosable data cannot be disclosed until the Report
is fully cleared through each Department and through OMB. That
is a sure way to keep the data secret and under wraps for
years--witness the fact that only this month, March 2012, did
IHS submit its Report detailing 2009 data, 3 years too late.
Without data there is no way for tribes, or the Congress, to
see how these tribal funds are being managed.
Such secrecy does not accompany any other agency funds, and only
leads one to speculate that the agencies have something to
hide. Indeed, last year's multiple IHS errors in projections
that were furnished to the Congress suggest that the agencies
want to hide both their own errors and the magnitude of the
shortfalls. This is unacceptable, and it should not require
costly Freedom of Information Act lawsuits every year for
tribes and the Congress to learn what is going on inside the
agencies with appropriated funds.
This is a major issue. Today tribes have been denied all access
to 2011 data about how last year's appropriation--all of which
belongs to the tribes--was spent. They are also being told that
they will not see how the 2012 funds, which the Congress
appropriated in December, will be spent this year--not until
formal reports are sent to the Congress years from now. They
are being denied access to the critical information that would
permit them to see if systemic errors are being made--a
particularly acute problem given the wholesale loss of all CSC
expertise within the agency. They are even being told that
tribes, themselves, favor this secrecy--notwithstanding that
section 106(c) of the Indian Self-Determination Act mandates
Tribe-by-Tribe disclosure, and notwithstanding that such
diverse entities as the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Health
Board, the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, the IHS
Contract Support Cost Work Group (all attached), as well as
this 11 State, 20 tribe, coalition, all have demanded
disclosure.
--The Coalition recommends that the subcommittee once again require
both agencies to consistently project and budget the additional
CSC requirements associated with new contracts and program
expansions (on average, 13.5 cents for each new IHS program
dollar, and 10.4 cents for each new BIA program dollar). The
IHS did this in its fiscal year 2012 budget, but ceased doing
it in the fiscal year 2013 budget. This is the first time in
some 25 years that IHS has not disclosed in its budget
justification its projection of CSC requirements for the coming
year. The Congress cannot do its work without this information.
--Finally, the Coalition recommends that the subcommittee reconcile
the different language used in the IHS and BIA portions of the
bill, and that the subcommittee eliminate the old ``section
314'' language (a useless vestige after the Cherokee v. Leavitt
case). Variations in language only raise unnecessary questions
as to the subcommittee's intent. Suggested language accompanied
our testimony to the subcommittee last year.
Thank you again for the opportunity to offer these recommendations.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE CONTRACT SUPPORT COST PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEARS 2011, 2012, 2013, AND 2014--FEBRUARY 15, 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2011
Fiscal year 2010 CSC need (from fiscal \1\ $520,715,1
year 2010 CSC data collected from 03
Tribes).
Tribal shares available for CSC (from $32,683,845
fiscal year 2010 CSC data).
IDC on unpaid DCSC in fiscal year 2010 $1,756,818 2011 program increases 54 percent 25 percent
(calculated from fiscal year 2010 CSC
data).
Base CSC funding (fiscal year 2010 $398,490,000 Services.................................... ............... ............... ..............
appropriation).
Inflation for fiscal year 2011 at 1.5 $5,977,350 Facilities.................................. ............... ............... ..............
percent.
Estimated new and expanded programs .............. Staffing of new facilities.................. ............... ............... ..............
(ISD) in fiscal year 2011.
-------------------------------------------------
CSC for program increases in the fiscal .............. TOTAL................................. ............... ............... ..............
year 2010 omnibus budget.
---------------- =================================================
Total funding required in fiscal $495,765,425
year 2011.
Base funding (fiscal year 2010 $398,490,478
omnibus budget).
Additional CSC needed in fiscal $97,274,947
year 2011.
Projected average CSC level of need 80.38
funded (percentage).
================
FISCAL YEAR 2012 2012 program increases 60 percent 25 percent
Total funding required in fiscal year $495,765,425 Services.................................... $64,361,881 $38,617,129 $9,654,282
2010.
Inflation (DCSC at medical inflation $8,069,432 Facilities.................................. 6,712,000 4,027,200 1,006,800
(3.6 percent)/IDC at regular Inflation
(1.5 percent)).
Estimated new and expanded programs $10,000,000 Staffing of new facilities.................. 62,950,119 38,678,119 9,669,530
(ISD) in fiscal year 2012.
-------------------------------------------------
CSC for program increases in the fiscal \2\ 20,330,612 TOTAL................................. 134,024,000 81,322,448 20,330,612
year 2012 enacted budget.
---------------- =================================================
Total CSC funding required in $534,165,469 $38,426,396--Increase in CSC need over previous fiscal year
fiscal year 2012.
Adjustment for additional tribal $26,352
shares and IDC on DCSC shortfall.
Base funding (fiscal year 2012 $471,437,000 $72,946,522--Increase in CSC funding available over previous fiscal year
enacted budget).
Additional CSC needed in fiscal $62,754,822
year 2012.
Projected average CSC level of need 88.25
funded (percentage).
================
FISCAL YEAR 2013 2012 program increases 60 percent 25 percent
Total funding required in fiscal year $534,191,822 Services.................................... 62,998,000 37,798,800 9,449,700
2012.
Inflation (DCSC at medical inflation $9,546,599 Facilities.................................. 2,259,000 1,355,400 338,850
(3.6 percent)/IDC at regular Inflation
(1.5 percent)).
Estimated new and expanded programs $10,000,000 Staffing of new facilities.................. 49,236,000 49,236,000 12,309,000
(ISD) in fiscal year 2013.
-------------------------------------------------
CSC for program increases in the \3\ 22,097,550 TOTAL............................... 114,493,000 88,390,200 22,097,550
proposed fiscal year 2013 budget
request.
================ =================================================
Total CSC funding required in $575,835,971 $41,670,897--Increase in CSC need over previous fiscal year
fiscal year 2013.
Adjustment for additional tribal $26,748
shares and IDC on DCSC shortfall.
Base funding (President's fiscal $476,446,000 $5,009,000--Increase in CSC funding available over previous fiscal year
year 2013 budget).
Additional CSC needed in fiscal $99,416,719
year 2013.
Projected average CSC level of need 82.74
funded (percent).
================
FISCAL YEAR 2014 2014 program increases 60 percent 25 percent
Total funding required in fiscal year $575,862,719 Services.................................... ............... ............... ..............
2013.
Inflation (DCSC at medical inflation $9,648,032 Facilities.................................. ............... ............... ..............
(3.6 percent)/IDC at regular Inflation
(1.5 percent)).
Estimated new and expanded programs $10,000,000 Staffing of new facilities.................. ............... ............... ..............
(ISD) in fiscal year 2014.
-------------------------------------------------
CSC for program increases in the \4\ 21,214,081 TOTAL............................... ............... ............... ..............
proposed fiscal year 2014 budget
request (average of previous 2 years)..
================ =================================================
Total CSC funding required in 616,724,831 $40,889,261--Increase in CSC need over previous fiscal year
fiscal year 2014.
Adjustment for additional tribal $27,149
shares and IDC on DCSC shortfall.
Base funding (President's fiscal $476,446,000 $0--Increase in CSC funding available over previous fiscal year
year 2013 budget).
Additional CSC needed in fiscal 140,305,980
year 2014.
Projected average CSC level of need 77.25
funded (percentage).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Taken from fiscal year 2010 contract support cost shortfall data collected from tribes.
\2\ CSC associated with the portion of the fiscal year 2012 appropriation increases that are to be included in Self-Determination awards. (60 percent of
the increase, times 25 percent for CSC).
\3\ CSC associated with the fiscal year 2013 proposed budget increases that are anticipated to be included in Self-Determination awards. (60 percent of
the increase, times 25 percent for CSC).
\4\ CSC associated with the fiscal year 2014 budget increases that are anticipated to be included in Self-Determination contracts and compacts. (Average
of previous 2 years).
\5\ This amount does not include any CSC based on program increases anticipated in the proposed budget.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Inflation \1\ ISD fund
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total CSC funding required in fiscal year 2015.................. \2\ $634,087,0 $12,335,040 $5,000,000
19
Total CSC funding required in fiscal year 2016.................. \2\ $651,768,7 $12,681,740 $5,000,000
60
Total CSC funding required in fiscal year 2017.................. \2\ $669,804,1 $13,035,375 $5,000,000
35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Inflation is computed at 2 percent of the prior fiscal year's total requirement.
\2\ This amount does not include any CSC based on program increases anticipated in the proposed budget.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE--DETAIL OF CHANGE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------- Difference Fiscal year Difference
Program enacted request 2011 2012 2012 over 2013 2013 over
enacted enacted 2011 request 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Services:
Hospitals and health clinics............. $1,762,865 $1,810,966 $48,101 $1,849,310 $38,344
Dental services.......................... 152,634 159,440 6,806 166,297 6,857
Mental health............................ 72,786 75,589 2,803 78,131 2,542
Alcohol and substance abuse.............. 194,409 194,297 (112) 195,378 1,081
Contract Health Services................. 779,927 843,575 63,648 897,562 53,987
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Clinical Services............... 2,962,621 3,083,867 121,246 3,186,678 102,811
==================================================================
Public health nursing.................... 63,943 66,632 2,689 69,868 3,236
Health education......................... 16,649 17,057 408 17,450 393
Community Health Representatives......... 61,505 61,407 (98) 61,531 124
Immunization AK.......................... 1,930 1,927 ............ 1,927 ............
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Preventive Health............... 144,027 147,023 2,996 150,776 3,753
==================================================================
Urban health............................. 43,053 42,984 (69) 42,988 4
Indian Health Professions................ 40,661 40,596 (65) 40,598 2
Tribal Management Grants................. 2,581 2,577 ............ 2,577 ............
Direct operations........................ 68,583 71,653 3,070 72,867 1,214
Self-Governance.......................... 6,054 6,044 (10) 6,044 ............
Contract Support Costs................... 397,693 471,437 73,744 476,446 5,009
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Other Services.................. 558,625 635,291 76,666 641,520 6,229
==================================================================
TOTAL, SERVICES........................ 3,665,273 3,866,181 200,908 3,978,974 112,793
==================================================================
Facilities:
Maintenance and improvement.............. 53,807 53,721 (86) 55,470 1,749
Sanitation facilities construction....... 95,665 79,582 (16,083) 79,582 ............
Healthcare facilities construction....... 39,156 85,048 45,892 81,489 (3,559)
Facilities and environmental health 192,701 199,413 6,712 204,379 4,966
support.................................
Equipment................................ 22,618 22,582 (36) 22,582 -
------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FACILITIES...................... 403,947 440,346 36,399 443,502 3,156
==================================================================
TOTAL, BUDGET AUTHORITY................ 4,069,220 4,306,527 237,307 4,422,476 115,949
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From DHHS/IHS Fiscal Year 2013 Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2012 staffing packages total was
$62,950,119
Carl Albert......................................... $2,487,000
Lake Co HC.......................................... 1,088,000
Elbowoods........................................... 7,315,000
Cheyenne River HC................................... 24,272,000
Absentee Shawnee HC................................. 8,981,000
Vinita HC........................................... 8,665,000
Undesignated (place holder two joint venture 9,843,000
facilities)........................................
---------------
Total............................................. 62,651,000
===============
The fiscal year 2013 staffing was estimated at
$49,236,000
Ardmore, Oklahoma................................... 8,948,000
Vinita, Oklahoma.................................... 2,792,000
Tishomingo, Oklahoma................................ 5,341,000
Wasilla, Alaska..................................... 13,462,000
Fairbanks, Alaska................................... 8,074,000
Nome, Alaska........................................ 10,619,000
---------------
Total............................................. 49,236,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the Indian Health Service shall, on or before April 1 of
each fiscal year, circulate to every tribal and tribal organization
engaged in contracting or compacting under Public Law 93-638, as
amended, data from the preceding year showing:
--for each tribe and tribal organization, nationally, and by area and
region, the total amounts of funds provided for the direct
costs of contracted or compacted programs, and the total
amounts of funds provided for the contract support costs
associated with such programs;
--for each tribe and tribal organization, nationally, and by Area and
Region, any deficiency (or surplus) in funds needed to provide
required contract support costs;
--the indirect cost rate and type of rate that has been negotiated
with the appropriate Secretary for each tribe and tribal
organization;
--the direct cost base and type of base from which the indirect cost
rate is determined for each tribe and tribal organization;
--the indirect cost pool amounts and the types of costs included in
the indirect cost pool; and
--for the current fiscal year, each agency's calculation of the
estimated national contract support cost requirement for all
tribes and tribal organizations, based upon the President's
most recent budget submitted to the Congress.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Tribal Environmental Council
On behalf of the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC) and
our 187 member tribes, we thank you for the opportunity to provide
fiscal year 2013 funding recommendations for the Department of the
Interior and other agencies under the purview of this subcommittee.
Founded in 1991, NTEC works with federally recognized tribes to
protect tribal environments. NTEC's mission is to support Indian tribes
and Alaska Natives in protecting, regulating, and managing their
environmental resources according to their own priorities and values.
Despite having some of the most pristine habitat in the United
States, tribes have been historically underfunded for wildlife and
natural resource management and conservation. There are 565 federally
recognized American Indian tribes and more than 300 reservations in the
United States. Tribes manage 95 million acres of land, 11 million acres
more than the National Park Service (NPS). Tribal lands contain more
than 997,000 acres of lakes, 13,000 miles of rivers, and 18 million
acres of forested lands. Tribal lands provide vital habitat for more
than 525 federally listed plants and animals, many of which are both
ecologically and culturally significant to tribes.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Interior Department Cooperative Landscape Conservation Initiative
Increase the Bureau of Indian Affair's Allocation of the
Department of the Interior's Climate Change
Adaptation Initiative to $8.75 Million
DOI began the Cooperative Landscape Conservation Initiative in
2009, an undertaking that Indian tribes support. The administration's
fiscal year 2013 budget request for the initiative is $175 million. The
$136 million for the initiative in fiscal year 2011 did not include any
funding for tribes.
In fact, BIA repurposed $419,000 of its own funds for tribal
participation in the DOI Cooperative Landscape Conservation Initiative.
Out of the $175 million for the Initiative in fiscal year 2012, BIA was
only allocated $200,000. As such, tribes were accorded a mere .001
percent of the funding. Moreover, given the past failures to allocate
new funding to BIA for this program, it is doubtful this funding will
appear and likely that BIA will once again be compelled to repurpose
its own funds. The lack of funding for tribes is highly inequitable,
especially considering the disproportionate effect of climate change on
tribes and their homelands. Sovereign Indian tribes deserve a broader
seat at the table in the Climate Change Adaptation Initiative and a
more equitable share of the funding.
Tribal lands comprise 4 percent of the U.S. land base, but
represent a higher percentage if compared to the Federal lands involved
in the initiative. Tribal lands comprise 95 million acres which,
divided by the total 587 million acres of Federal land, equal 16
percent. Tribal lands include 11 million acres more than NPS, yet the
administration proposed nearly 50 times more funding for NPS in fiscal
year 2012.
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Land Management............................... 258
Fish and Wildlife Service............................... 150
Bureau of Indian Affairs/Tribes......................... 95
National Park Service................................... 84
---------------
Total............................................. 587
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that tribal natural resources have been historically
underfunded and there is no Federal program or funding that
specifically supports tribal climate adaptation efforts, we request
that the allocation to tribes via the BIA should be increased to $8.75
million, or 5 percent of DOI's Cooperative Landscape Conservation
Initiative, for tribes to address and adapt to the impacts of climate
change. This funding level was justified in a report submitted to the
House Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Subcommittee in May 2011.\1\ To achieve this equitable increase for
tribes, the money provided to the various Interior agencies for the
Initiative must be reallocated. We request that you include language in
the bill directing the Secretary to set aside these funds for tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tribal recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 Department of
the Interior Climate Change Adaptation Initiative, transmitted on May
20, 2011, to Mike Simpson, Chairman, House Subcommittee on the Interior
and Environment, www.ncai.org/fileadmin/appropriations/
Tribal_Recommendations_for_2012_
DOI_Climate_Change_Adaptation_Initiative.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust Natural Resources Program
Provide $170.521 Million for Bureau of Indian Affairs Trust
Natural Resources Program
The BIA Trust Natural Resources (TNR) Program represents the
largest amount of base, Federal funding for tribal natural resource
management. In 1999, the BIA reported that tribes had more than $356
million of unmet annual needs for natural resource management.\2\
Despite some annual increases since then, the BIA and tribes have
lagged significantly behind in funding compared to other Interior
agencies. For example, the fiscal year 2013 budget requests increases
of $34.5 million for USGS and $28 million for BLM, yet the request for
BIA is a decrease of $110 million. Moreover, in roughly the last decade
the BIA budget has grown only 8 percent compared to an average of more
than 23 percent for other Interior agencies (FWS: 30 percent; NPS: 28
percent; USGS: 19 percent; BLM: 13 percent). Because BIA spending on
natural resources in the last 11 years has been relatively flat
compared to inflation and BIA's budget has been historically inadequate
to meet the natural resource needs of Indian tribes, their needs have
multiplied. The fiscal year 2013 request is $13.51 million less than
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations, July 1999, 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the significant unmet annual needs for tribal natural
resource management and the historic underfunding of tribal natural
resource base programs, we believe it is vital to augment TNR base
funding. We request that $170.521 million be provided to the BIA TNR
Program. We support allocating that amount to various TNR programs per
the 2013 Indian Country budget request.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Available at: http://www.ncai.org/fileadmin/FY2013/
FY2013_Indian_Country_
Budget_Request.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Tribal Wildlife Grants Program
Increase U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tribal Wildlife
Grants Funding to $8 Million
Unfortunately, tribes are not eligible for funding under Federal
wildlife and fishery restoration programs such as the Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson) or the Federal Aid in
Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson) that fund activities
through an excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment. Although tribal
members pay taxes that support this funding, they remain excluded from
receiving the benefits and only States are allowed to access them.
In 2002, the Congress authorized FWS to provide funding to tribes
under the Tribal Wildlife Grant (TWG) and Tribal Landowner Incentive
Programs (TLIP). Tribal proposals for support often total more than $30
million annually. In fiscal year 2009, FWS only funded 41 TWG proposals
out of 101 submitted, awarding $7 million to tribes with a meager
average award of $170,000. With 566 federally recognized tribes,
competition is severe and tribes rarely receive sufficient funds to
fully support important conservation efforts.
In fiscal year 2011, States received nearly $1 billion from the
Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson, and State Wildlife Grants programs.
Thus, the $7 million tribes received from the TWG program was only .007
percent of the amount States received. From 2002-2010, States received
nearly 86 times more FWS funding than tribes for fish and wildlife
conservation, or $6.25 billion for States compared to $72.2 million for
tribes.\4\ In fiscal year 2011 and 2012, tribes only received $4.3
million from TWG in each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In this example, State funding includes the FWS Wildlife and
Sport Fish Restoration Programs and State Wildlife Grants. Tribal
funding includes the FWS Tribal Wildlife Grants and Tribal Landowner
Incentive Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the inception of the TWG program in 2002, no more than $7
million per year has been made available on a competitive basis to the
Nation's 565 federally recognized tribes. At this low level of funding,
very few tribes receive any TWG funding; those receiving TWG funding
typically get very little; and no tribe receives sufficient funding to
sustain long-term tribal wildlife and natural resource management
efforts. We request that TWG Program funding be increased to $8 million
for fiscal year 2013.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
General Assistance Program
Increase Funding to $75 Million for the Environmental
Protection Agency General Assistance Program
Since 1992, the EPA's Indian Environmental General Assistance
Program (GAP) has served a critical need by providing funding to tribes
to build capacity for environmental management. Unfortunately, GAP
funding has not kept pace with the growth of tribal environmental
programs over the years, forcing tribes to perform the increased duties
of maturing programs with fewer resources. The average cost for tribes
to sustain a basic environmental program was set at $110,000 per tribe
in 1999 and has not been adjusted for inflation since that time. fiscal
year 2012 funding for GAP was slightly more than $ 67.5 million.
However, a $175,000 per tribe distribution (totaling almost $99
million) would be more equitable for tribes. We request that the EPA
GAP Program be funded at $75 million level to begin incrementally
meeting the need of $99 million.
Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants Program
Authorize and Appropriate $20 Million for the Multimedia
Tribal Implementation Grants Program
The fiscal year 2012 EPA budget included a request for this new
program to support on-the-ground implementation of environmental
protection on tribal lands. This program would provide $20 million
(almost $13 million less than the fiscal year 2011 request) for tribes
to address their most pressing environmental needs. This program would
allow tribes to move beyond the planning measures supported by GAP and
begin implementing tribal environmental priorities. We request that the
Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants Program be funded at the $20
million level.
Tribal Water Pollution Control, Clean Water Act Section 106
Provide a Tribal Allocation of 20 Percent
Clean Water Act section 106 grants are critical to tribal efforts
to control water pollution. Such efforts include water quality planning
and assessments; developing and implementing water quality standards
and total maximum daily loads; providing ground water and wetland
protection; and engaging in nonpoint source control activities. Between
1998 and 2010, the number of eligible tribes to receive CWA section 106
funding increased from 141 to 257. The national CWA 106 allocation to
tribes has remained flat and periodically decreased (e.g., 15.49
percent in 1998 to as low as 11.55 percent in 2005). Only 40 of 565
federally recognized tribes have EPA-approved water quality standards
(WQS), yet the vast majority of States have them. Section 106 grants
would enable tribes to bridge this gap. We request 20 percent of the
national CWA section 106 allocation be made specifically available to
tribes.
Nonpoint Source Pollutant Control--Clean Water Act 319
Eliminate Caps on Tribal Funding for Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control
Clean Water Act section 319 provides tribes with grants to develop
and implement polluted runoff control programs that address critical
water quality concerns identified in the 106 program and other
monitoring programs. Tribal needs for this funding exceed availability.
We request that any caps on tribal funding for Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control be eliminated to help close the vast inequity in
funding.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to present the National Trust for Historic Preservation's
recommendations for fiscal year 2013 appropriations. My name is Thomas
J. Cassidy, Jr. and I am the Vice President of Government Relations and
Policy. The National Trust is a privately funded nonprofit organization
chartered by the Congress in 1949. We work to save America's historic
places to enrich our future. With headquarters in Washington, DC, 12
field offices, 29 historic sites, and partner organizations in 50
States, territories, and the District of Columbia, the National Trust
protects significant historic sites and advocates for historic
preservation as a fundamental value in programs and policies at all
levels of government.
The Nation faces a challenging fiscal environment. The National
Trust recognizes there is a need for fiscal restraint and cost-
effective Federal investments. However, we do not believe that
preservation, conservation and recreation programs should suffer from
disproportionate funding reductions. We look forward to working with
you, Mr. Chairman, as you address the ongoing needs for investments to
sustain our Nation's rich heritage of cultural and historic resources
that also generate the economic vitality of communities throughout the
Nation.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND
The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) is the principal source of
funding to implement the Nation's historic preservation programs. Like
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, its dedicated revenues are
generated from oil and gas development on the Continental Shelf.
The National Park Service distributes HPF grants that are matched
by State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic
Preservation Offices (THPOs). Inadequate HPF funding limits support for
preservation activities such as survey, inventory, public education,
and project review for the Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit
(HTC), State and Tribal Historic Preservation Plans, and the National
Register of Historic Places. The HTC is the most significant Federal
investment in historic preservation. It has catalyzed the
rehabilitation of more than 38,000 buildings throughout the Nation.
Since its creation 30 years ago, the HTC has created 2 million jobs and
leveraged nearly $100 billion in private investment.
The President proposes level funding for the Historic Preservation
Fund at the fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $55.9 million. While we
appreciate there is not a cut to this program, we recommend that the
Committee provide a modest increase for this program reflecting ongoing
demands for preservation services and the increasing number of tribes
who qualify for HPF THPO funding.
We also look forward to working with the Committee to restore a
program of competitive grant funding, such as formerly provided by Save
America's Treasures, to provide matching grants to restore and preserve
significant historic resources such as the Star Spangled Banner; the
World Trade Center's Vesey Street Stairway; Touro Synagogue in
Providence, Rhode Island; and the Holy Assumption Orthodox Church in
Kenai, Alaska.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, CULTURAL
RESOURCES STEWARDSHIP
Two-thirds of our National Parks were created to protect our most
important historic and cultural resources. Over the past two decades,
the National Park Service (NPS) has added more than 30 new parks, which
are predominantly cultural and historical in value. However, funding
for cultural resources stewardship has not receiving support
commensurate with natural resources stewardship. During the fiscal year
2010 budget hearings, then Acting National Park Service Director Dan
Wenk stated that NPS had been neglectful of cultural resources. A
report of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) found
that during the fiscal year 1999-2006 period the NPS bolstered
stewardship of natural resources by an additional $77.5 million.
However, during this same period, funding for park cultural programs
decreased by 28 percent. Since the release of the NAPA report we have
seen no significant effort by NPS to create funding parity between
natural and cultural resources in the Park Base Operations Funding.
And, although the fiscal year 2013 budget requests an increase in
natural resources stewardship, there is a reduction proposed for
cultural resources. We urge the Committee to at least restore the
cultural resources stewardship account to its fiscal year 2012 enacted
levels.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: FACILITY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Of the nearly $11 billion deferred maintenance needed for NPS, $3
billion is for the 27,000 properties in National Park units listed on
the National Register of Historic Places. According to a report issued
by the National Academy of Public Administration, Saving Our History: A
Review of National Park Cultural Resource Program (2008), more than 40
percent of historic buildings and structures in our national parks are
in fair or poor condition. Without funding, the condition of these
properties will continue to deteriorate and become more expensive to
repair and preserve in the future. Therefore, we recommend that the
Committee restore the proposed $15 million cut from the repair,
rehabilitation, and maintenance accounts and provide funding at the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The National Trust is conducting
fundraising efforts to address the gap--most recently and successfully
at White Grass Dude Ranch in Grand Teton National Park--but private
money must be matched by Federal money. Continued loss of Federal
maintenance money will reduce the opportunity to raise private funds
for the preservation of these important structures.
The administration is proposing a significant reduction in the
line-item Construction account, most of which funds new construction.
We are concerned, however, that the proposed reduction not adversely
impact important rehabilitation of historic structures.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: LEASING HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN NATIONAL PARKS
We appreciate the Committee's inclusion of language in the fiscal
year 2012 conference report recognizing that historic leases provide a
cost-effective and innovative solution to mitigate the maintenance
backlog of historic structures. We are working with the NPS and private
partners to successfully implement such leases and bring private
investment to rehabilitation expenses.
One promising new and cost-effective opportunity for the NPS to
address the backlog of historic maintenance in the parks is through the
recently signed MOU establishing ``Historicorps,'' a new cooperative
among NPS, the other Federal land agencies, and several NGOs, including
the Student Conservation Association and The Corps Network.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
We are disappointed that the administration has proposed a nearly
50-percent decrease in funding for the National Heritage Areas (NHAs).
The proposed reduction, justified as ``encouraging self-sufficiency,''
would severely impair the sustainability of the program and the
individual NHAs that the Congress has established, including the John
H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Area. A recent NPS
study found ``without funding to replace the NPS investment, few NHAs
are expected to survive longer than a few years.'' NPS Northeast
Region, Report of Impacts and Operation Strategy for Sunsetting
National Heritage Areas (2012).
During these challenging economic times, every program that
receives Federal funding needs to justify its worth and deliver
substantial benefits to the American public. NHAs more than meet this
test. They are congressionally designated places where community driven
partnerships advance heritage conservation and economic development.
Heritage areas have a proven record of fostering job creation and
advancing economic, cultural, historic, environmental, and community
development through their leverage of each Federal dollar by $5.50 of
non-Federal investments. We urge the Committee to maintain funding for
NHAs at the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT: NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM
The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) National Landscape
Conservation System (National Conservation Lands) includes 27 million
acres of congressionally and presidentially designated lands, including
National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness, Wilderness
Study Areas, National Scenic and Historic Trails, and Wild and Scenic
Rivers.
The National Conservation Lands protect some of our country's most
significant historical and cultural resources, yet the BLM's ability to
steward these resources is undermined by insufficient funding averaging
$59.6 million, or just $2.20 per acre. The National Conservation Lands
are just one-tenth of BLM managed lands but they host one-third of all
BLM's visitors. This high visitation rate has resulted in increased
needs to protect and steward historic and archaeological sites from
looting and reckless off-road vehicle use. Without sufficient funding,
the BLM also struggles to complete essential resource protection, such
as signing trails, closing illegal and unnecessary routes, and
inventorying and protecting cultural sites.
We support the administration's fiscal year 2013 request of $69.549
million, a proposed increase of $4.58 million more than the fiscal year
2012 enacted level, to prevent critical damage to the resources found
in these areas, ensure proper management and provide for a quality
visitor experience. This funding level would enable BLM to hire
essential management and law enforcement staff, monitor and protect
natural and cultural resources, close unauthorized routes that fragment
fragile ecosystems, and undertake needed ecosystem and species
restoration projects.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT: CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
BLM oversees the largest, most diverse, and scientifically most
important body of cultural resources of any Federal land managing
agency, including 21 National Historical Landmarks, 5 World Heritage
Sites, and more than 263,000 documented cultural properties. However,
yet BLM receives the least amount of cultural resources money per acre
of any Federal agency. In the 34 years since the enactment of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) only 8 percent of the
land managed by the BLM has been surveyed for cultural resources.
Understanding the location and significance of cultural resources on
BLM land creates greater certainty in decisionmaking about land uses
including energy development, recreation, and resource protection.
Proactive survey for cultural resources is also required under the
National Historic Preservation Act. A long-term goal of surveying 20
percent of BLM land would be a significant step toward helping our
Nation efficiently and cost effectively develop energy resources on our
public lands. We strongly support the President's fiscal year 2013
request of $17.325 million for Cultural Resources Management, an
increase of $1.22 million more than fiscal year 2012 enacted.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
The National Trust supports robust funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. Many of the Nation's most significant historic and
cultural landscapes have been permanently protected through LWCF
investments, including the Flight 93 National Memorial, Minidoka
National Historic Site, Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail,
Gettysburg National Military Park, Martin Luther King Jr. National
Historic Site, Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, and Harpers
Ferry National Historic Park. We strongly support the administration's
fiscal year 2013 request for NPS Civil War Sesquicentennial Units and
American Battlefield Protection Program Grants.
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
We are concerned that the administration proposes a 6.2-percent
reduction for the operating budget of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP). Although the overall request for the ACHP is an
increase more than fiscal year 2012 enacted, this is solely because of
an increase of $1.3 million included specifically for the agency's move
from its headquarters in the Old Post Office.
The National Trust recommends a continuation of fiscal year 2012
enacted funding, plus the $1.3 million for the required move requested
by the President. In addition, we suggest the subcommittee include
report language recommending the President appoint a full-time
Chairman. Such a recommendation was made by the ACHP membership at its
November 2011 meeting, as did a task force of historic preservation
organizations, including the National Trust. We believe a full-time
Chairman would enhance the effectiveness of the ACHP.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: OFFICE OF SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
The National Trust supports the President's fiscal year 2013
request for funding EPA's Office of Sustainable Communities (OSC). OSC
is helping America's communities become more sustainable by encouraging
the renovation of historic buildings and the revitalization of older
neighborhoods. Repurposing older buildings--particularly those that are
vacant--reduces the need for construction of new buildings and the
consumption of land, energy, materials, and financial resources that
they require.
The fiscal year 2013 funding request would enable OSC to continue
its technical assistance to tribal, state, regional and local
governments and to remain a strong partner with the U.S. Department of
Transportation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
in the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. It will also support
such programs as Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities, Greening
America's Capitals, Smart Growth Implementation Assistance, and Smart
Growth Implementation Assistance for Coastal Communities. For example,
in Concord, New Hampshire, OSC helped identify ways to support
redevelopment of historic properties in the downtown core that comply
with new energy-efficiency and green building standards while also
conforming to historic preservation codes.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the National Trust's
recommendations for the fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Federation
On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), the Nation's
largest conservation advocacy and education organization, and our more
than 4 million members and supporters, we thank you for the opportunity
to provide fiscal year 2013 funding recommendations for the Department
of the Interior and other agencies under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee.
We understand the very difficult budget choices facing the
subcommittee and the Nation as we move forward under the constraints of
the Budget Control Act of 2011. That said, it is our belief that
disproportionate cuts to conservation programs represent policy
positions not consonant with the priorities and values of most
Americans. These programs protect cherished lands and waters and
conserve the natural resources that are vital to the Nation's continued
economic vitality. Recent studies estimate that outdoor recreation,
nature conservation, and historic preservation account for $1.06
trillion in overall economic activity and support 9.4 million jobs each
year. Outdoor recreation alone generates more than $49 billion in
annual Federal tax revenue.
NWF and its members remain concerned about proposed funding
reductions to many of the Federal Government's core commitments and
programs for conserving fish and wildlife, sustaining and restoring
important ecosystems, and maintaining clean air and water. Perhaps of
even greater concern are efforts to rewrite the Nation's landmark
environmental laws through the use of policy riders on the
appropriations bill. National Wildlife Federation urges the
subcommittee to make the necessary investments in our essential
conservation and environmental programs and commitments in the fiscal
year 2013 appropriations bill, and to pass a bill free of such riders.
National Wildlife Federation is overall supportive of the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget request, which we view as balancing
fiscal responsibility with continued investments in essential
conservation and environmental programs. Below, we offer
recommendations for specific budget items and programs.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the Nation's core
program for preventing wildlife from becoming endangered in every
State. We are extremely concerned about the impact on the Nation's
wildlife of the nearly 30-percent cut to this program in the fiscal
year 2012 appropriations bill, which included a significant reduction
to the tribal component of the program. We urge the Congress to honor
its commitment to this important effort and strongly recommend funding
this program at its previous level of $90 million, a $28.7 million
increase from the President's fiscal year 2013 request of $61.3
million.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science
Safeguarding fish and wildlife resources from climate change is a
major concern for the entire natural resource conservation community,
and the Fish and Wildlife Service's Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
represent an important means for leveraging Federal, State, and private
resources to achieve effective conservation outcomes. We urge the
Congress to meaningfully address the very real threats of climate
change to our fish and wildlife and support the administration's
request of $33 million for cooperative landscape conservation and
adaptive science.
Cooperative Endangered Species Fund
The Cooperative Endangered Species Fund provides essential
assistance to States for the protection of endangered species on non-
Federal lands. We strongly support the President's fiscal year 2013
request of $60 million.
National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the largest system in the
world dedicated to wildlife conservation. Simply maintaining the
management capability to operate the Refuge System requires a $15
million increase each year. NWF, in support of the Cooperative Alliance
for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), strongly endorses the President's fiscal
year 2013 funding request of $495 million for Operations and
Maintenance for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Should across-the-
board sequestration cuts of 9-10 percent take effect in fiscal year
2013, the impacts to the Refuge System would be devastating and could
force FWS to close or end major programs at more than 130 refuges.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Climate Science Centers
The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and
associated regional Climate Science Centers are important for improving
the scientific support required to successfully cope with the
challenges of a changing climate. NWF is supportive of the
administration's proposed $26.2 million in funding for fiscal year
2013.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Trust Natural Resources Program
The BIA Trust Natural Resources (TNR) Program represents the
largest amount of base, Federal funding for tribal natural resource
management. Funding, however, has not kept pace over the decade with
inflation or the increasing needs of tribes to manage natural
resources. We are strongly supportive of the administration's fiscal
year 2013 request of $162.11 million, which is $4.86 million more than
in fiscal year 2012. Among these increases, we are particularly
supportive of the $800,000 in additional funding for tribal
collaboration with DOI Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Although we
believe that tribal engagement in climate adaptation is still severely
underfunded, we are supportive of the administration's fiscal year 2013
request of $1 million for this activity.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
National Landscape Conservation System
The National Landscape Conservation System contains many of the
most special places in the American West. Funding the Conservation
Lands at the President's fiscal year 2013 funding request of $69.5
million is needed to prevent critical damage to the resources found in
these areas, ensure proper management, and provide for a quality
visitor experience.
NEW ENERGY FRONTIER
The New Energy Frontier initiative provides resources for six
bureaus across DOI for renewable energy planning, leasing, and
permitting activities. The initiative presents an opportunity for the
Nation to facilitate large-scale clean energy projects without
compromising crucial wildlife interests and investments. NWF strongly
supports the President's request of $86.5 million for fiscal year 2013,
an increase of $15.2 million from fiscal year 2012 enacted.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE
Urban and Community Forestry Program
The Urban and Community Forestry program improves the forests where
people live, work, and play. With urban tree canopies in decline, the
program is critical to support carbon sequestration, energy
conservation, stormwater management, and air quality, while also
providing cooling benefits in urban areas. We support the President's
fiscal year 2013 request of $28 million for this program. We also
support the request of $4 million for the recently established
Community Forest and Open Space Program.
Landscape Scale Restoration
The new Landscape Scale Restoration line item streamlines the
budget while continuing USFS's landscape-scale restoration efforts to
sustain and create jobs, restore ecosystem resilience, and enhance
recreation infrastructure. This new line item formalizes the State and
Private Forestry Redesign process, funding to State-level projects and
allowing the engagement of multiple landowners across boundaries. We
support the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request of $18 million
for this new line item.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is the primary tool of
the Federal Government for acquiring land valuable for wildlife habitat
and open space. LWCF is authorized to receive $900 million in revenue
from offshore oil and gas drilling annually. Nonetheless, this program
has been woefully underfunded over the years, with only a fraction of
the dedicated revenues appropriated and available for use. National
Wildlife Federation strongly endorses the President's fiscal year 2013
request of $450 million for LWCF. In addition, we support current
legislative efforts to provide robust and dedicated funding for LWCF
outside of the budget process.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Urban Waters Grant Program
Most Americans now live in urban areas, but our urban waterways are
imperiled from the effects of human development, including pollution
from industrial point-source pollution and urban stormwater runoff. The
Urban Waters Grant Program not only funds innovative approaches for
water quality improvements that benefit aquatic ecosystems, but also
revitalizes urban waterfronts, providing economic benefits and
recreation value for residents. We support the President's fiscal year
2013 budget request of $4.4 million for this program.
Geographic Programs--Ecosystem Restoration Initiatives
America's great waters are the lifeblood of our Nation. Sustained,
consistent restoration funding is crucial for the successful
implementation of multi-year, complex ecosystem restoration plans. As
such, we are concerned that this important funding is reduced for the
second year in a row. While NWF is fully supportive of the proposed
increases for EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office ($57.4 million
requested), we are concerned about significant proposed funding
decreases for several other regional efforts, and urge the Congress to
restore funding to fiscal year 2010 levels for:
--Great Lakes Restoration Initiative ($475 million vs. $300 million);
--Long Island Sound ($7 million vs. $5.3 million); and
--Puget Sound Program ($50 million vs. $30 million).
Environmental Protection Agency National Estuary Program
The National Estuary Program (NEP) works to restore and protect
nationally significant estuaries. Unlike traditional regulatory
approaches to environmental protection, the NEP targets a broad range
of issues and engages local communities in the process. The program
focuses not just on improving water quality, but on maintaining the
integrity of the whole system--its chemical, physical, and biological
properties, as well as its economic, recreational, and aesthetic
values. NWF is disappointed in the reduction in funding proposed for
this program, and recommends $30 million, a $3 million increase from
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Since the 1970's, CWSRF projects have helped improve the quality of
wastewater treatment in communities throughout the country. Yet the job
is far from complete and the Nation faces trillions of dollars in
funding needs to repair aging wastewater treatment systems and keep our
rivers and streams pollution free. To provide States with needed
funding to upgrade aging sewer systems and to comply with the Clean
Water Act, NWF urges the Congress to increase funding from the
President's fiscal year 2013 request of $1.46 billion to $2 billion.
Clean Water Act 319 Nonpoint Pollution Reduction Program
When Congress recognized the need for greater Federal leadership in
assisting with nonpoint source pollution reduction efforts, The Clean
Water Act was amended to establish section 319. Continued funding for
the Nonpoint Source Management Program will provide State and local
nonpoint source remediation efforts with the funds that are crucial to
the implementation of these projects. As such we recommend that the
subcommittee increase program funding from the $164.7 million requested
by the President to the fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $175 million.
Air/Climate Programs
NWF supports EPA's priority goal of improving the country's ability
to measure and control greenhouse gas emissions, and we support the
President's request of $825.4 million for this activity, an increase of
$56.4 million more than fiscal year 2012 enacted. This funding will
allow the agency to conduct statutorily mandated work on the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants, including ozone.
We also support the requested $32.8 million increase more than the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level for climate protection, allowing the
Agency to support a full range of approaches for reducing GHGs and the
risks they pose to human health and the environment.
National Environmental Education Act Programs
EPA's Office of Environmental Education implements highly
successful, nationwide environmental education programs. We are
grateful for the subcommittee's support of environmental education in
previous years and recommend fiscal year 2012 baseline funding levels
for NEEA at $9.7 million in fiscal year 2013.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Refuge Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) and its membership
comprised of current and former refuge professionals, Friends
organization affiliates and concerned citizens, thank you for your
strong support for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The NWRA
appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2013
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
The meaningful funding increases in fiscal years 2008-2010 allowed
the NWRS to emerge from years of chronic funding shortfalls. But
unfortunately, those substantial gains are undermined by more than $17
million in cuts to the NWRS's funding in fiscal years 2011 and 2012
that equate to a larger loss of more than $41 million when annual
increases in refuge fixed costs are factored in. Consequently, we
support the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request of $495 million
because it will maintain existing management capabilities. Should
across-the-board sequestration cuts of 9-10 percent take effect in
fiscal year 2013, the impacts to the NWRS would be devastating and
could force FWS to close or end major programs at more than 130
refuges.
We respectfully request the subcommittee support the following
funding allocations for programs in the NWRS and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS):
--$495 million for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of
the NWRS including $23 million for Inventory and Monitoring;
$39 million for Refuge Law Enforcement; $80 million for
Visitors Services; $3.8 million for Challenge Cost Share; $2.5
million for Cooperative Recovery; and $5 million for the
Pacific Marine Monuments;
--$57 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
(under DOI);
--$30 million for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund;
--$700 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),
including $150 million for the NWRS;
--$33 million for Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) in the
FWS;
--$37 million for the FWS construction account for large-scale refuge
restoration projects, visitor facility enhancements, visitors
centers and energy efficiency projects;
--$60 million for the FWS's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
--$61.5 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
--$39.4 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
--$6.5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund;
--$8.4 million for Wildlife Without Borders; and
--$7.5 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)
in the FWS's Resource Management General Administration
appropriation.
National Wildlife Refuge Funding--Operation and Maintenance and
Construction
The NWRA chairs the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
(CARE), a diverse coalition of 22 sporting, conservation, and
scientific organizations representing more than 15 million Americans
that supports increased funding for the NWRS. After a century of
chronic underfunding, increases in fiscal years 2008-2010 put the NWRS
on a path to full funding. But cuts in fiscal years 2011 and 2012
totaling $16.2 million ($40.5 million decrease in real dollars) is
reversing the gains made and puts damaging workforce downsizing plans
on the table should an across-the-board sequestration cut of 10 percent
occur in fiscal year 2013. Should that happen, CARE estimates that FWS
will be forced to close or end major programs at more than 130 refuges,
eliminate more than essential 200 wildlife management jobs, cut more
than 35 visitor services jobs needed to mobilize the System's 40,000
volunteers and administer recreational programs, and cut law
enforcement staff by more than 40 officers leaving a force of only 170
when 845 are needed.
These cuts are particularly harmful because the System is already
having to respond to damages from natural disasters. From fiscal years
2005-2011, the NWRS sustained $693 million in damages from natural
disasters such as tornadoes, fires, hurricanes, flooding, a tsunami,
and an earthquake. The damages in 2011 alone were almost $200 million,
approaching half of the System's operations and maintenance funds for
the year. Of the $693 million in damages, the Congress appropriated
$254 million in emergency supplemental funding and the remaining $439
million has been added to the Refuge System's $2.5 billion deferred
maintenance backlog.
NWRA respectfully requests that the subcommittee provide $495
million in fiscal year 2013 for Refuge System Operations and
Maintenance (O&M), essentially level funding from fiscal year 2012. We
estimate that refuges would need at least $527 million in fiscal year
2013 to maintain management capabilities from fiscal year 2010; this
request would only maintain status quo at current funding levels. The
current Federal salary freeze still leaves Refuges needing at least $8
million to absorb other fixed costs. CARE estimates that the Refuge
System needs at least $900 million in annual funding to properly
administer its 150 million acres and remains committed to aiming for
this goal.
Refuges have almost $1 billion worth of construction needs,
including the replacement of deteriorating structures that are becoming
more expensive to maintain. We request $37 million for the System's
construction budget, including funds for large-scale habitat
restoration and small-scale visitor facility enhancements. Funds for
new visitor/administration centers, including those at the Potomac
River Refuges near Washington, DC and the Sherburne NWR outside
Minnesota's Twin Cities, will provide a net benefit in efficiencies and
in economic impact. Refuges with a broad range of programs create more
service industry jobs and more income for local communities.
Supporting Prescribed Fire To Reduce Catastrophic Burns
Fire as a wildlife habitat management tool is one of the most
important items in the FWS tool chest but it is also perhaps the least
understood. Unfortunately, the President has called for a 23-percent
decrease to DOI's Hazardous Fuel Reduction program, which would have a
negative impact on the FWS fire program. Prescribed burns reduce the
occurrence of catastrophic fires and protect our most vulnerable
communities and habitats. For instance, prescribed burns are used
extensively in Florida where lightning strikes would normally cause
fires annually or every couple of years. Consequently, when lightning
caused a fire in the middle of the night at the Arthur R. Marshall
Loxahatchee NWR in Palm Beach last year, the wildfire burned only 13
acres and extinguished itself despite record drought conditions.
However, at the Alligator River NWR in North Carolina, a lack of
resources to do the amount of prescribed burning needed led to a
wildfire that burned more than 45,000 acres on the refuge and adjacent
lands, burning deep into the soil, and cost almost $15 million to
contain. A combination of hydrology restoration and prescribed burns
would have reduced the fire's intensity and containment costs. We urge
maintaining current capabilities for FWS at $57 million for fiscal year
2013 for Hazardous Fuel Reduction and Preparedness funding.
Supporting Jobs, Economic Activity, and Leveraging American
Volunteerism
Refuges are economic engines and a good investment. According to a
recent report by Southwick Associates, refuges generate more than $32.3
billion in ecosystem services and $4.2 billion in economic activity,
returning more than $65 and $8, respectively, for every $1 appropriated
by the Congress.
Refuges are job creators: more than 32,500 jobs--largely in the
private sector--are attributed to refuge-related activities. And on a
national level, each $5 million invested in the NWRS's appropriations
(salary and nonsalary) impacts an average of 83.2 jobs, $13.6 million
in total economic activity, $5.4 million in job-related income and
$500,000 in tax revenue.
Refuges are vital places for the American people to connect with
nature and get involved. Currently, refuge Friends and volunteers do
approximately 20 percent of all work on refuges. In 2011, these 1.5
million hours equated to roughly 8 volunteers for every 1 Refuge System
employee. Without staff to oversee volunteers, their commitment and
passion is lost, as is their desperately needed contribution to the
System. We request $80 million for visitors services for the NWRS.
Protecting the Public and Refuge Resources--National Wildlife Reserve
System Law Enforcement
In 2005, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
conducted a first of its kind analysis of law enforcement (LE) needs
for a land management agency, focusing on the NWRS. They recommended a
force of 845 full-time LE officers to adequately protect visitors and
taxpayer resources; but the System has only a little more than one-
quarter of that amount with 246 officers for the 150 million acre
System. Further, since the report was completed in 2005, the System has
grown by 50 million acres with the addition of the Pacific monuments by
President Bush and visitation has grown by 15 percent from 37 million
visitors in 2005 to more than 45 million in 2011.
Using Science To Guide Adaptive Management
The FWS and the Refuge System are developing landscape level
strategies to address habitat changes due to shifting land use,
increasing human population, the spread of invasive species and
changing climates. We strongly support the FWS initiative to establish
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) to bring the best science to
help local, State and Federal agencies make the most educated
management decisions. We recommend an allocation of $33 million to fund
LCCs in fiscal year 2013 and $23 million for the System's Inventory and
Monitoring program.
Commitment to Refuge Communities--Refuge Revenue Sharing
The NWRS uses net income derived from things like use permits and
timber harvests to make payments to local counties or communities to
offset lost property tax revenue, and relies on congressional
appropriations to the Refuge Revenue Sharing program to compensate for
the shortfall between revenues and obligations. Due to declining
revenue and lack of appropriations, the Service has been paying less
than 50 percent of its tax-offset obligations since 2001. This has a
measurable impact on local communities that is felt even more starkly
in difficult economic times--and it creates severe strain in relations
between the Federal units and their local community, threatening the
goodwill and partnerships that are keystones of successful
conservation. NWRA requests $30 million for the Refuge Revenue Sharing
Program, which, in recognition of the President's proposal to zero out
funding, is still only about half of what is needed. The NWRA also
calls for a review of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 as
amended, and consideration of conversion to a Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes
(PILT) program to be consistent with other Federal land management
agencies and to provide Refuge communities with more equitable
payments.
Partnerships and Strategic Growth
We strongly support $3.8 million in fiscal year 2013 for Challenge
Cost Share (CCS). Partners are the key to successful conservation; no
Federal or State agency can do it alone. Because of this, we support
programs that leverage Federal dollars such as the CCS program. Partner
organizations such as local volunteer ``Friends'' groups leverage these
funds to give American taxpayers more bang for their buck for projects
like trails, education, boardwalks and habitat restoration.
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is another powerful tool
for working with private landowners to collaboratively conserve refuge
landscapes. The program consistently leverages Federal dollars for
conservation, generating between $4 and $10 in conservation return for
every $1 appropriated, and has been key to the success of many iconic
landscape conservation projects. If funded at its authorized level of
$75 million, the program would net at least $300 million worth of
additional conservation. NWRA requests an fiscal year 2013
appropriation of $60 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program, a $5 million increase to maintain current capabilities.
NWRA also calls upon the Congress to fund the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $700 million. Created in 1965 and
authorized at $900 million per year (more than $3 billion in today's
dollars), the LWCF is our most important land and easement acquisition
tool. With more than 8 million acres still unprotected within existing
refuge boundaries, and the need to establish key wildlife corridors and
connections between protected areas, the LWCF is more important than
ever. NWRA strongly supports the new Collaborative Conservation
requests of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, bringing
together several Federal agencies around a common goal. NWRA supports
the following projects and those advocated by refuge Friends
organizations:
--Everglades Headwaters NWR & Conservation Area (Florida)--$50
million;
--Bear Lake NWR (Idaho)--$1.5 million
--Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (Utah)--$2.5 million;
--Blackwater NWR (Maryland)--$2.5 million;
--Cache River NWR and White River NWR (Arkansas)--$8 million;
--Cokeville Meadows NWR (Wyoming)--$1.5 million
--Connecticut River--Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Connecticut)--$12 million;
--Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas)--$5 million;
--Great Bay NWR (New Hampshire) and Rachel Carson NWR (Maine)--$4
million
--Middle Rio Grande NWR (New Mexico)--$1.5 million;
--Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area (Montana)--$19 million;
--Rhode Island NWR Complex (Rhode Island)--$5 million;
--Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex (Louisiana)--$3 million;
--St. Marks NWR/Longleaf Pine (Florida)--33 million; and
--St. Vincent NWR (Florida)--$1 million
The NWRA believes the NWRS can meet its responsibilities to the
American people with collaboration and sufficient funding and we urge
the Congress to help the FWS meet these obligations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Natural Science Collections Alliance
The Natural Science Collections Alliance appreciates the
opportunity to provide testimony in support of fiscal year 2013
appropriations for the Department of the Interior (DOI). We encourage
Congress to provide the DOI Working Capital Fund with at least $70.6
million in fiscal year 2013.
The Natural Science Collections Alliance is a nonprofit association
that supports natural science collections, their human resources, the
institutions that house them, and their research activities for the
benefit of science and society. We are comprised of more than 100
institutions which are part of an international community of museums,
botanical gardens, herbariums, universities, and other institutions
that house natural science collections and utilize them in research,
exhibitions, academic and informal science education, and outreach
activities.
Scientific collections are a vital component of our Nation's
research infrastructure. Whether held at a national museum, government-
managed laboratory or archive, or in a university science department,
these scientific resources contain genetic, tissue, organismal, and
environmental samples that constitute a unique and irreplaceable
library of the Earth's history. The specimens and their associated data
drive cutting edge research on significant challenges facing modern
society, such as improving human health, enhancing food security, and
understanding and responding to environmental change. Collections also
inspire novel interdisciplinary research that drives innovation and
addresses some of the most fundamental questions related to
biodiversity.
The institutions that care for scientific collections are important
research centers that enable scientists to study the basic data of
life, conduct modern biological, geological, and environmental
research, and provide undergraduate and graduate students with hands-on
training opportunities.
The Federal Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections
(IWGSC) was established by President Bush to evaluate the status of
federally owned object-based scientific collections. In 2009, the IWGSC
reported that, ``scientific collections are essential to supporting
agency missions and are thus vital to supporting the global research
enterprise.'' In response, in 2010, the Office of Science and
Technology Policy directed Federal agencies to budget for the proper
care of collections. ``Agencies should ensure that their collections'
necessary costs are properly assessed and realistically projected in
agency budgets, so that collections are not compromised.''
We are pleased to see that DOI has included an increase of $3.5
million in its budget request for the Cultural and Scientific
Collections program. Interior is an important caretaker of museum
collections; the Department has an estimated 146 million items, which
is second in size only to the Smithsonian Institution. Although many of
the department's collections are located in bureau facilities,
artifacts and specimens are also housed by nongovernmental facilities,
such as museums and universities.
The fiscal year 2013 budget request would implement a multi-year
action plan to address recommendations made by the DOI Inspector
General regarding Interior's accountability for its cultural and
scientific specimens. In a December 2009 report, the Inspector General
found that DOI has failed to properly accession, catalogue, or
inventory museum collections, leaving artifacts ``unavailable for
research, education, or display and . . . subject to theft,
deterioration, and damage.'' The proposed budget increase would support
oversight and technical assistance for better care of collections,
start a pilot project to identify and assess collections at non-Federal
repositories, and study consolidation of bureau and non-bureau
facilities housing collections.
We support the proposed DOI study of bureau and non-bureau
facilities housing biological collections to determine the potential
for economies of scale, improvements of oversight and accountability,
and space reduction. Because excellent public and private facilities
already exist in every State, we believe the study is likely to
conclude that contracting with existing bio-repositories that have the
experience and expertise to house and curate the collections and
associated data will be the most efficient and cost-effective means by
which Federal agencies can access the collections data required to
accomplish agency missions. We applaud the increased recognition by DOI
and other Federal departments of the immense importance of biological
collections and the data they provide in support of the Nation's
research enterprise that ultimately drives economic growth, improves
human health, addresses energy needs, and enables sustainable
management of our natural resources.
The National Park Service is also planning to continue its
investments in collections. The proposed budget would support the third
year of an initiative to eliminate the archival backlog at 165 parks
and to address the recommendations made by the Interior Inspector
General. In fiscal year 2013, the National Park Service plans to
catalog an estimated 7.4 million additional museum objects through the
Flexible Park Program.
CONCLUSION
Scientific collections are an important part of our Nation's
research enterprise. Research specimens connect us to the past, are
used to solve current societal problems, and are helping to predict
future environmental changes. Continued investments in scientific
collections are critical for our Nation's continued scientific
leadership. Please support the budget request for the Department of the
Interior's Capital Working Fund, which will support Interior's efforts
to preserve scientific collections--a truly irreplaceable resource.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nevada Department of Wildlife
To the Chair and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Nevada Department of
Wildlife (NDOW) regarding the importance of restoring and increasing
appropriations in the fiscal year 2013 for State implementation of
aquatic nuisance species (ANS) programs.
Aquatic invasive species are a growing national concern in the
United States and pose serious economic and ecological threats to our
national aquatic resources. At the State level, very limited
opportunities exist for Federal and State partnerships to combat the
threat associated with the invasion and spread of aquatic nuisance
species. The invasion and spread of aquatic nuisance species continues
to escalate at both the national and State level. Many of the newer
aquatic invaders have the ability to adapt and withstand various
environmental factors making them more prolific and a larger threat to
our native aquatic life, ecosystems and water resources. The problem is
not one that can be adequately managed or solved by individual States
or agencies but will take the coordinated efforts of private entities
and various Federal and State agencies.
Thus, NDOW urges the Congress to restore the fiscal year 2012
appropriation of $1,075,000 to States with approved ANS plans and the
additional $3 million appropriation that was originally authorized by
the National Aquatic Nuisance Plants and Animals Act (NANPCA) of 1990.
These appropriations would provide grant funds for State fish and
wildlife agencies with approved aquatic nuisance species plans to
implement their plans, as authorized by NANPCA, and as amended in the
National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA). The additional
appropriations in fiscal year 2013 will provide much needed assistance
for State fish and wildlife agencies with approved ANS plans to combat
these invaders. Although NDOW currently does not have an approved ANS
plan, it is currently under development and is expected to be completed
in the next several months. Nevada's ANS Plan will be an extremely
valuable component to NDOW's Aquatic Invasive Species Program; however,
implementation of the plan, without Federal support, will effectively
make the plan of little value in preventing the introduction and spread
of aquatic invaders.
The threat of invasion and the spread of numerous prolific aquatic
invasive species are placing our Nation's water resources and aquatic
ecosystems at risk. The threat is real and States cannot be expected to
effectively manage and eradicate ANS on their own; it will take the
coordinated efforts of both State and Federal agencies to combat these
invaders.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee. As you deliberate appropriate funding levels for ANS
issues, please consider the important public policy implications that
could entail.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee
Honorable Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as Chairman of
the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, I would like to thank you for
the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Nez Perce Tribe
to this subcommittee as it evaluates and prioritizes the spending needs
of the United States regarding the Indian Health Service (IHS); Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the
United States Forest Service (USFS); and the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS).
As with any government, the Nez Perce Tribe does a wide array of
work and provides a multitude of services to the tribal membership as
well as the community at large. The Nez Perce Tribe has a health clinic
with a satellite office, a tribal police force with 16 officers, a
social services department, a comprehensive natural resource program
that does work in forestry, wildlife management, land services and land
management, habitat restoration, air quality and smoke management,
water quality and sewer service, and one of the largest fisheries
departments of any tribe in the Nation working on recovery of listed
species under the Endangered Species Act. The Nez Perce Tribe conducts
its extensive governmental functions and obligations through a
comprehensive administrative framework, which is necessary for a
sovereign nation that oversees and protects the treaty rights of the
Nez Perce People in addition to providing the day to day governmental
services to its members and the surrounding communities. The Nez Perce
Tribe has long been a proponent of self determination for tribes and
believes its primary obligation is to protect the treaty-reserved
rights of the Nez Perce Tribe and its members. All of the work of the
tribe is guided by this principle. As a result, the tribe works
extensively with many Federal agencies and proper funding for those
agencies and their work with, for and through tribes is of vital
importance.
Indian Health Services
The Nez Perce Tribe was pleased to see the President's budget
provided for increased spending for IHS. The request for $4.422 billion
is an increase of $115.9 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted
level but more is needed. The tribe requests that IHS contract support
costs be funded at $571 million. The tribe's shortfall for fiscal year
2011 for CSC was $859,860.54. Proper funding for the operations of the
clinic is imperative. The Nez Perce Tribe currently operates one
healthcare clinic on the Nez Perce Reservation, Nimiipuu Health, the
main clinic in Lapwai, Idaho and a satellite facility 65 miles away in
Kamiah, Idaho. Nimiipuu Health provided service to 3,870 patients in
fiscal year 2011. These 3,870 patients represented 79,573 visits, which
included pharmacy and laboratory visits in addition to medical provider
visits. Our expenditure total for fiscal year 2011 was $12,555,959. Our
Contract Health Services (CHS) cost for outpatient services for fiscal
year 2011 was $3,674,368. In this fiscal year for the 4 months ended
January 31, 2012, our expenditures totaled $4,989,836. Annualized for
the full 12 months this will result in a cost of $14,969,508. Our CHS
cost at the end of January was $2,118,537. When annualized, this amount
will result in a total expenditure of $6,355,611. Our revenue from IHS
for 2011 was $10,082,221 and is projected for fiscal year 012 at
$9,873,494.
In 2011, the tribe expended $2,626,164 of third-party billings
collected in 2011. If expenditures continue as projected based on the
first 4 months of fiscal year 2012, the tribe will have to collect in
third-party billings $5,096,014. This will require approximately 57
percent more collections in third-party revenue than is currently
budgeted and anticipated in fiscal year 2012. The tribe has been in
priority one status for our CHS patients for 9 months of fiscal year
2011 and for the first 4 months of fiscal year 2012. Even in this
priority one status we are already 32 percent overexpended in fiscal
year 2012 with six identified Contract Health Emergency cases being
processed for reimbursement through the CHEF funds. Priority one cases
include only those circumstances where loss of life or limb will occur
without treatment. All other referrals for outside treatments are
placed on a deferred services list. At the end of fiscal year 2011, our
deferred list totaled $516,817. At the beginning of fiscal year 2012,
the patients on this deferred list were re-evaluated by the medical
providers and either received treatment based on the condition reaching
priority one status, remained on the deferred services list or denied
services based on their condition at that time. Currently our deferred
list totals $209,998 after only 4 months of referrals. Any shortfall in
funding creates a trickle-down effect in emergency and preventative
patient care.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
For the fiscal year 2011 budget proposal, the BIA proposed several
spending recommendations for improving trust land management that were
supported by the tribe. The Nez Perce Tribe entered into an agreement
with the United States in 2005 known as the Snake River Basin Water
Rights Settlement Act of 2004 (title X of division J of Public Law 108-
447, 118 Stat. 3431, et seq.). A component of the agreement was the
transfer of approximately 11,000 acres of land from the BLM to the
tribe. The lands were supposed to be surveyed as part of the transfer.
Full funding for those surveys has not been made to this date. The
fiscal year 2011 budget request called for $695,000 for that fiscal
year to begin that process. Although that amount would not cover the
full cost of the surveys, it would allow the process to begin. The
tribe supports a renewal of that appropriation request in the fiscal
year 2013 budget that was not funded during the past several budget
cycles.
In addition, it is important to note that under the terms of the
Snake River Basin Act referenced in the previous paragraph, for fiscal
year 2013, a payment shall be made to the Nez Perce Tribe in the amount
of $9 million. This is the last payment to the Nez Perce Tribe under
the terms of the settlement. The waivers and terms of the agreement are
not considered final and effective until the terms and conditions such
as this payment are made and it is important that this payment be
included in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
The tribe requests more emphasis be placed on funding for contract
support costs through the BIA and that the BIA's request of $228
million be funded fully. The Nez Perce Reservation covers 1,200 square
miles and covers five counties and has a mixture of tribal and
nontribal residents. Currently, the Nez Perce Tribe contributes
$600,000 per year to cover the shortfall in BIA funding for the tribe's
law enforcement. This funding comes from cigarette taxes levied by the
tribe.
The tribe also relies on the BIA for funding for its work related
to endangered species and protection of the tribe's treaty resources
including Chinook and steelhead salmon. The funding has also been used
to supplement the research efforts of the tribe relative to Big Horn
Sheep. The BIA Endangered Species Program provides tribes with the
technical and financial assistance to protect endangered species on
trust lands but funding of this program has declined significantly over
the last 8 years.
In addition, the funding provided under the BIA Rights Protection
fund is critical as it supports the exercise of off-reservation hunting
and fishing for tribes like the Nez Perce. It is important to
understand that this funding is not for equipment but is used for job
creation. The tribe has employed two new conservation officers and an
additional biologist for our programs under the funding during the last
several fiscal years. The tribe has to cover and manage a large area in
fisheries related activities from the Lostine River in Oregon to the
South Fork of the Salmon River and a capable and adequate staff is
vital to continue this work.
The tribe supports the funding requests for the BIA Wildlife and
Parks Tribal Priority Allocations. This funding is allowing important
work to be done on fish recovery through hatchery operation and
maintenance. As stated earlier, the tribe has invested a large amount
of its personnel and resources in the restoration and recovery of this
important resource through its fisheries programs. The State of Idaho
directly benefits from this work as well through its sports fisheries.
These programs have been successful but more work needs to be done.
Fish and Wildlife Service and United States Forest Service
The tribe relies heavily on funding sources within FWS and the
USFS. First, the Tribal Wildlife Grants account for a small pot of
money that has resulted in huge returns from the tribe's perspective.
This competitive grant does not simply dole out funds for projects but
awards grants based on the quality of the proposal. The tribe has
received funding from this grant 4 out of the last 5 years based on the
quality of our research work on Big Horn Sheep. The Big Horn Sheep is a
treaty resource of the tribe that is declining rapidly within the
tribe's ceded territory. The funds from this program provide the
resources to keep the research going. Funding for these grants was
reduced to $4 million in the fiscal year 2012 budget. The tribe
strongly urges this subcommittee to increase this funding as it
provides a large return in work for a small investment. It is also one
of the few sources of funds tribes can tap into for wildlife research.
The tribe also supports increased funding for the work of USFS in
the protection of treaty reserved resources of tribes. The Nez Perce
Tribe reservation and its usual and accustomed areas are rich in
natural resources and encompass eight different national forests. The
tribe works closely with each forest administration to properly manage
its resources on behalf of the tribe. These range from protecting and
properly managing the products of the forest to managing the vast
wildlife in each one such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep and wolves. For
example, the Payette Forest will need increased funding for monitoring
over the next several years. Increased funding is necessary so that the
Forest Service can meet these trust obligations and continue to work
with tribes such as the Nez Perce on a Government-to-government basis.
The tribe also strongly supports the recommendations of USFS in the
fiscal year 2013 Presidential budget justification for the United
States Department of Agriculture to eliminate or delete section 431 of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74) from the
fiscal year 2013 budget. Section 431 restricts agency flexibility in
the implementation of decisions and will prove harmful to the Nez Perce
Tribe as it will limit the ability of USFS to provide protection to
treaty reserved resources of the Nez Perce Tribe such as big horn
sheep.
Similarly, the tribe is looking for funding for solutions to help
with its Bison hunt in the Gallatin National Forest near Yellowstone
National Park. For the last 6 years, the Nez Perce Tribe has returned
to the Gallatin to exercise its treaty right to harvest bison in that
area. The treaty hunt has been successful and this year the tribe
harvested more than 80 animals. However, disease transmission by the
bison is a concern and therefore a ship and slaughter program used by
the State of Montana to protect domestic livestock has the potential to
endanger such treaty based hunts. More funding for work and research to
assist in helping USFS, FWS, and the National Park Service meet the
treaty hunting rights of the Nez Perce Tribe and the Confederated
Tribes of the Salish Kootenai is needed.
Environmental Protection Agency
The Nez Perce Tribe currently implements, on behalf of EPA, the
Federal Air Rules for Reservations program (FARR). The program monitors
air quality and regulates field burning throughout the Nez Perce
Reservation. The tribe is located in Region 10 of the EPA. The tribe is
currently dependent on several EPA sources for funding for the FARR.
Continued funding is needed for tribes to meet their air quality needs
and operate programs under the delegation of the EPA. EPA consistently
uses the Nez Perce Tribe's FARR Direct Implementation Tribal
Cooperative Agreement (DITCA) program as a model of success but Region
10 is being forced to look for ways that the Nez Perce Tribe can reduce
the cost of its FARR DITCA. The Nez Perce Tribe cannot cut its FARR
DITCA budget without adversely impacting the tribe's ability to protect
the health and welfare of the 18,000 residents of the Nez Perce
Reservation. The Nez Perce Tribe currently operates its entire FARR
DITCA program for about the same cost per year as the State of Idaho
operates solely an agricultural burning program, therefore, EPA gets a
much bigger ``bang for their buck'' with the FARR DITCA program
compared to the state program and is a program worthy of investment.
The tribe was pleased to see that most tribal set asides received
increased funding in fiscal year 2012. Funding for these tribal
programs is important. In addition to the air quality program, the
tribe is currently in facilitated discussions with the State of Idaho
that are being funded through grants from the EPA. The facilitated
discussions involve the tribe adopting water quality standards to
improve the water quality on the Nez Perce Reservation. The tribe also
relies heavily on contract support dollars for our water resource
programs such as the storage tank remediation issues and watershed
restoration. As you can see, the Nez Perce Tribe does a variety of
work, sometimes instead of and sometimes on behalf of the United States
but the tribe still expects the United States to provide proper funding
under its trust obligations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal year 2013
Interior, Environment and Related agencies appropriations. My name is
Billy Frank, Jr. and I am the Chairman of the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). The NWIFC is comprised of the 20 tribes
that are party to the United States vs. Washington \1\ (U.S. vs.
Washington). To meet the many natural resource management
responsibilities required of the tribes, I submit the following
requests for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United States vs. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed
Western Washington Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2013 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Rights Protection Implementation
Provide $17.146 million for BIA Western Washington Fisheries
Management.
Provide $2.777 million for BIA Washington State Timber, Fish and
Wildlife (TFW).
Provide $4.8 million for BIA U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
(PST) Implementation.
Provide $2.4 million for BIA Salmon Marking.
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
Provide $5.452 million for BIA Fish Hatchery Maintenance.
Contract Support
Provide $228 million for BIA Contract Support.
Environmental Protection Agency
Provide $96.375 million for EPA General Assistance Program (GAP).
Provide $20 million for EPA Multi-media Tribal Implementation
Grants Program.
Provide $50 million for EPA Puget Sound.
National Requests
We also support the budget priorities and funding requests of the
National Congress of American Indians.
TREATY RIGHTS AT RISK AND THE FEDERAL TRUST OBLIGATION
Before providing justification on our specific funding requests, I
want to highlight an initiative that we have been pursuing--our Treaty
Rights at Risk initiative. The treaty rights of the western Washington
treaty tribes to harvest salmon are in imminent danger. The danger
exists due to the inability to restore salmon habitat faster than it is
being destroyed. The Federal Government has an obligation to the tribes
to protect their constitutionally based treaty rights. By fulfilling
these Federal obligations and implementing our requested changes to
protect and restore salmon habitat, I have no doubt that we will
recover the salmon populations. It is imperative that we are successful
with this initiative as salmon are critical to the tribal cultures,
traditions and their economies.
The tribes have developed sophisticated natural resource programs
designed to protect and enhance their treaty rights. Tribal programs
have served as the backbone of salmon recovery, providing the
technical, policy, and legal framework for this incredibly difficult
task. Tribes perform complicated harvest, hatchery and habitat
management tasks that neither the state nor the Federal Government can
effectively carry out. It is because of the role that tribes play in
protecting their rights that they require adequate, long-term, and
stable funding.
We are pleased that the fiscal year 2013 President's budget
continues to be supportive of the northwest tribes' natural resources
funding requests. On behalf of our 20 member tribes, our specific
requests to the fiscal year 2013 natural resource management programs
contained in the BIA and EPA are further described below.
JUSTIFICATION OF REQUESTS
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Provide $17.146 Million for Bureau of Indian Affairs
Western Washington Fisheries Management
Over the past several years, the tribes and the NWIFC have
requested an increase of $12 million in the base Western Washington
Fisheries Management program (WW). In fiscal year 2010, the Congress
heard our plea and increased the national Rights Protection
Implementation account by $12 million with $3.386 million of this going
to the WW Program. This increase was very much appreciated, however, we
once again ask Congress to address the remaining identified needs of
the NWIFC and our member tribes. The President's fiscal year 2013
budget contains $8.66 million. We respectfully request $17.146 million,
an increase of $8.486 million more than the President's fiscal year
2013 budget. This request is consistent with our needs assessment
presented in fiscal year 2010. This will provide new monies for
shellfish, groundfish, enforcement, habitat, wildlife, and other
natural resource management needs.
Provide $2.777 Million for Bureau of Indian Affairs
Washington State Timber, Fish and Wildlife
The Timber-Fish-Wildlife Agreement is one of the most successful
models of collaboration in natural resource management. This
coordinated approach of private forest landowners, environmental
groups, and tribal, State and Federal governments has led to greater
integration of management responsibilities that ensures protection for
salmon and wildlife while allowing for a financially viable timber
industry. Tribes need the ability to participate in this process to
help develop consensus-based solutions for natural resource management
and landowner issues. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget contains
$2.777 million. We support funding this account at $2.777 million as
requested in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget. This will provide
the necessary funding to tribal TFW programs to fully participate in
the TFW process.
Provide $4.8 Million for Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S./
Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty Implementation
The Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985 charges the U.S. Section of
the Pacific Salmon Commission with the responsibility for
implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, a bilateral treaty with
Canada. Tribes assist in meeting the Federal Government's obligations
in implementing the treaty by participating in cooperative research and
data gathering programs. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget
contains $4.364 million. We support the U.S. Section's recommendation
to fund the BIA at $4.8 million, an increase of $436,000 more than the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget. This will provide sufficient
funding to ensure that the tribes can continue to participate
effectively in the bilateral PST process.
Provide $2.4 Million for Bureau of Indian Affairs Salmon
Marking
These funds are used to mark salmon at tribal hatcheries, which are
used to scientifically monitor salmon populations and watersheds in
western Washington. This is necessary due to the Federal requirement to
mass mark Pacific salmon reared in facilities funded by Federal
dollars. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget contains $1.068
million. We respectfully request an additional $1.332 million to fully
implement more extensive selective fisheries targeted at these marked
fish. This is the true need as determined by the tribes to meet the
request of the Congress.
Provide $5.452 Million for Bureau of Indian Affairs Fish
Hatchery Maintenance
Tribal fish hatcheries in western Washington are part of the
largest fish hatchery system in the world. These hatcheries provide
fish that significantly contribute to both non-Indian recreational and
commercial harvest, as well as for tribal fisheries. Today, hatcheries
also play a large role in recovering pacific salmon, many of which are
listed under the Endangered Species Act. A comprehensive needs
assessment study was conducted in fiscal year 2006 by the BIA at the
request of Congress which identified a level of need of more than $48
million in necessary hatchery maintenance and rehabilitation costs.
This account has been increased over the last few years to better
reflect the tribal need and the backlog of maintenance projects
requested for tribal hatcheries. The President's fiscal year 2013
budget contains $4.838 million. We support funding this account at
$5.452 million as previously requested in the President's fiscal year
2012 budget.
Provide $228 Million for Bureau of Indian Affairs Contract
Support Costs
In fiscal year 2011 these funds received an increase of $53.56
million more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $166 million.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget contains $228 million. We
support funding this account at $228 million as requested in the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget. By not fully funding Contract
Support Costs it hampers the tribes' ability to fully exercise their
right to self-govern and requires tribes to use direct program dollars
to fund the required contract support functions.
Environmental Protection Agency
Provide $96.375 Million for Environmental Protection Agency
General Assistance Program
This funding has built essential tribal capacities and remains
critical to the tribes' ability to sustain their important water
quality programs. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget contains
$96.375 million for the nationwide General Assistance Program (GAP). We
support funding this account at $96.375 million as requested in the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget.
Provide $20 Million for Environmental Protection Agency
Multi-Media Tribal Implementation Grants Program
This program was initially included in the President's fiscal year
2011 budget request but it did not receive an appropriation. These
funds would allow the EPA to provide targeted multimedia (cross
discipline) grants to tribes for implementation of Federal
environmental programs. This program logically follows the capacity
building function under the tribal GAP, as noted above. The President's
fiscal year 2013 budget did not include any funding for this new
initiative. We respectfully request $20 million for this program as
previously requested in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget. This
program will provide targeted grants to tribes for implementation of
Federal environmental programs and would move the EPA/tribal
partnership from capacity building to implementation of these important
environmental programs. Identifying western Washington as a pilot for
designing an EPA Indian program implementation strategy would build on
the current investment EPA has made in tribal program development.
Provide $50 Million for Environmental Protection Agency
Puget Sound
The Puget Sound Geographic Program provides essential funding that
will help protect, restore and enhance Puget Sound. Tribes will
continue to seek funding from this EPA account, in coordination with
the Puget Sound Partnership. Such funding will allow the tribes to
participate in the necessary scientific work, implementation measures,
and policy discussions on issues that affect our treaty rights. The
President's fiscal year 2013 budget contains $19.289 million. We
respectfully request $50 million, an increase of $30.711 that restores
this program to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $50 million. With
this level of funding, collaborative work can continue on key marine
issues, salmon recovery, land-use management, and regulatory changes.
CONCLUSION
We know that it is difficult to allocate scarce Federal funds at
this time. However, we believe the management work that we perform to
protect our valuable resources and to help fulfill the trust obligation
of the Federal Government continues to be worthy of your support. Thank
you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board (NPAIHB)
is honored to provide this testimony on the Indian Health Service (IHS)
fiscal year 2013 budget.
Established in 1972, NPAIHB is a Public Law 93-638 tribal
organization that represents 43 federally recognized tribes in the
States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington on healthcare issues. Over the
past 21 years, our Board has conducted a detailed analysis of the
Indian Health Service (IHS) budget. Our Annual IHS Budget Analysis and
Recommendations report has become the authoritative tribal document on
the IHS budget. It is used by the Congress, the administration, and
national Indian health advocates to develop recommendations on the IHS
budget. It is indeed an honor to present you with our recommendations.
Indian Health Disparities
The recent reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act (IHCIA) includes a declaration of national Indian health policy.
The Congress declares that it is the policy of this Nation, in
fulfillment of its special trust responsibilities and legal obligations
to Indians, to ensure the highest possible health status for Indians
and to provide all resources necessary to effect that policy.\1\ The
Congress recognizes that it has a duty to elevate the health status of
American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people to a parity with the
general U.S. population and to provide the resources necessary to do
so. Our recommendations are consistent with this policy declaration and
we respectfully ask the Congress to fulfill this duty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 25 U.S.C. 1601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While tribes have been successful at reducing the burden of certain
health problems, there is strong evidence that other types of diseases
are on the rise for Indian people. For example, national data for
Indian people compared to the United States all races rates indicate
they are 638 percent more likely to die from alcoholism, 400 percent
greater to die from tuberculosis, 291 percent greater to die from
diabetes complications, 91 percent greater to die from suicide, and 67
percent more likely to die from pneumonia and influenza.\2\ In the
Northwest, stagnation in the data indicates a growing gap between the
AI/AN death rate and that of the general population. Evidence suggests
that this gap might be widening in recent years. These data document
the fact that despite the considerable gains that tribes have made at
addressing health disparities, these gains are reversing themselves and
the health of Indian people could be getting worse.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Regional Differences Report, Indian
Health Service, available at: www.ihs.gov.
\3\ Please note findings in The Health of Washington State: A
Statewide Assessment of Health Status, Health Risks, and Health Care
Services, December 2007. Available: http://www.doh.wa.gov/hws/
HWS2007.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: Maintain Current Services
The fundamental budget principle for Northwest Tribes is that the
basic healthcare program must be preserved by the President's budget
request and the Congress. Preserving the IHS base program by funding
the current level of health services should be a fundamental budget
principle of the Congress. Otherwise, how can unmet needs ever be
addressed if the existing program is not maintained? Current services
estimates' calculate mandatory costs increases necessary to maintain
the current level of care. These ``mandatories'' are unavoidable and
include medical and general inflation, Federal and tribal pay act
increases, population growth, and contract support costs.
The IHS congressional justification reports that the President's
budget provides a $115.9 million to support activities identified by
the tribes as budget priorities including increasing resources for the
Contract Health Services (CHS) program; funding Contract Support Costs
(CSC) shortfall; funding for health information technology activities;
and providing routine facility maintenance. The IHS explains that the
overall increase is adequate to ``sustain the Indian health system,
expand access to care, and continue to improve oversight and
accountability'' despite the insignificant increase. How can you
sustain the system or expand access to care if you do not fund
inflation? NPAIHB projections indicate that an additional $287 million
is needed to maintain the current levels of care.
Inflation and population growth alone using actual rates of medical
inflation extrapolated from the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and IHS user
population growth predict that at least $304 million will be needed to
maintain current services. Compound this with the fact that nearly half
of the proposed increase is for staffing and operation of six new
facilities ($49 million), which will only leave $66 million to cover
current services. Estimates developed by the IHS during the fiscal year
2013 budget formulation process and used during tribal consultation to
develop tribal recommendations on the fiscal year 2013 budget, estimate
current services at $136.8 million for pay act costs, inflation, and
population growth. These are IHS estimates and not tribal estimates,
thus there should be no question about the validity of these
projections.
FISCAL YEAR 2013 CURRENT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase
Mandatory Cost To Maintain Current Services needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Health Services Inflation estimated at 5.5 64,112
percent; and Population Growth.........................
Health Services Account (not including Contract Health 167,058
Services) inflation....................................
Contract Support Costs (unfunded)....................... 99,300
Population Growth (estimated at 1.6 percent of Health 72,722
Services accounts).....................................
---------------
Total Mandatory Costs............................. 403,192
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration's proposal does not provide any funding
increases for inflationary costs except for the CHS program. The $54
million increase for the CHS program is respectable but will fall short
by $10 million to maintain current services. Aside from this request
for CHS, there is absolutely no additional funding requested for
inflation, population growth or civilian and tribal pay cost increases.
NPAIHB estimates that at least $213.4 million is needed to fund
inflationary costs and an additional $90.4 million is needed to cover
population growth. Add to this the accumulated past year's CSC
shortfall of $99.3 million, means that there are at least $403 million
in mandatory costs that will have to be absorbed by IHS programs--most
likely by cutting services to Indian people.
Per Capita Spending Comparisons
The most significant trend in the financing of Indian health over
the past 10 years has been the stagnation of the IHS budget. With
exception of a notable increase of 9.2 percent in fiscal year 2001 and
last year's 14-percent increase, the IHS budget has not received
adequate increases to maintain the costs of current services
(inflation, population growth, and pay act increases). The consequence
of this is that the IHS budget is diminished and its purchasing power
has continually been eroded over the years. As an example, in fiscal
year 2009, we estimated that it would take at least $513 million to
maintain current services \4\. The final appropriation for the IHS was
a $235 million increase, falling short by $278 million. This means that
tribes must absorb unfunded inflation and population growth by cutting
health services. The IHS Federal Disparity Index (FDI) is often used to
cite the level of funding for the Indian health system relative to its
total need. The FDI compares actual healthcare costs for an IHS
beneficiary to those costs of a beneficiary served in mainstream
America. The FDI uses actuarial methods that control for age, sex, and
health status to price health benefits for Indian people using the
Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) plan, which is then used to
make per capita health expenditure comparisons. It is estimated by the
FDI, that the IHS system is funded at less than 60 percent of its total
need.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Fiscal Year 2009 IHS Budget Analysis & Recommendations,
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, March 17, 2008; available:
www.npaihb.org.
\5\ Level of Need Workgroup Report, Indian Health Service,
available: www.ihs.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2013 Indian Health Services Budget Recommendations
NPAIHB recognizes that the following recommendations may seem
unreasonable in the current fiscal environment. However when the
significant healthcare needs of Indian people are considered, our
recommendations are realistic. We all recognize that in this difficult
budget environment, we all must make sacrifices for our country. As the
historic record on Indians will demonstrate, no one has sacrificed more
than Native Americans. We hope you will recognize the significant
healthcare needs of Indian Country by supporting the IHS budget.
--NPAIHB recommends that the subcommittee restore funding eliminated
in the President's request for inflation, population growth and
tribal pay costs. Our estimates are based on budget worksheets
provided and used by the IHS during fiscal year 2013 National
Budget Formulation Meetings. We recommend $13.4 million to
cover tribal pay costs; $60 million for inflation, and; $52.4
million for population growth.
--NPAIHB recommends that at least an additional $10 million be
provided for the IHS Contract Health Service Program (CHS) to
cover inflation and population growth. The CHS program is
extremely important for Portland area tribes since we do not
have any hospitals and rely on the CHS program for all
specialty and inpatient care. Other parts of the IHS system
have access to hospitals for specialty and inpatient care.
Because of this, the CHS program makes up 34 percent of the
Portland area budget and when less than adequate inflation and
population growth increases are provided, Portland area tribes
are forced to cut health services to absorb these mandatory
costs.
--We recommend that the subcommittee provide an additional $99.3
million to fund past years' CSC shortfalls that are owed to
tribes under Public Law 93-638. The well-documented
achievements of the Indian self-determination policies have
consistently improved service delivery, increased service
levels, and strengthened tribal governments, institutions, and
services for Indian people. Every administration since 1975 has
embraced this policy and the Congress has repeatedly affirmed
it through extensive amendments to strengthen the Self-
Determination Act in 1988 and 1994.
--The Portland area has developed a new innovative approach to
constructing health facilities in order to address the health
needs of tribes. Portland tribes have conducted a pilot study
to examine the feasibility of developing regional referral
specialty care centers to improve healthcare access and quality
of healthcare. The study concludes that regional referral
specialty care centers are feasible, and recommended a
demonstration project to validate the concept's viability
through the collection of actual data. The pilot study
recommended that the demonstration project be located in the
Northwest quadrant of the Portland Area. This would serve
24,000 users from tribal facilities within 1 hour's drive. We
recommend that the subcommittee include $10 million for the
Portland Area to develop this demonstration project.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide our recommendations on
the fiscal year 2013 IHS budget. I am happy to respond to any questions
from the subcommittee.
______
Letter From Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
Portland, OR, February 22, 2012.
Yvette Roubideaux, M.D., M.P.H.,
Director, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 440,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Dear Dr. Roubideaux: On behalf of the IHS Contract Support Cost
(CSC) Work Group, I want to thank you for reconvening the Work Group to
begin the evaluation process concerning the 2007 CSC Policy contained
in the IHS Manual. As the Tribal Chair of the CSC Work Group, I write
to follow up on the Work Group's initial recommendations made during
our January 31-February 2012 Rockville, Maryland meeting.
You charged the CSC Workgroup with reviewing and evaluating the
2007 CSC Policy changes, but to also make recommendations on how to
improve other aspects of the Policy. You also requested that we
consider technical revisions to clarify definitions, consider deadlines
and dates that are referenced in the Policy, and engage in a discussion
about whether tribes remain open to having their data disclosed for
purposes of reporting CSC requirements and deficiencies. In order to
address this ambitious agenda, I believe it is important that we
identify specific follow-up actions needed for the CSC Workgroup to
complete its work in an efficient manner and to prepare for our next
meetings.
As we explained during our exit meeting, the CSC Work Group cannot
do an assessment of the 2007 CSC Policy until IHS complies with the
existing Policy by releasing the data which the Policy currently
requires be released. In substantial part, reviewing this data will
permit the Work Group to assess how the 2007 changes which you have
requested us to examine have worked over time. All of the data the CSC
Work Group requested for fiscal year 2009, fiscal year 2010, and fiscal
year 2011 is required to be disclosed under IHS Manual, Chapter 6-
3.5(8)(4). We expressly did not request the disclosure of congressional
reports that are not yet cleared for disclosure. Again, absent
disclosure of this raw data, the Work Group believes it cannot proceed
with a full assessment of the 2007 Policy, as charged. I respectfully
renew our request that this data be released.
The CSC Workgroup also requests additional information concerning
the following items:
--When were the Ch. 6-3.5(B) data reports certified by the IHS Chief
Financial Officer for fiscal year 2009, fiscal year 2010 and
fiscal year 2011?
--What specific provisions of the Manual does IHS propose be changed
and how does IHS propose they be changed? (A redline of IHS's
suggestions would expedite the Work Group's review and work.)
--What provision of law or regulation has been relied upon by IHS to
withhold disclosure of the data reports regarding the
expenditure of closed appropriations? As we discussed, we
believe these disclosures are not only necessary to comply with
the Policy, but necessary to facilitate maximum tribal
consultation on issues directly impacting federally recognized
tribes.
--What is the allocation plan for the $74 million increase in
contract support cost appropriations enacted for fiscal year
2012? (The Manual requires the allocation by March 30, 2012,
and the Work Group believes that disclosure of the allocation
plan before allocations are made will maximize the President's
commitment to tribal consultation.)
--How were the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 CSC
appropriations allocated?
The forgoing information is essential for the CSC Work Group to
fully and properly review the existing CSC Policy, consistent with the
Government-to-government relationship and the President's commitment to
maximum tribal consultation.
With regard to dates and deadlines, I would note that, while some
of the dates may initially be confusing, I understand that the dates
and deadlines were specifically adopted to accommodate the declination
and rejection deadlines that appear in the Indian Self-Determination
Act. I also understand that other dates and deadlines were adopted by
IHS to permit an orderly reporting process and a prompt allocation of
appropriated funds based upon that data. It would be beneficial to the
CSC Work Group to have IHS staff go through the Policy, to review the
dates and logic behind them, and to propose other dates that might
better achieve these goals consistent with the Act. The Work Group
intends to do the same.
Similarly with regard to definitions and terms, efficiency in Work
Group meetings will best be served if IHS would identify the terms or
definitions that agency staff would like us to consider revising, again
using a ``redline'' method. CSC Work Group members should also feel
free to prepare ``redline'' amendments which they would like the full
Work Group to consider. All such redline documents should be shared
with one another prior to our next meeting.
Finally, I would like to accommodate the request of some CSC Work
Group members for an orientation to CSC policy. Toward this end, I
believe it would be most beneficial to arrange a joint Federal-Tribal
panel that would provide a brief history of the CSC changes that have
taken place over the years, and a discussion of how the key Policy
provisions are being implemented. This will allow new Work Group
members and IHS staff, alike, to see the evolution of the Policy to its
present form. I understand that the goal of each successive change has
been to improve equity across tribes while maximizing tribal self-
determination. If so, the more Work Group members and IHS staff
understand this evolution, the more likely we are to develop new
recommendations consistent with those goals. I am committed to working
with you to develop this joint Federal-Tribal presentation for the
Workgroup.
I am hopeful that with assistance from IHS staff we can get these
requests organized and addressed over the next 2 weeks, so that we
prepare an agenda for our next CSC Work Group meetings. I believe our
request is consistent with your priorities to strengthen the IHS's
partnership with tribes and to have the work of IHS be as transparent,
accountable, fair, and inclusive as possible. Our request is consistent
with your principles to improve the work of IHS.
I have directed my technical staff, Jim Roberts, NPAIHB Policy
Analyst, to work with your office or designee to follow up on the
details of this letter. You and your staff should feel free to contact
Mr. Roberts at (503) 228-4185 or by email at [email protected].
Respectfully,
Andrew Joseph, Jr.,
Chairperson, Colville Tribal Council Member, Tribal Chair, CSC
Workgroup.
Enclosures:
ATNI Resolution
GPTCHB Resolution
NORTHWEST PORTLAND AREA INDIAN HEALTH BOARD
Burns Paiute Tribe
Chehalis Tribe
Coeur d' Alene Tribe
Colville Tribe
Coos, Suislaw & Lower Umpqua Tribe
Coquille Tribe
Cow Creek Tribe
Cowlitz Tribe
Grand Ronde Tribe
Hoh Tribe
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
Kalispel Tribe
Klamath Tribe
Kootenai Tribe
Lower Elwha Tribe
Lummi Tribe
Makah Tribe
Muckleshoot Tribe
Nez Perce Tribe
Nisqually Tribe
Nooksack Tribe
NW Band of Shoshone Tribe
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
Puyallup Tribe
Quilecute Tribe
Quinault Tribe
Samish Indian Nation
Sauk-Suiattle Tribe
Shoalwater Bay Tribe
Shoshone-Bannock Tribe
Siletz Tribe
Skokomish Tribe
Snoqualmie Tribe
Spokane Tribe
Squaxin Island Tribe
Stillaguamish Tribe
Suquamish Tribe
Swinomish Tribe
Tulalip Tribe
Umatilla Tribe
Upper Skagit Tribe
Warm Springs Tribe
Yakama Nation
______
2012 WINTER CONVENTION, SHELTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION #12-09
``REQUESTING THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES (IHS) DIRECTOR TO DIVULGE
CONTRACT SUPPORT COST (CSC) DATA PURSUANT TO THE IHS CONTRACT SUPPORT
COST POLICY; AND SUPPORT FOR THE NORTHWEST PORTLAND AREA INDIAN HEALTH
BOARD (NPAIHB) FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FOR CSC DATA''
PREAMBLE
We, the members of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians of
the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our
efforts and purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our
descendants rights secured under Indian Treaties, Executive Orders, and
benefits to which we are entitled under the laws and constitution of
the United States and several States, to enlighten the public toward a
better understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural
values, and otherwise to promote the welfare of the Indian people, do
hereby establish and submit the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) are
representatives of and advocates for national, regional, and specific
tribal concerns; and
WHEREAS, ATNI is a regional organization comprised of American
Indians/Alaska Natives and tribes in the States of Washington, Idaho,
Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Northern California, and Alaska; and
WHEREAS, the health, safety, welfare, education, economic and
employment opportunity, and preservation of cultural and natural
resources are primary goals and objectives of the ATNI; and
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2011, the Indian Health Service (IHS)
Director sent a Dear Tribal Leader Letter initiating Tribal
consultation on the IHS 2007 Contract Support Cost (CSC) Policy, the
purpose of the consultation is to review and evaluate policy changes
made in 2007, and to make recommendations on whether to continue or
change the IHS CSC Policy; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 CSC Policy revised the methodology associated
with CSC funding for new or expanded awards under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638,
as amended), at section 6-3.3A(3) and Manual Exhibit 6-3-D; this change
was temporary and implemented only for fiscal years 2007-2010. The CSC
Policy further states that:
``To ensure responsiveness to the needs of Tribes in administering
their health programs, and continued support of the IHS's commitment to
the Federal Government's policy of Indian Self-Determination, the
change will be monitored and fully evaluated during the fiscal year
2010 funding period to determine if the change should be made
permanent.''
All other aspects of the CSC Policy were unchanged; and
WHEREAS, as part of the Tribal consultation process the IHS
Director appointed a CSC Workgroup comprised of Tribal leaders or
designees to act on their behalf who convened their first meeting in
Rockville, Maryland on January 31-February 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, in order for the CSC Workgroup to evaluate the impact of
the 2007 CSC Policy changes the Workgroup must have CSC data in order
to assess the impact that the CSC Policy changes have had on the CSC
shortfall, deficiencies, and to evaluate the impact of the policy
change on new and expanded programs as well as the impact on current
self-determination contractors and compactors; and
WHEREAS, during the CSC Workgroup meeting the IHS Director refused
to divulge CSC data with the Workgroup, which resulted at an impasse
between the IHS Director and the Workgroup and resulted in the CSC
Workgroup not being able to complete its charge to evaluate the 2007
CSC Policy changes; and
WHEREAS, the CSC Workgroup acknowledges that prior year's CSC data
has been regularly disclosed by IHS to Tribal leaders, the public and
to Indian Tribes at meetings attended by the IHS Director and by
representatives of the Office and Management and Budget; and
WHEREAS, the CSC Workgroup contends that there is no basis in law
for withholding disclosure of the requested CSC data and documents; and
WHEREAS, absent the CSC data the CSC Workgroup cannot and should
not evaluate the impact of the 2007 CSC Policy changes, and to do so
would not be fiscally prudent nor in the best interest of Indian
Tribes; and
WHEREAS, if IHS does not complete the evaluation of the 2007 policy
changes, the Agency will be out of compliance with its CSC Policy; now
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that ATNI does hereby request that the
Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary for the Department of
Health and Human Services and the IHS Director make available and
disclose CSC data prepared pursuant to the IHS Contract Support Cost
Policy at Chapter 6-3.5(B)(4) for fiscal year 2009, fiscal year 2010,
and fiscal year 2011; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that ATNI does hereby acknowledge and
support the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by the
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board for Contract Support Cost
data for fiscal year 2010, fiscal year 2011, and fiscal year 2012; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of
ATNI until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution.
CERTIFICATION
The foregoing resolution was adopted at the 2012 Winter Convention
of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, held at Little Creek
Casino Resort, Shelton, Washington on February 13-16, 2012, with a
quorum present.
Fawn Sharp,
President.
Norma Jean Louie,
SECRETARY.
______
GREAT PLAINS TRIBAL CHAIRMAN'S HEALTH BOARD
RESOLUTION 2012-02
WHEREAS, the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Health Board (GPTCHB)
is comprised of the Chairmen/Presidents of seventeen (17) Tribes and
one (1) Health organization in a four State area including North
Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa; and
WHEREAS, federally recognized Indian Tribes have an absolute right
to healthcare from the United States Federal Government, based on
treaty rights, on Congressional Acts, on Federal Court decisions, and
on the Federal Government's trust responsibility to Indian Tribes;
WHEREAS, the GPTCHB is primarily responsible for addressing the
health concerns and needs of the American Indian Tribes in the Aberdeen
Area; and
WHEREAS, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association recognizes
that over 20 percent of the Aberdeen Area IHS budget is currently
operated by Tribes under self-determination contracts; and
WHEREAS, tribes cannot operate these contracts properly without
full reimbursement of indirect costs and other contract support costs;
and
WHEREAS, despite substantial increases in fiscal year 2010 and
fiscal year 2012, IHS has historically failed (and continues to fail)
to request full funding from Congress and failed (and continues to
fail) to fully reimburse tribal contract support costs; and
WHEREAS, services to tribal members suffer when Tribes have to use
program funds to cover the shortfall in IHS contract support cost
reimbursements; and
WHEREAS, the law (25 U.S.C. 450j-1(c)) and the IHS Manual (IHS
Manual Part 6, Chapter 3.5B) requires that IHS annually track and
publish all indirect, contract support need and contract support
shortfall data for every Tribe in the country;
WHEREAS, in violation of the IHS Manual (IHS Manual Part 6, Chapter
3.5B), HIS has failed and refused to distribute this data to all Tribes
for fiscal year 2010, fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012, either
nationally or on an Area basis (showing data for all Tribes within each
Area); and
WHEREAS, due to this failure, Tribes cannot tell how IHS is
handling and managing tribal contract support cost funds, either from
Tribe to Tribe or from Area to Area, and also cannot tell how IHS is
allocating its contract support cost appropriation and whether it is
doing so in conformity with the law and the IHS Manual; and
WHEREAS, the law mandates the public disclosure of all contract
support and related data for every tribal contract, and Tribes
therefore do not object to this disclosure of financial data regarding
contracted Federal funds; and
WHEREAS, IHS's failure to share its data on a timely basis, as
mandated by the IHS Manual, is unprecedented, is particularly
inappropriate for an Administration committed to transparency, and has
contributed to a lack of trust in the Indian Health Service;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Great Plains Tribal
Chairman's Health Board calls upon the Director of IHS to immediately
release all data specified in IHS Manual Part 6, Chapter 3.5B for
fiscal year 2010, fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 for every Tribe
in the United States, including data showing how IRS calculated the
distribution of contract support cost funds in fiscal year 2010 and
fiscal year 2011, and data showing how IHS has calculated the
distribution of contract support cost funds for fiscal year 2012.
certification
This is to certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the
GPTCHB Board/Executive Committee by Meeting/Conference Call/Special
session, February 6, 2012 by a vote of _11_ FOR _0_ OPPOSED _7_ NOT
VOTING.
MOTION CARRIED/DENIED.
Rodger Trudell,
GPTCHB Chairmen, Chairmen, Santee Sioux Nation.
John Blackhawk,
GPTCHB Vice-Chairmen, Chairmen, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
______
Prepared Statement of the Norton Sound Health Corporation
The request of the Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC) for the
fiscal year 2013 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget is $21.6 million
for the staffing of our new hospital and ambulatory care center which
will open this fall. This is $10.9 million in addition to the
administration's request of only $10.6 million.
The Norton Sound Health Corporation is the only regional health
system serving Northwestern Alaska, along the Bering Strait Region. The
system includes a regional hospital, which we own and operate under an
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA)
agreement, and 15 village-based clinics \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We serve the communities of:
-- Brevig Mission;
-- Council;
-- Diomede;
-- Elim;
-- Gambell;
-- Golovin;
-- King Island;
-- Koyuk;
-- Mary's Igloo;
-- Nome;
-- St. Michael;
-- Savoonga;
-- Shaktoolik;
-- Shishmaref;
-- Solomon;
-- Stebbins;
-- Teller;
-- Unalakleet;
-- Wales; and
-- White Mountain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSHC is in the final stages of completing the construction of a
replacement hospital and ambulatory care center facility in Nome. The
construction was funded by the Recovery Act. NSHC worked its way over
many years to the top of the IHS health facility construction priority
system and when the Recovery Act was enacted we were in a position to
be awarded $160 million in construction funds. The IHS and Norton Sound
Health Corporation have been working together as Government-to-
government partners to construct and furnish the new facility, in part
under a title V Construction Project Agreement under ISDEAA.
Construction has proceeded on course and NSHC will open its new
facility early this fall. Now, IHS has only to fund the expanded
staffing needs for operation of the replacement hospital.
The replacement facility is almost three times the size of the
current Norton Sound Regional Hospital and will allow for increased
patient visits in the primary and acute care areas, including chronic
disease prevention and management, and allow us to provide enhanced
trauma and emergency services. And the presence of a significant number
of new jobs at the replacement hospital will give an economic boost to
the Nome area.
The Administration's Staffing Proposal Would Not Allow Optimal Use
of the Facility.--The administration's request of funding for only 81
new positions in fiscal year 2013 for the Norton Sound replacement
hospital would greatly constrain our ability to effectively utilize
this new facility. We point out to the subcommittee that the IHS Alaska
Area office recommended to IHS Headquarters that we need 159 new
positions in fiscal year 2013, based on the IHS Resources Requirements
Methodology (RRM), and that is what we are requesting. While NSHC will
still be able to open in the fall if only 81 new positions are funded,
the result would be that NSHC could not expand healthcare services,
which is after all the purpose of the new and larger facility. NSHC
would be limited to funding only the necessary maintenance, facilities,
technology, and security positions--few if any new needed healthcare
provider positions could be filled.
For instance, NSHC currently has two in-house dentists, while our
new facility has space for a much needed 12-chair dental operation. The
unmet dental need in our region is staggerinig, but under the
administration's proposal we perhaps could add only one dentist.
Failing to provide adequate dental staffing through a new staffing
package will in essence result in a failure to fully realize the
Recovery Act funding spent for the new hospital and its intention to be
used to provide increased and quality healthcare services in Nome.
Exacerbating the inadequate funding request is that the IHS
provides funding for only 85 percent of what it identifies as staffing
need. Further straining the staffing situation is the fact that we
received no fiscal year 2012 funds for the costly transition to the new
facility. Transition to a new and much larger facility requires a great
deal of planning, training, and coordination. Patients must be
transported, some equipment moved, and staff must master new mechanical
and electrical systems, medical equipment and work flow systems. Just
moving into the new facility will require $2-$3 million in operational
costs that the Norton Sound Health Corporation cannot divert to
staffing needs.
Should NSHC receive only enough fiscal year 2013 funding for 81 new
positions, it will greatly limit our ability to recruit and hire
medical professionals; much of the hiring in fiscal year 2013 would of
necessity be core operational staff, as opposed to additional
healthcare providers. Even if additional funding is provided for
staffing in fiscal year 2014, it is nearly impossible to successfully
recruit medical staff--likely some who will need to move to Nome with
their family--based on an anticipation of the Congress potentially
making the money available in a future year. Delaying the funding over
a 2-year fiscal period would thus prevent the Norton Sound Health
Corporation from recruiting and filling needed healthcare professionals
until well into 2015--up to 3 years or more after we open the new
facility.
Given the realities of the appropriations process, we greatly need
the full funding in fiscal year 2013 for 159 new positions at a total
cost of $21.6 million.
Village Built Clinics Lease Program.--We also remind the
subcommittee that Norton Sound Health Corporation filed joint testimony
with Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Bristol Bay Area Health
Corporation and Maniilaq Association--all co-signers to the Alaska
Tribal Health Compact--regarding the urgent need for additional fiscal
year 2013 IHS funding for the Village Built Lease Program. As noted
above, the Norton Sound Health Corporation healthcare system includes
15 village-built clinics.
Thank you for your consideration of our request that adequate
fiscal year 2013 IHS staffing funding be made available for the Norton
Sound Health Corporation replacement hospital. We are very excited
about the possibilities this facility brings for improved healthcare
for the people of northwestern Alaska. We are happy to provide any
additional information you may request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Energy Institute
The Nuclear Energy Institute \1\ (NEI) appreciates the opportunity
to express its concern over the revision or enforcement of certain
regulations promulgated, and actions taken under certain laws, by the
Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Nuclear Energy Institute is the industry's policy
organization, whose broad mission is to foster the beneficial uses of
nuclear technology in its many commercial forms. Its membership, more
than 350 corporate members in 17 countries, includes every U.S. utility
that operates a nuclear powerplant as well as international utilities,
plant designers, architect and engineering firms, uranium mining and
milling companies, nuclear service providers, universities,
manufacturers of radiopharmaceuticals, universities, labor unions, and
law firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--EPA's infeasible requirements and prohibitively restrictive
definitions in the proposed rule for existing facilities
implementing section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act governing
cooling water intake structures;
--The Department of the Interior's withdrawal of land in northern
Arizona from uranium mining activity;
--BLM's proposal to amend land segregation regulations to allow
withdrawal of lands from mining activity when they are included
in a pending or future wind or solar energy generation right-
of-way application, or identified by BLM for potential
authorization for that purpose;
--BLM sage grouse habitat management in 10 Western States, which
could unduly restrict uranium mining activity; and
--EPA Region 6's departure from EPA Guidelines for Reviewing Aquifer
Exemption Requests for mining projects and unilaterally
establishing its own evaluation standards.
316(b) Regulations Will Increase Consumer Electricity Prices With no
Environmental Benefit Unless They Are Made More Flexible To
Account for Ecological, Geographic and Engineering Diversity of
Existing Industrial Facilities
EPA has issued a proposed regulation to reduce aquatic life
mortality at cooling system intake structures for existing industrial
facilities, including powerplants. The final rule is scheduled to be
promulgated in July. The proposed regulation treats entrainment (fish
drawn through the cooling system) and impingement (fish trapped on
intake screens of these systems) separately. The proposed impingement
requirements will result in the installation of costly, ineffective
technologies with no assurance of compliance or environmental benefit.
The EPA cost-benefit calculations indicate that the proposed rule will
cost citizens 21 times the benefit they will derive if these changes at
facilities are implemented. In addition, the Nation's electricity
sector could face grid reliability challenges if the rule is
promulgated recommending excessive mitigation technologies that could
reduce plant efficiency and electrical output.
Studies of aquatic life population conducted periodically at
America's powerplants indicate that once-through cooling systems do not
harm aquatic life populations. This is because the very small number of
fish lost to the cooling system, when compared to the overall
population, is readily replaced by reproduction. Any nationwide numeric
performance standard ignores ecosystem diversity at the 1,152 affected
sites. For instance, there are 3,153 species of fish in U.S. waters.
Every water body has a different mix and population of fish species and
each species differs in susceptibility to impingement and impingement
mortality, and in behavioral responses to various technologies
developed to prevent these occurrences.
If EPA continues to insist upon a nationwide impingement
requirement, it should be a technology-based standard that would
accommodate rather than violate site diversity. The regulation should
offer a variety of pre-approved technologies from which to choose for
compliance. Also, there should be the opportunity to propose an
alternative technology if it can achieve significant impingement
mortality reduction at that site.
The electricity industry, including companies who own and operate
nuclear energy plants, continues to encourage EPA to develop cooling
water intake structure regulations that strike a reasonable balance
between electricity production and environmental protection. A
technology-based standard for a nationwide impingement requirement
would accommodate site bio-diversity. The proposed rule, in its current
form, does not achieve these results. We ask the subcommittee to
encourage EPA to adopt a technology-based standard for impingement.
The Department of the Interior's Withdrawal of Land From New Uranium
Mining in Northern Arizona Is Unnecessary for Environmental
Protection and Removes From Production a Domestic Source of
High-Grade Uranium for Energy Security
DOI has withdrawn from new uranium mining activity 1 million acres
outside the boundaries of the Grand Canyon National Park, which
encompasses 1.2 million acres and includes a buffer zone to protect the
Grand Canyon. There is no current or proposed uranium mining inside
Grand Canyon National Park.
The proposed land withdrawal is not justified by information
contained in DOI's Final Environmental Impact Statement. For instance,
regarding land disturbance, ``impact to overall soil productivity and
watershed function would be small because the level of disturbance
represents a very small fraction of the respective parcel areas.'' In
terms of water resources, ``impacts would be local and temporary.''
Modern in situ mining practices and standards, unlike the mining of 50
to 60 years ago, have minimal environmental impact. Contrary to
Secretary Salazar's statement in announcing the land withdrawal on
January 9, today's environmental laws ensure that ore extraction and
production at uranium mines have negligible impact on surrounding land,
water and wildlife.
Uranium resources in the Arizona Strip are among the highest-grade
ores in the United States. These uranium resources are higher grade
than 85 percent of the world's uranium resources, according to DOI's
Final Environmental Impact Statement. The area represents as much as
375 million pounds of uranium--more than seven times U.S. annual
demand. NEI supports legislation introduced in the Senate and the House
to overturn the DOI decision. NEI encourages the subcommittee to hold
an oversight hearing on this very important issue.
The Bureau of Land Management's Proposal To Amend Land Segregation
Regulations To Allow Withdrawal of Lands From Mining Activity
for Wind or Solar Energy Generation Violates the Multiple-Use
Mandate of Federal Lands, Penalizing Economic Growth and Job
Creation
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 requires BLM to
manage public lands to accommodate multiple uses and to provide for the
Nation's mineral needs so that the most benefit will accrue to U.S.
citizens. Conflicts should be resolved in favor of maximum land use and
benefit. The BLM proposal violates the multiple-use requirement, being
overly broad in its outright segregation of lands for renewable energy
use only. Moreover, the amendment is unnecessary, as conflict
resolution is possible.
Mining and all renewable energy projects are not mutually
exclusive. Wind energy projects and mining operations can be co-located
and developed simultaneously. Solar projects consisting of fields of
photovoltaic panels, on the other hand, eliminate all other uses of the
land, including grazing, recreation, and oil and gas exploration and
production. Photovoltaic fields also eliminate the mining of minerals,
many of which are required for renewable energy generation and
transmission.
Thus, rather than BLM designating lands solely for solar projects,
NEI urges the subcommittee to direct BLM to evaluate whether other
potential uses of Federal land are being prevented and if benefits
would be lost to the American public during the BLM process of
determining sole use segregation of land for renewable energy
production.
The Bureau of Land Management's Sage Grouse Habitat Management in 10
Western States May Unduly Restrict Uranium Mining Activity
BLM has issued two instructional memorandums regarding immediate
and longer-term conservation actions for sage grouse priority habitat
(breeding, late brood-rearing, winter concentration areas) and general
habitat (additional occupied seasonal or year-round areas). Both types
of habitat are being identified in collaboration with state wildlife
agencies.
The affected Western States are California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington,
and Wyoming. With about 47 million acres of sage grouse habitat
involved, BLM's conservation efforts could have a substantial impact on
uranium mining activity on public lands. Wyoming's guidance for sage
grouse preservation has been approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service
and adopted by BLM. For the other States, the interim management
memorandum guidance instructs mining operators ``to avoid effects on
sage grouse and its habitat.''
According to the long-term planning directive memorandum, BLM will
establish consistent protection measures for the sage grouse and its
habitat. BLM will incorporate the protection measures into one or more
alternatives for analysis in the environmental impact statements that
BLM will use to amend its resource management plans. These plans are
scheduled for release in 2014. NEI believes there is the potential that
these plans will require wholesale withdrawal of lands from mining
activities with no validity examination allowed for ongoing or future
mining claims.
NEI recommends close congressional oversight of the BLM process for
releasing the Sage Grouse Habitat Management plan. In addition, NEI
asks that the subcommittee direct BLM to adopt a balanced approach to
sage grouse conservation that is consistent with BLM's statutory
mandate for multiple uses of public lands and avoid or minimize adverse
social and economic impacts.
EPA Region 6's Departure From EPA Guidelines for Reviewing Aquifer
Exemption Requests Will Have a Prohibitive Effect on Expanding
the Domestic Uranium Industry
EPA guidance is clear regarding evaluation of requests to exempt
aquifers from drinking water protections so that mining projects can
proceed:
--the exempted area does not currently serve as a source of drinking
water; and
--it cannot now, and will not in the future, serve as a source of
drinking water because of the presence of minerals or
hydrocarbons expected to be commercially producible.
To demonstrate that a particular area meets these requirements,
applicants must perform, respectively, a water well survey covering the
exempted area and a buffer of one-quarter mile from the exempted area's
boundary, and provide a history of mineral production in the area.
In the case of the Goliad County, Texas, uranium mining project,
EPA Region 6 is requiring modeling analysis in addition to a well
survey and history--a unilateral departure from the established EPA
guidance. Moreover, the requested modeling is not defined, and Region 6
says that it will review whatever modeling results are submitted to
determine if more modeling is needed, creating an open-ended regulatory
process.
The new standards unilaterally imposed by Region 6 will jeopardize
future uranium mining in Texas and limit the potential of one of this
country's most promising domestic supplies of uranium. Moreover, this
effect will be compounded if one, or more additional EPA regions,
unilaterally decides to impose its own evaluation criteria counter to
established EPA guidance.
The nuclear industry believes that the result will be a serious
impediment to expanding the domestic uranium industry and ensuring a
reliable and secure supply of nuclear powerplant fuel. In addition, the
EPA Region 6 process introduces uncertainty into well-known guidance.
The overall result will adversely impact U.S. mining operations and
unnecessarily restrict domestic job creation.
NEI urges the subcommittee to direct the agency to review the
guidelines for reviewing aquifer exemption requests to ensure that
these guidelines are clear and the EPA regions are not unilaterally
imposing unfunded mandates on mining companies.
______
Prepared Statement of the Office of the State Engineer, State of New
Mexico
I am requesting your support for fiscal year 2013 appropriations to
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program. The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery
programs are highly successful collaborative conservation partnerships
involving the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
They are working to recover the four species of endemic Colorado River
fish such that they can each be removed from the Federal endangered
species list. Through these efforts, water use and development has
continued in our growing western communities in full compliance with
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), State water and wildlife law, and
interstate compacts. Implementation of the ESA has been greatly
streamlined for Federal agencies, tribes and water users. Recognizing
the need for fiscal responsibility, I must also point out the
participants would all be spending much more in ESA-related costs in
the absence of these programs.
The State of New Mexico requests action by the subcommittee to:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Recovery'' funds (Resource Management
Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species
Subactivity; Recovery of Listed Species Program Element; within
the $81,709,000 item entitled ``Recovery'') for fiscal year
2013 to allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 6
to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado
River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in ``Recovery'' funds (Resource Management
Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species
Subactivity; Recovery of Listed Species Program Element; within
the $81,709,000 item entitled ``Recovery'') to allow FWS Region
2 to continue its essential participation in the San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Program during fiscal year 2013.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $43,189,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS's Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
On behalf of the State of New Mexico, I thank you for your
consideration of my request and for the past support and assistance of
your subcommittee; it has greatly facilitated the ongoing and
continuing success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs that are
vital to the recovery of the endangered fish and providing necessary
water supplies for the growing Intermountain West.
______
Prepared Statement of 1,237 Forest Owners, et al.
Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: Representing the
more than 10 million U.S. family forest owners, the 1,237 undersigned
forest owners would like to show our support and gratitude to all our
State service foresters. In order to ensure these trusted men and women
continue to help forest owners across the country, we urge Congress to
maintain funding for the Forest Stewardship Program--a program that
provides boots-on-the-ground assistance to ensure the health and
vitality of America's forests for generations to come.
Families and individuals steward more of America's forests than the
Federal Government or big companies. With the largest area of forest
ownership, families and individuals own 35 percent--or 251 million
acres--of our Nation's forests. Our forests provide clean air, clean
water, recreation, renewable resources that build our homes and
communities, and good-paying rural jobs. But we cannot do it alone.
Every state has a network of reliable and trusted service foresters
that help us make good forest management decisions. Boots-on-the-ground
make all the difference.
As private forest owners, we rely on the U.S. Forest Service Forest
Stewardship Program, which provides our State foresters with the
resources they need for outreach, education, and technical assistance.
We are grateful for the reliable assistance our service foresters
provide every day. Without this boots-on-ground assistance, forests
will fall victim to an ever-increasing list of challenges, such as
insects and disease, development pressures, and growing ownership
costs.
The planning assistance made possible by the Forest Stewardship
Program helps us realize the full potential of our land and provides us
the peace-of-mind that our forests will be around for our kids and
grandkids to enjoy. We hope that you will maintain current funding for
this important program in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process
so that families (and our forests) continue to reap these important
benefits. We are happy to answer any questions you may have or provide
additional input from the perspective of family forest owners.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important
request.
ALABAMA
Russell Miller, Cullman, AL
Don Heath, Birmingham, AL
Jon H. Gould, Birmingham, AL
Robert Amason, Tuscaloosa, AL
Frances Lewis, Aliceville, AL
Rusty Lewis, Aliceville, AL
Katherine RouLaine, Coker, AL
Irvin Eatman, Eutaw, AL
James P. Jeter, Gordo, AL
Jimmy Murphree, Spruce Pine, AL
Daniel Hogue, Sr., Russellville, AL
Edward Staley, Muscle Shoals, AL
William Snoddy, Huntsville, AL
John C. Pirtle, Billingsley, AL
Derek Bryan, Brantley, AL
Paul Hudgins, Greenville, AL
Walter E. Cartwright, Greenville, AL
Bob Roberts, Pike Road, AL
Noah Poe, Prattville, AL
Rrice and Johnnie Nichols, Prattville, AL
Bill Tomlin, Prattville, AL
James Hyland, Montgomery, AL
Don C. East, Lineville, AL
Lamar Dewberry, Lineville, AL
Bruce Williams, Piedmont, AL
Eddye Williams, Piedmont, AL
Leslie Williams, Piedmont, AL
Paul Williams, Piedmont, AL
Roy Reeves, Roanoke, AL
Ted Vignola, Elba, AL
Gail Jones, Andalusia, AL
Joe Bush, Andalusia, AL
Salem Saloom, Brewton, AL
Haden Swift Tirey, Monroeville, AL
Sara N. Bradley, Monroeville, AL
Jimmy Hutto, Opp, AL
Neal Dansby, Moundville, AL
John A. Stephens, Coffeeville, AL
Ben Holifield, Camden, AL
Lehman H. Bass, Jr., Opelika, AL
Sidney D. Beckett, Auburn, AL
Carolyn Graves Stubbs, Waverly, AL
Leroy Sellers, Waverly, AL
Billy Hildreth, Enterprise, AL
ALASKA
Mark Stahl, Talkeetna, AK
Carol D'Angelis, Ketchikan, AK
Lawrence R. Gaffaney, Juneau, AK
Jason Borer, Cordova, AK
ARKANSAS
John Sutherland, Pine Bluff, AR
John McAlpine, Monticello, AR
Charles Westmoreland, Ivan, AR
Josh Smith, Magnolia, AR
Mike Bentley, Magnolia, AR
John S. Collins, Stephens, AR
Fred Fallis, De Queen, AR
Danny A. Wilcox, Lewisville, AR
Robert Kyle Martin, Texarkana, AR
Charles Purtle, Prescott, AR
Lynda and Luther Strother, Mill Creek Ranch, Benton, AR
Steven Burgess, Perryville, AR
Laura Shirley, Scotland, AR
Henry Wells, Sheridan, AR
Russ Matson, Little Rock, AR
Audrey Beggs, Little Rock, AR
Conrad Beggs, Little Rock, AR
Bobby D. Johnson, Cherry Valley, AR
Carolyn McBay, Compton, AR
Jim Woodruff, Rogers, AR
Tim White, Russellville, AR
Larry P. Aikman, Bluffton, AR
ARIZONA
Bruce Bilbrey, Carefree, AZ
CALIFORNIA
Paul Moore, Los Angeles, CA
Christopher E. Glancy, Los Angeles, CA
Tiffany Michelle Horn, Los Angeles, CA
Mike Bone, Santa Monica, CA
Eric Grimes, Glendale, CA
Veronica Raymond, Temple City, CA
M. Harlan and Regina F. Horner, Del Mar, CA
Daniel Martin, Lakeside, CA
Liz Sandler, Oceanside, CA
Dave Fitz, San Diego, CA
Margaret D. Potvin, Crestline, CA
Dan and Geri Begley, Running Springs, CA
Joan Moseley, Running Springs, CA
Laura Dyberg, Running Springs, CA
Michelle French, Running Springs, CA
Robert P. Moser, Ventura, CA
Wayne Miller, Orinda, CA
Catherine Moore, Felton, CA
Charles A. Oveland, Saratoga, CA
Jill Butler, Sebastopol, CA
Alice Webb, Sonoma, CA
Steve VanderHorst, Ukiah, CA
Mark D. Collins, Eureka, CA
Wayne D. Rice, Eureka, CA
Dawn Pedersen, Fortuna, CA
Barry Dobosh, Korbel, CA
John and Linda Gaffin, Myers Flat, CA
Frances J. Belden, Redding, CA
James Chapin, Redding, CA
Ron Berryman, McCloud, CA
Betsy McNeil, Oak Run, CA
Dave McNamara, Oak Run, CA
Gary Hendrix, Oak Run, CA
Lois Kaufman, Oak Run, CA
Den Corrin, Shasta, CA
Dennis Bebensee, Shingletown, CA
Gene Goodyear, Weaverville, CA
COLORADO
Meg Halford, Castle Rock, CO
Howard Smith, Littleton, CO
Deward Walker, Boulder, CO
Robert J. Clemans, Golden, CO
Kathy and Terry Bedbury, Conifer, CO
Paula Petrites, Conifer, CO
Carolyn Fordham, Evergreen, CO
Chris Payne, Evergreen, CO
Jim and Vicki Norton, Evergreen, CO
Tom Nelson, Evergreen, CO
Carolina Manriquez, Steamboat Springs, CO
Christine and Don Allender, Bellvue, CO
Nicki Rutt, Bellvue, CO
Scott B. Hamilton, Bellvue, CO
Scott Golden, Bellvue, CO
James G. Williams and Patti L. Williams, Estes Park, CO
Steve and Katie Soliday, Estes Park, CO
Rich Harvey, Estes Park, CO
Thomas H. Ebert, Fort Collins, CO
J. Rick Scanlan, Fort Collins, CO
Ray Herrmann, Fort Collins, CO
Oliver and Donna Moore, Loveland, CO
Kristie Millsapps, Brighton, CO
Pat Smith, Greeley, CO
Jim and Carol Thalman, Pagosa Springs, CO
John Janowski, Pagosa Springs, CO
Ron Chacey, Pagosa Springs, CO
Judy Bolton, Durango, CO
Illene Pevec, Paonia, CO
Herman Ball, Lafayette, CO
CONNECTICUT
John Hoover, Barkhamsted, CT
Greg Clarke, Coventry, CT
Sidney Organ, Ashford, CT
James H. Poole, III, Willington, CT
Cathie Peitzsch-Gibbs, Oakdale, CT
Charles Potter, Guilford, CT
Catherine Worthley, Higganum, CT
Jack Norris, Milford, CT
Kathleen Wagner, Stamford, CT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
William H. Phillips, Jr., PD, Washington, DC
FLORIDA
Karla Gaskins, Fort White, FL
Charles King, Green Cove Springs, FL
Ray Weinaug, Jr., Hilliard, FL
Charles M. Goodowns, Sr., Starke, FL
Timothy W. Williams, Wellborn, FL
Stephen Lloyd, Daytona Beach, FL
Jeff Doran, Tallahassee, FL
John Alter, Malone, FL
Linda Basford, Marianna, FL
Sharon Driscoll, Pensacola, FL
Paul J. Langford, Pensacola, FL
Dwight O'Neal, Cantonment, FL
Jeff Hester, Century, FL
Russ Weber, Gainesville, FL
Mike Lackey, Deltona, FL
Sabato Daniele, Merritt Island, FL
Barbara C. Glancy, Homestead, FL
Terry A. Glancy, Homestead, FL
William J. Richards, Palmetto Bay, FL
Marcia L. Tedesco Sanborn, Bushnell, FL
Ms. Audrey Lauer, Kissimmee, FL
Linda and Alan Weiland, Chipley, FL
Rebecca Stallard, Boca Raton, FL
GEORGIA
Alan E. Pigg, Marietta, GA
Joseph Bryan, Fayetteville, GA
Lawrence T. Lipford, Franklin, GA
Frank H. Barron, Newnan, GA
Margaret D. Pierce, Atlanta, GA
Andy McNeely, Jr., Louisville, GA
Bryan Snow, Lyons, GA
Christy Powell, Statesboro, GA
David A. Kidd, Comer, GA
Guy Dabbs, Madison, GA
Tyler Verdery, Washington, GA
Buford Sanders, Watkinsville, GA
Steve L. Welch, Appling, GA
Tom Mims, Hephzibah, GA
Wanda T. Barrs, Cochran, GA
Chuck Leavell, Dry Branch, GA
Carla Rapp, Forsyth, GA
Tommy Joines, Helena, GA
Colin Maldonado, Milledgeville, GA
Ruth Eilers, Milledgeville, GA
Warren Faircloth, Warner Robins, GA
Lynda G. Beam, Savannah, GA
Lawanna King, Waycross, GA
Edward I. Herbert, Waycross, GA
Jorene Turner, Fitzgerald, GA
Joel Robertson, Lumpkin, GA
James Kent, Richland, GA
Allan Tucker, Iron City, GA
Jan Mazzucco, Winterville, GA
IOWA
Jim Sheets, Ames, IA
Paul Tauke, DeSota, IA
Craig Cable, Indianola, IA
Marilyn Dorland, Osceola, IA
Russell Wilkins, Runnells, IA
Charles E. Semler, MD, Story City, IA
Denny Michel, Story City, IA
John Paule, West Des Moines, IA
Jon Grace, Des Moines, IA
Carl Varley, Clive, IA
Rick Adams, Algona, IA
Wayne Fuhlbrugge, Webster City, IA
Jon and Ann Schneckloth, Charles City, IA
Susan West, Fairbank, IA
Bruce Vosseller, Plainfield, IA
Richard Kaufman, Dubuque, IA
Brian Willhite, Colesburg, IA
Jim and Jody Kerns, Dyersville, IA
Agnes Kenney, Elkader, IA
Jerry Muff, Elkader, IA
Richard B. and Mary E. Hyde, Elkader, IA
Tom Kenney, Elkader, IA
Dean Gotto, Farley, IA
Terry J. Weller, Garnavillo, IA
James Gamerdinger, Guttenberg, IA
Harold J. Krambeer, Saint Olaf, IA
Ace and Judy Hendricks, Decorah, IA
Lora Friest, Decorah, IA
Nancy Bolson, Decorah, IA
Richard Kittelson, Clermont, IA
Jim Farnsworth, McGregor, IA
James R. McShane Lcdr (Ret), Waterville, IA
Shannon Ramsay, Anamosa, IA
Kevin Kelly, Clarence, IA
Paul Millice, Iowa City, IA
Dennis Goemaat, Marion, IA
Larry Wiley, Palo, IA
Max D. Grover, Rowley, IA
Allen J. Wagner, Springville, IA
Larry Rummells, West Branch, IA
Tim Dohrmann, Cedar Rapids, IA
George and Janelle McClain, Cedar Rapids, IA
Levi Ward, Moravia, IA
Carl D. Petersen, Mediapolis, IA
Daryl H. Bohlen, West Burlington, IA
Bob Brown, Yarmouth, IA
Robert and Joyce Saacke, Farmersburg, IA
IDAHO
David B. Reay, Horseshoe Bend, ID
John and Darlene Lillehaug, McCall, ID
Frank Fish, Boise, ID
Erik Sjoquist, Bonners Ferry, ID
Gordon Sanders, Cataldo, ID
Paul Buckland, CF 948, Coeur d'Alene, ID
Steve and Janet Funk, Coeur d'Alene, ID
Donald N. Heikkila, Harrison, ID
Thomas Davis, Hayden Lake, ID
Eric Besaw, Saint Maries, ID
Marianne Besaw, Saint Maries, ID
Steve Cuvala, Saint Maries, ID
Donald Collins, Boise, ID
ILLINOIS
Marion Mycynek, Des Plaines, IL
Barbara Gosh, Ingleside, IL
J.M. Tabor, Mount Prospect, IL
Brad Koschak, Spring Grove, IL
George Stone, Wilmette, IL
John and Joanne Oliver, Lake in the Hills, IL
Ted Knorring, Wheaton, IL
John W. Sims, Naperville, IL
M.J. Remec, Riverside, IL
Roger Grimes, Chicago, IL
Paul G. Dennis Jr., Roscoe, IL
Barrie McVey, Vermont, IL
David Tebbe, Breese, IL
Eugene Van Dorn, Carlyle, IL
Rebecca Brummel, Collinsville, IL
Michael W. Jobst, Westfield, IL
Jack Wohlstadter, Havana, IL
Greg and Pat Zak, Springfield, IL
Bryan Keller, Anna, IL
INDIANA
Bob Burke, Martinsville, IN
David Applegate, Zionsville, IN
Kurt Pedersen, Indianapolis, IN
Rex A. Brock, Bourbon, IN
Garry D. Weybright, Syracuse, IN
Charles Boebel, North Manchester, IN
Don Bonsett, Walton, IN
Ronald Gasaway, Elizabeth, IN
Fran Squires, New Albany, IN
Frank W. Gottbrath, Pekin, IN
John Seifert, North Vernon, IN
Matthew Sherck, Connersville, IN
Kerry Winter Haver, Bloomfield, IN
Phyll Thomas, Nashville, IN
Robert Woodling, Unionville, IN
Eva McCullough, West Baden Springs, IN
Wesley G. Crawford, Lafayette, IN
KANSAS
Rebecca Shaffer, Louisburg, KS
Ryan Neises, Ottawa, KS
Caroline Kern, Denison, KS
Bob Atchison, Manhattan, KS
Larry G. Rutter, Meriden, KS
John Weilert, Fredonia, KS
Scott A. Sjolander, Scandia, KS
KENTUCKY
Carolyn M. Puckett, Franklin, KY
Philip Haag, La Grange, KY
Barry Joyce, Milton, KY
Stephen Perry, Pendleton, KY
Heather B. Singer, Louisville, KY
Kevin Woods, Morehead, KY
Jerry L. Adams, Winchester, KY
Mark Kamber, Lexington, KY
Ann Bowe, Lexington, KY
Robert Bauer, Frankfort, KY
Sarah Douglas Gracey, Frankfort, KY
Jared Calvert, Miracle, KY
Kevin Galloway, Maysville, KY
Roy Boggs, Prestonsburg, KY
Rick Harrell, Owensboro, KY
Matthew Adkins, Monticello, KY
Mark Wiedewitsch, Campbellsville, KY
Melven D. Hack, Caneyville, KY
Belinda Wilkins-Smith, Greensburg, KY
LOUISIANA
Eric Gee, Covington, LA
Ginny Nipper, Homer, LA
W. Allen Nipper, Homer, LA
Albert Smoak, Shreveport, LA
Edwin Edgerton, West Monroe, LA
C. McDavid Hughes, West Monroe, LA
Debbie Dodd, Alexandria, LA
C.A. ``Buck'' Vandersteen, Alexandria, LA
Vance and Paula Morris, Pineville, LA
MASSACHUSETTS
Alden Bacon, Williamsburg, MA
Justamere Tree Farm, Worthington, MA
Amy Burdick, Pittsfield, MA
Wendy Zunitch, Pittsfield, MA
Sean Connors, Becket, MA
Bill and Chris Pike, Peru, MA
Christine Pike, Peru, MA
Gregory Cox, Charlemont, MA
Al Futterman, Ashby, MA
Brian LeBlanc, Lunenburg, MA
John Robbins, Concord, MA
Joan Cudhea, Middleton, MA
Nancy Delano, Duxbury, MA
Robert Delano, Duxbury, MA
MARYLAND
Reg. Townsend, Drayden, MD
William Reed, Drayden, MD
Dawn Balinski, Lusby, MD
Bob Weisman, Nanjemoy, MD
Howard Anderson, Chesapeake Beach, MD
H.R. Wainwright, Highland, MD
Henry R. Wainwright, IV, Highland, MD
Robert H. Lindgren, Gaithersburg, MD
Toby M. Turpin, Silver Spring, MD
Bryan Lightner, Bel Air, MD
Julie Bell Wadsworth, Cockeysville, MD
Joseph F. Friend, Columbia, MD
Ronald Hendricksen, Havre de Grace, MD
Donald C. Outen, Timonium, MD
John and Rosemary Beever, Monkton, MD
Jack Walther, Pylesville, MD
Kimberly A. Lewis, Pylesville, MD
Kermit and Cindy Crosby, Severn, MD
Nedda Pray, Sparks, MD
Connie Hoge, Westminster, MD
Leonard Wrabel, Westminster, MD
Andrew A. Holtan, Cardiff, MD
Steve Parker, Towson, MD
Sheryl Heydt, Baltimore, MD
Gary G. Allen, Annapolis, MD
Juls and Barbara Wood, Cumberland, MD
Dottie Turner, Frostburg, MD
Charles N. Hoffeditz, Ph.D., McHenry, MD
Gregan Crawford, Oakland, MD
David K. Sharretts, Chestertown, MD
Nevin Dawson, Chestertown, MD
Charles R. MacFarland, Adamstown, MD
Matthew Carroll, Boonsboro, MD
Don and Linda Grove, Hagerstown, MD
Judith Niedzielski, Hagerstown, MD
Chester and Jane Wagstaff, New Market, MD
Ron Free, Thurmont, MD
Claude Eans, Walkersville, MD
Larry Arthur, Walkersville, MD
Robert Hess, Marion Station, MD
Dori Murphy, North East, MD
Gabrielle D. Oldham, North East, MD
Donald L. Wolle, Elkton, MD
Margaret Dickerson, Chestertown, MD
Teri Dickerson Batchelor, Chestertown, MD
MAINE
Earlene Chadbourne, Cumberland, ME
John Schwanda, Freeport, ME
Calvin Hamblen, Gorham, ME
Fred M. Mitchell, Lovell, ME
Josiah Pierce, West Baldwin, ME
Anton G. Wagner, Cape Elizabeth, ME
Janet E. Stowell, Bethel, ME
Peter A. Jolicoeur, Greene, ME
Harold Burnett, Winthrop, ME
Kevin T. McCarthy, Winthrop, ME
Carl H. Sanborn, Bangor, ME
David Wardrop, Bangor, ME
Andrew Abello, Edgecomb, ME
Edson R. Small, Jr., Waterville, ME
Greta M. Essency, Farmington, ME
MICHIGAN
Dean and Susan Reid, Saint Ignace, MI
Elizabeth Stone, Ann Arbor, MI
Jody G. Scott, Ann Arbor, MI
Alfred R. Glancy, Jr., Grosse Pointe, MI
Ruth Glancy, Grosse Pointe, MI
Michael H. Mansour, Lake Orion, MI
Jim Gregart, Harrisville, MI
Shawna Meyer, Grand Ledge, MI
Debra Huff, Laingsburg, MI
Scott Robbins, Lansing, MI
Joyce Hare, Portage, MI
Judith Brook, Three Rivers, MI
Mary Menold, Arcadia, MI
Jessica Turino, Manton, MI
Karen Serfass, Dafter, MI
Matthew R. Brooks, Sault Sainte Marie, MI
John Van Dyke, Trout Lake, MI
Dennis P. Renken, Escanaba, MI
Gerald Grossman, Newberry, MI
Bruce Maki, Atlantic Mine, MI
Byron R. Sailor, Baraga, MI
James M. Schmierer, Houghton, MI
MINNESOTA
Jon P. Bergin, Lake City, MN
Neal W. Chapman, Roseville, MN
Joanne Englund, Saint Paul, MN
Robert Helfinstine, Ramsey, MN
Edward and Janet King, Eden Prairie, MN
Richard Naaktgeboren, Maple Lake, MN
Clement Engen, Minneapolis, MN
Charles R. Hughes, Minneapolis, MN
Ron Reich, Bloomington, MN
Paul Omberg, Esko, MN
Richard Chalupsky, Hibbing, MN
Bruce Barker, Duluth, MN
Valiree Green, Brownsville, MN
Timothy M. Gossman, Chatfield, MN
LaVerne Hofschulte, Elgin, MN
Sarah Greenheck, Wabasha, MN
Natalie Hodapp, Mankato, MN
Ernest Schmitt, Brandon, MN
Thomas Kroll, Long Prairie, MN
Robert Perleberg, Pierz, MN
Steve Donnay, Sauk Centre, MN
Tom Witkowski, Brainerd, MN
Gary Woehler, Crosby, MN
David H. Larsen, Nevis, MN
Richard Magaard, Nevis, MN
John Wallin, Pequot Lakes, MN
John F. Walte, Georgetown, MN
Perry Eide, International Falls, MN
Steve Earley, International Falls, MN
MISSOURI
David A. Watson, Chesterfield, MO
Nancy J. Brod, DeSoto, MO
John Heckmann, Glencoe, MO
Wonder Koch, Saint Louis, MO
Steve Lovell, Saint Louis, MO
Rick Merritt, Eolia, MO
Daniel L. Moncheski, Saint Peters, MO
Daniel Joseph Cunningham, La Plata, MO
Larry Lackamp, Bates City, MO
Carl Hepting, Kansas City, MO
Kirk Fine, Gladstone, MO
Martha E. Clark, Helena, MO
Nathaniel R. Forbes, Neosho, MO
Barbara J. Ittner, Noel, MO
Dwight Ittner, Noel, MO
Gary Lyndaker, Gravois Mills, MO
Joe Akers, New Bloomfield, MO
Bill McGuire, Jefferson City, MO
John Fleming, Jefferson City, MO
Shelby G. Jones, Jefferson City, MO
Matt Arndt, Columbia, MO
Jerry Van Sambeek, Columbia, MO
Bo Wendleton, Boonville, MO
Daniel Hatch, Licking, MO
Kevin Poe, Roby, MO
David Emerson, Ava, MO
Elizabeth Josephson, Oldfield, MO
Richard F. and Esther L. Myers, Protem, MO
Jay King, Willard, MO
R. Scott Brundage, Columbia, MO
MISSISSIPPI
Justin Dewberry, New Albany, MS
Mark Smith, Oxford, MS
Dennis I. Wright, MD, Tupelo, MS
Chad Robertson, Amory, MS
Margaret Marlin, Fulton, MS
Brendix Glasgow, Tishomingo, MS
Brant Godbold, Grenada, MS
Bryan McCartney, Grenada, MS
E.L. Dabbs, Brandon, MS
Betsy K. Padgett, Lexington, MS
Freddy Upton, Madison, MS
Tate Ervin, Madison, MS
C. Barlow, Raymond, MS
Margaret Munford, Jackson, MS
Tony K. Morgan, Meridian, MS
Harold Anderson, Philadelphia, MS
John E. Green, Hattiesburg, MS
John Meador, Hattiesburg, MS
Daphna Hummer, Columbia, MS
Carl Blackledge, Jr., Laurel, MS
Tommy Cotten, Laurel, MS
Bob Hynson, Laurel, MS
Ruth Cook, Seminary, MS
Henry A. Hudson, Jr., Sumrall, MS
William W. Powell, Gulfport, MS
Kelly Raulerson, Perkinston, MS
Mark Bullock, Bogue Chitto, MS
Travis Stewart, Liberty, MS
Mary Emma Lansing, Magnolia, MS
James D. (David) Hancock, Summit, MS
Patrick Brown, Caledonia, MS
Charles W. Dismukes, Kilmichael, MS
Andrew Self, Starkville, MS
Sarah Self, Starkville, MS
James Henderson, Mississippi State, MS
MONTANA
Marion Wambach, Denton, MT
Gary E. Johnson, Missoula, MT
Joe Moran, Drummond, MT
Charles Crouter, Florence, MT
Jim Christensen, Philipsburg, MT
Patricia Young, Philipsburg, MT
Everett J. Young, Plains, MT
Jim Watson, Kalispell, MT
Laurence Schroeder, Bigfork, MT
Paul R. McKenzie, Columbia Falls, MT
Valerie A. Beebe, Kila, MT
Jim Kibler, Troy, MT
NORTH CAROLINA
Patrick Callaghan, Lewisville, NC
James M. (Jim) Long, Blanch, NC
Libby Jordan, Candor, NC
G. Boon Chesson, Troy, NC
Paul Dean, Cary, NC
Colby Lambert, Fuquay Varina, NC
David Halley, Holly Springs, NC
Ann M. Daniel, Raleigh, NC
Thomas Keller, Durham, NC
Laurell Malone, Durham, NC
Daniel Reynolds, Farmville, NC
Danny R. Maness, Halifax, NC
Cyndi Williams, Nashville, NC
Alice Ricks, Roanoke Rapids, NC
Benjamin Riddick Ricks, Roanoke Rapids, NC
Allan L. Weller, Washington, NC
Meissa Patrick, Washington, NC
Melissa Berrier, Cherryville, NC
John C. Miller, Charlotte, NC
Dwight Andrews, Charlotte, NC
Tim Jackson, Dunn, NC
Thaddeus N. Banks, Roseboro, NC
Scott Smearman, Wagram, NC
D. Thompson Tew, Wilmington, NC
Jim Durham, Wilmington, NC
Phillip Brock, Holden Beach, NC
Dwight H. Gerding, Hookerton, NC
Vernon J. Daniels, Jr., Merritt, NC
Bryan Hulka, New Bern, NC
Charles and Carole Torpy, Canton, NC
Katrine Frye, Old Fort, NC
Albert Shaw, Clarkton, NC
Albert Coffey, Wake Forest, NC
NORTH DAKOTA
Pamela Meier, Mott, ND
Tim Hanson, Fort Ransom, ND
Anne Hill, Amenia, ND
Kevin R. Hartl, Enderlin, ND
NEBRASKA
Steve Karloff, Omaha, NE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mark Pitman, Francestown, NH
Jean Ragonese, Fremont, NH
William Downs, Mason, NH
Douglas Foprd, New Ipswich, NH
Donald Jackson, Bradford, NH
John M. Hodsdon, Meredith, NH
Robert E. Hardy, Tilton, NH
Paul and Deb Doscher, Weare, NH
Rita Carroll, Concord, NH
Robert Bradbury, Concord, NH
Tom Natale, Penacook, NH
John Satas, Troy, NH
Todd Carter, Troy, NH
Haven Neal, Berlin, NH
Putnam W. Blodgett, Lyme, NH
Marilyn Bott, East Kingston, NH
Steve and Elaine Pike, Strafford, NH
NEW JERSEY
J. Anderson, Maplewood, NJ
Tracy R. Cate, Maplewood, NJ
Joseph M. Lashendock, III, East Rutherford, NJ
Ron Farr, Newfoundland, NJ
Greg Daly, Oak Ridge, NJ
Timothy Slavin, Stockholm, NJ
Elmer Platz, Vernon, NJ
Clifford G. Raisch, Red Bank, NJ
Ken Schrankel, Holmdel, NJ
Theresa Seibert, Branchville, NJ
Julia Hartenfels, Montague, NJ
Phil Taylor, Columbia, NJ
Brian Cowden, Flanders, NJ
Daniel E. and J. Carolyn Kent, III, Newton, NJ
Doug Tavella, Newton, NJ
Cecelia Illing, Port Murray, NJ
Fred Haffner, Port Murray, NJ
Keith Begraft, Sparta, NJ
Ken Taaffe, Lumberton, NJ
Sam and Susan Marquez, Williamstown, NJ
Frank A. Burns, Leeds Point, NJ
John Benton, Chesterfield, NJ
Les Alpaugh, Stockton, NJ
Ronald J. Sheay, Stockton, NJ
Conrad J. Franz, Trenton, NJ
Charles J. Newlon, Trenton, NJ
Scott Hale, Annandale, NJ
The Powers Family, Asbury, NJ
Dennis Galway, Bernardsville, NJ
Jean Blancato, West Milford, NJ
Maria Gsell, Far Hills, NJ
Leah Glucroft, Boonton, NJ
Eric Dornfeld, Long Valley, NJ
Thomas Walsh, Asbury, NJ
Marie L. Cirelli, Lafayette, NJ
Matthew Kathenes, Great Meadows, NJ
Cheri Kathenes, Great Meadows, NJ
Kyle Kathenes, Great Meadows, NJ
Tori Kathenes, Great Meadows, NJ
Michael Quirk, Rockaway, NJ
NEW MEXICO
Nina Helms, Cuba, NM
Robert B. Foster, Tijeras, NM
Don Berryman, Cebolla, NM
Joseph Stehling, Ocate, NM
NEVADA
May M. McInnis, Caliente, NV
James Lundy, Glenbrook, NV
Terry Aulston, Sparks, NV
Maxine Weiss, Washoe Valley, NV
NEW YORK
Arthur Wagner, Bronx, NY
Michael Patrick Roach, Cortlandt Manor, NY
Steven A. Knapp, Putnam Valley, NY
John Zylstra, Johnson, NY
Jeanette Vuocolo, Brooklyn, NY
Matthew Gross, Howard Beach, NY
Maureen H. Ariola, Holbrook, NY
Jonathan Sferazo, Huntington Station, NY
Gary Kalinkewicz, Galway, NY
Douglas W. Murphy, Stamford, NY
Kathleen Riehl, Schenectady, NY
Elizabeth R. Apgar Triano, Patterson, NY
Barbara Lucas-Wilson, Rhinebeck, NY
Kathrine Rodriguez, Wappingers Falls, NY
Richard J. Cipperly, Queensbury, NY
Russell Lacroix, Greenwich, NY
Kenneth T. Walder, Hadley, NY
Robert Manning, Johnsburg, NY
Raymond M. Scollin, Saranac Lake, NY
Michael Endress, Cortland, NY
Richard Pancoe, Earlville, NY
Don Carbone, Utica, NY
Andrew Willard, Hermon, NY
Sally and Don Chirlin, Norwich, NY
Paul Nowak, Akron, NY
Robert Gorecki, Hamburg, NY
Patrick Marren, Buffalo, NY
Russell L. Gardner, Naples, NY
Stanley Olshefski, Rochester, NY
William Hughey, Hinsdale, NY
Tim Levatich, Brooktondale, NY
Daniel J. Cleveland, Erin, NY
OHIO
Danuta Lange, Swanton, OH
Denise A. Heban, Swanton, OH
Walt Lange, Swanton, OH
Clayton Rico, Zanesville, OH
Ken Scherf, Byesville, OH
Bob Ball, Caldwell, OH
Cassandra Ridenour, Gratiot, OH
Jeff Wilson, McConnelsville, OH
Jeremy Scherf, New Concord, OH
Matthew Micozzi, Port Washington, OH
Tom Cushing, Ohio Tree Farmer, Scio, OH
Leo Deininger, Cleveland, OH
Ruth Skuly, Cleveland, OH
Barry L. Ulrich, Wadsworth, OH
James T. Elze, Salem, OH
Rick Miller, Dover, OH
Robert Hunter, Glenmont, OH
Gordon W. Zemrock, Shreve, OH
Kathleen Myers, North Canton, OH
Don Ruffing, Bellevue, OH
Clarence Roller, Amelia, OH
Roger and Diana Benter, Batavia, OH
Walt Saranen, Hillsboro, OH
Vincent Urbanek, Cincinnati, OH
Michael J. Besonen, Chillicothe, OH
Jerry Grezlik, Beaver, OH
Ann Hamilton, Athens, OH
Janet Sweigart, Ada, OH
Thomas R. Mills, Findlay, OH
OKLAHOMA
George Geissler, Norman, OK
Erin Johnson, Oklahoma City, OK
Kurtis Koll, Lawton, OK
Patt Nelson, Tulsa, OK
Page Belcher, Jay, OK
Christina Stallings Roberson, Pryor, OK
Steve Couch, Tahlequah, OK
Jason Whaley, McAlester, OK
Chris Joslin, Antlers, OK
Chris Parrington, Wilburton, OK
Andy James, Broken Bow, OK
Caleb Fields, Broken Bow, OK
OREGON
Ingrid Harper, Beaverton, OR
Margaret Mills, Molalla, OR
Ivan Allen, Saint Helens, OR
Ron Preston, Sandy, OR
Tom Keys, Gresham, OR
Thomas Scoggins, Astoria, OR
Bob and Bonnie Shumaker, Banks, OR
Barbara Brunson, Hillsboro, OR
Craig Alness, Portland, OR
Donald Beaman, Portland, OR
Rainer Hummel, Portland, OR
Rick Zenn, Portland, OR
David Ford, Tigard, OR
Richard W. Courter, ACF, CF, Portland, OR
Jim James, Salem, OR
Mickey Bellman, MSB Consulting Inc., Salem, OR
Dave Schmidt, Albany, OR
Larry Blair, Dallas, OR
Joe Holmberg, Lebanon, OR
Chris Woodward, Lyons, OR
Julie Woodward, Lyons, OR
Clint Bentz, Scio, OR
R. Beers, Eugene, OR
Michael R. Atkinson, Eugene, OR
Larry Strickland, Cottage Grove, OR
Warren and Maureen Weathers, Lowell, OR
Bruno C. Meyer, Medford, OR
Michael S. Meredith, Medford, OR
Donn Comte, Ashland, OR
John Wilda, Klamath Falls, OR
James Edwards, The Dalles, OR
PENNSYLVANIA
Fred and Debbie Kovalchuk, Donora, PA
David Schreffler, Everett, PA
John Akers, Everett, PA
Tresa L. McVicker, Davidsville, PA
Mark Patterson, Jackson Center, PA
Georgann Kovacovsky, New Bethlehem, PA
Liz Krug, Erie, PA
Harry Pionke, State College, PA
Susan S. Benedict, State College, PA
Dave Jackson, Pleasant Gap, PA
Mike Whitehill, Howard, PA
Allyson Muth, Pine Grove Mills, PA
Linda L. Finley, Port Matilda, PA
David T. Twining, Carlisle, PA
Bruce W. Kile, Biglerville, PA
John Van Ness, Brogue, PA
Gail Landers, Williamsport, PA
John Kuryloski, Millville, PA
Bobbie J. Knudson, Allentown, PA
Nancy G.W. Baker, Sugar Run, PA
Sean T. Carroll, Bryn Mawr, PA
Barry Berkowitz, Fort Washington, PA
Stewart Keener, Philadelphia, PA
Lloyd R. Casey, West Chester, PA
Bonnie Seitzinger, Shartlesville, PA
RHODE ISLAND
Tom Dupree, West Greenwich, RI
Richard K. St. Aubin, Little Compton, RI
Milton Schumacher, North Scituate, RI
SOUTH CAROLINA
Dave Hegler, Kershaw, SC
Charles M. Hemingway, Jr., Manning, SC
Thomas W. Sawyer, Monetta, SC
Harry L. Norton, Summerton, SC
Maxine LeRoy, Charleston, SC
Jay Jackson, Moncks Corner, SC
William Howard, Summerville, SC
Ken Stuart, Bennettsville, SC
Leon Grayson, Kingstree, SC
Jim Bland, Pawleys Island, SC
Carolyn Grayson, Andrews, SC
George Kessler, Central, SC
Eric W. Smith, Greenwood, SC
Walt McPhail, Mauldin, SC
Brent Reed, Chester, SC
Russ Carter, Chesterfield, SC
SOUTH DAKOTA
Peter Schaefer, Brookings, SD
David and Karen Papcke, Hot Springs, SD
Dianne Miller, Spearfish, SD
TENNESSEE
Robert and Laura Qualmaln, Brentwood, TN
Kerry Livengood, Chapel Hill, TN
Linda Hamm, Cunningham, TN
Herb Paugh, Pleasant View, TN
Stephen B. Owen, Benton, TN
Dan Wernick, Kingsport, TN
Russell J. Scott, Harriman, TN
Mark Horne, Huntsville, TN
Steve Roark, Tazewell, TN
Brenda Heindl, Collierville, TN
Cyrus Johnson, Memphis, TN
David Mercker, Jackson, TN
Jeffrey L. Mace, Michie, TN
Sharon Keen, Ramer, TN
John Ross, Savannah, TN
Jeff Thompson, Hilham, TN
Charles Daugherty, Crossville, TN
Stanley B. Leach, Sr., Walling, TN
TEXAS
Hance Burrow, Dallas, TX
Howard Moore, Dallas, TX
James Hugh Jones, Paris, TX
Bill Russell, Carthage, TX
Bob Herrin, Marshall, TX
Jim Thompson, Larue, TX
Ronald C. Holcomb, Larue, TX
Donna Freeman, Palestine, TX
Randolph S. Robinson, Palestine, TX
Rick Kaminski, Trinity, TX
Frank B. Shockley, Lufkin, TX
Dan Spivey, Lufkin, TX
Dr. Donald M. Grosman, Lufkin, TX
Carl Taylor, Alto, TX
Ralph W. Schwausch, Garrison, TX
Richard Dottellis, Jasper, TX
Michael M. Pickard, Nacogdoches, TX
Daisy and Dan Braswell, Colleyville, TX
Pamela T. De La Cruz, Grapevine, TX
Judith Franklin, Waco, TX
Ron Mitchell, Houston, TX
Robert Hinton, Houston, TX
Robert E. and Glenda Myers, Houston, TX
Christine Russler, Houston, TX
Earl and Meredith Touchstone, Houston, TX
Jordan Herrin, Huntsville, TX
Roy L. Brunson, Spring, TX
Walter Harbuck, Pasadena, TX
Michael Stryker, San Antonio, TX
Carl Schattenberg, Austin, TX
Jane Baxter, Trinity, TX
VIRGINIA
William Ameen, Manassas, VA
Natalie Pien, Leesburg, VA
Tom Martin, Falls Church, VA
Jennifer Zimmerman, Falls Church, VA
R. Neil Sampson, Alexandria, VA
Mary Alexander, Alexandria, VA
James B. Kuykendall, Spotsylvania, VA
Ann Herren, Winchester, VA
George J. and Rhoda W. Kriz, Winchester, VA
Joseph R. Zimmerman, Winchester, VA
Greg Richard, Star Tannery, VA
David Powell, Charlottesville, VA
John Kauffman, Charlottesville, VA
Anne and Ted Stelter, Orange, VA
Robert S. Wait, Ashland, VA
Paul Howe, Glen Allen, VA
Norwood and Emily Nuckols, Glen Allen, VA
Ann Haley Long, Hanover, VA
Norman L. Long, Hanover, VA
Jesse T. Crawford, III, ACF, RF, King William, VA
Tom Harlan, Midlothian, VA
Edward Sontag, Richmond, VA
Leslie Magalis, Henrico, VA
Bruce Powell, Smithfield, VA
Neil Clark, Suffolk, VA
Keith Alston, Windsor, VA
Michelle Alston, Windsor, VA
Malcolm Convington, Petersburg, VA
Mike T. Jones, Jarratt, VA
Denise Wlodyka, Sedley, VA
Kirby Woolfolk, Crewe, VA
Tom Newbill, Hardy, VA
Donald G. Drake, Buena Vista, VA
Shelby L. Spradlin, Jr., Lynchburg, VA
Jay Phaup, Amherst, VA
Ricky Butler, Appomattox, VA
VERMONT
Peter Silberfarb, Norwich, VT
Robert J. Pulaski, Post Mills, VT
Jessica Eaton, Thetford, VT
Margaret Sherlock, Tunbridge, VT
Jen Loyd-Pain, Bennington, VT
John McNerney, New Haven, VT
David Paganelli, Barre, VT
Sam Miller, Waterbury Center, VT
Kathleen Wanner, Chittenden, VT
Trevor Evans, Newport, VT
Alan M. Robertson, Sheffield, VT
WASHINGTON
Michael and Tammie Perreault, Olympia, WA
David Townsend, Bellevue, WA
Angela and Jacob Kirkman, Bellevue, WA
Kimbel Gauthier, Fall City, WA
David Keller, Issaquah, WA
Mary Jaeger, Kent, WA
Donald Hanley, Kirkland, WA
Kristiann Schoening, Mercer Island, WA
Jeanne Koruga, Woodinville, WA
Frederick W. Hayes, Seattle, WA
Alex and Harvey Greenberg, Seattle, WA
William Scott, Seattle, WA
Charles Adams, Seattle, WA
Bob Viggers, Seattle, WA
Roger P. Foucher, Seattle, WA
Nancy Storey, Seattle, WA
Julie Nyborg, Des Moines, WA
Ron Nyborg, Des Moines, WA
Jo Ellen Gillmore, Seattle, WA
Karl G. Stout, Anacortes, WA
Shaunna Harris, Arlington, WA
Diane Garmo, Bellingham, WA
William Franklin, Bellingham, WA
Aubrey Stargell, Bellingham, WA
David Hess, Bow, WA
Loren Schmidt, Concrete, WA
Doug McKee, Coupeville, WA
Katie Collins, Freeland, WA
Kenneth Cohen, Langley, WA
Susan Lindsey Cohen, Langley, WA
Merlene Buller, Marblemount, WA
Saxton's Timber Farm & Sanctuary, LLC, Monroe, WA
AL Craney, CF, Mount Vernon, WA
James V. Owens, Mount Vernon, WA
Kathryn Kerby, Snohomish, WA
April Reid, Bremerton, WA
Ryan Sandstrom, Bremerton, WA
Eric and Joan Hendricks, Brinnon, WA
Charles K. McTee, Eatonville, WA
Paul Alvestad, Gig Harbor, WA
Chris and Linda Goodman (Back40 Forest), Gig Harbor, WA
Catherine Wright, Port Angeles, WA
Robert Kavanaugh, Port Angeles, WA
Coy Eshom, Port Orchard, WA
William Wheeler, Quilcene, WA
Patty Vance, Randle, WA
Kenneth Lundemo, Seabeck, WA
Philip and Teri Martin, Sequim, WA
Helen and Drew Daly, Silverdale, WA
Deborah A. Sage, South Prairie, WA
Stephen Ackley, South Prairie, WA
Matthew Miller, Tacoma, WA
Fred L. Wagner, University Place, WA
Scott E. Swanson, Tacoma, WA
Galen M. Wright, Tumwater, WA
Kirk Hanson, Tumwater, WA
Lynette Falkner, Tumwater, WA
Ron Nelson, Tumwater, WA
Jeanette L. Friis, Olympia, WA
John and Sue Yoachim, Olympia, WA
Roy E. Friis, Olympia, WA
Denny Adkisson, Lacey, WA
John B. Sutherland, Lacey, WA
Nels Hanson, Lacey, WA
Brian Thompson, Tumwater, WA
Dan L. and Joanne M. Campbell, Tumwater, WA
Ken and Bonnie Miller, Tumwater, WA
Norma Green, Tumwater, WA
Alab B. Cain, Olympia, WA
Thomas A. Terry, Olympia, WA
Scott Berken, Aberdeen, WA
Bryon Loucks, Centralia, WA
Charles Codddington, Chehalis, WA
Jim and Trish Murphy, Chehalis, WA
Laura Moerke Jones, Chehalis, WA
Steve Webster, Chehalis, WA
Tom and Sherry Fox, Ethel, WA
Sam and Joy Comstock, Grapeview, WA
Elizabeth Perry, Montesano, WA
Howard Wilson, Montesano, WA
John Henrikson, Oakville, WA
Richard Decker, Onalaska, WA
Russell Armitage, Onalaska, WA
Kamiele Anderson, Rochester, WA
Sylvia Russell and Brian Wester, Roy, WA
John F. Gorman, Shelton, WA
Norris A. Petit, South Bend, WA
Steve Stinson, Toledo, WA
Lou Jean Clark, Winlock, WA
Mike Rotschy, Amboy, WA
Anita Gahimer Crow and Dennis Crow, Bingen, WA
Brian Beeson, Camas, WA
John and Judy Straub, Camas, WA
Kevin Howard, Glenwood, WA
B.J. Jones, Goldendale, WA
Dwayne A. Hansen, Goldendale, WA
Judy and Don Thomas, Goldendale, WA
Vic Blandine, Goldendale, WA
Andrew M. Schreiber, Klickitat, WA
Mary Ann Cincotta, La Center, WA
Julie Ikenberry, Lyle, WA
Ted Stubblefield, Ridgefield, WA
Andrew Jacobson, Trout Lake, WA
Deo and Karen Fisher, Trout Lake, WA
Donald Cox, Trout Lake, WA
Mike Daly, Trout Lake, WA
Patricia L. Arnold, Trout Lake, WA
Hank Patton, Underwood, WA
Irene Jonas, Vancouver, WA
Milan Kokta, Washougal, WA
Alec and Judith Maule, White Salmon, WA
Charles R. Gadway, White Salmon, WA
Jesse Calkins, White Salmon, WA
Michael C. Glover, White Salmon, WA
Whitney Miller, White Salmon, WA
Annette Cowan, Yacolt, WA
Douglas P. Bailes, Yacolt, WA
Gary W Brown, Vancouver, WA
Cliff Aaby, Vancouver, WA
Erik Folke, East Wenatchee, WA
Ross and Marianne Frank, Leavenworth, WA
Suzanne Saunders, Leavenworth, WA
Phil and Kris Baker, Tonasket, WA
John and Yolanda Randlett, Cle Elum, WA
John P. (Phil) Hess, Cle Elum, WA
Karen Bailey, Cle Elum, WA
Ronald Miller, Cle Elum, WA
Erin Kreutz, Ellensburg, WA
W.R. ``Bill'' and Marge Fautch, Newman Lake, WA
Steve Zender, Chewelah, WA
Alan and Ruby Walker, Lost Creek Tree Farm, Curlew, WA
Ray and Jo Bunney, Cusick, WA
Vern Guenther, Hunters, WA
Susan Dechant, Kettle Falls, WA
Ed Styskel, Newport, WA
Mark Simpson, Newport, WA
Robert Thornton, Springdale, WA
Neil Felgenhauer, Spokane, WA
Mike Brewer, Spokane, WA
Shirley Hesseltine, Spokane, WA
Guy Gifford, Spokane, WA
Judy Turner, Dayton, WA
Sandra Colleen Duncan, Lyle, WA
Patti Playfair, Chewelah, WA
Nicole Campbell, Goldendale, WA
Roberta M. Easter, Amboy, WA
WISCONSIN
Steven Beck, Eden, WI
John and Martha Stoltenberg, Elkhart Lake, WI
John D. Kucksdorf, Random Lake, WI
Ronald R. Ziegler, Burlington, WI
Ronald Rohrmayer, Dousman, WI
Kendra Johncock, Elkhorn, WI
Art Reimer, New Berlin, WI
Randy and Karen Cooper, New Berlin, WI
Richard Thompson, Lake Geneva, WI
Wil LaJoie Family, Waukesha, WI
John Ballogh, Wauwatosa, WI
Timothy Steffen, Wauwatosa, WI
David DeBarge, Milwaukee, WI
Greg Jervis, West Allis, WI
Connie Champnoise, Blue River, WI
Holly Schnitzler, Cambridge, WI
Joe Arington, Cambridge, WI
James Widder, Dodgeville, WI
Ronald Reynolds, Fort Atkinson, WI
Lee Fahrney, Hollandale, WI
Don Gabower, Janesville, WI
Loren Hanson, Janesville, WI
Stanley Nichols, McFarland, WI
Richard Wells, Mazomanie, WI
David Hatz, Merrimac, WI
Steve Parks, Middleton, WI
Penelope Shackelford, Milton, WI
Ron Martin, Milton, WI
Bill Cary, Richland Center, WI
L.E. Stevenson, Richland Center, WI
Russ Reddemann, Spring Green, WI
Craig L. Johanesen, Stoughton, WI
Carol Pollock, Waunakee, WI
Jeffrey Pollock, Waunakee, WI
Amy Wencel, Madison, WI
Tom Donahue, Madison, WI
Brent McCown, Madison, WI
Douglas Duren, Madison, WI
Thomas E. Hamilton, Madison, WI
Dan Amend, Madison, WI
Lucy Gibson, Madison, WI
Michael J. Roy, Madison, WI
David Niehoff, Madison, WI
Jerome Harms, Madison, WI
Craig Hollingsworth, Lancaster, WI
Marvin Pinkowski, Friendship, WI
Jean Winther, Marquette, WI
Gregory Knuteson, Poynette, WI
James P. Morgan, Reedsburg, WI
Jack Rasmussen, Baldwin, WI
Judy Padour, Crivitz, WI
Thomas A. Jacobs, Crivitz, WI
Craig Butler, Fence, WI
Robert Nett, Pulaski, WI
Debbie Boettcher, Seymour, WI
Perry D. Pierre, Seymour, WI
Pam Firgens, Suring, WI
Kathleen and Jon Marsh, Townsend, WI
Mike Bohman, Algoma, WI
Randy Cunningham, Green Bay, WI
Ron Bahr, Wausau, WI
Kelly Meronk, Amherst, WI
Randy Williams, Antigo, WI
Ron Resch, Birnamwood, WI
Larry Eggman, Loyal, WI
Daniel A. Flees, Marshfield, WI
George Sparks, Marshfield, WI
Scott G. Tranbarger, Nekoosa, WI
Charles Pogorelcnik, Ogema, WI
Joseph B. Holman, Plover, WI
James H. Jackson, Stevens Point, WI
Dale Zaug, Tigerton, WI
Dave Jones, Willard, WI
Richard P. Teske, Boulder Junction, WI
Carl Garske, Harshaw, WI
Gary B. Schlosstein, Alma, WI
Tom W. Ebert, Black River Falls, WI
John and Karen Jaeger, Coon Valley, WI
Paul Richardson, Hillsboro, WI
Rich Joiner, Hixton, WI
James Fischer, Taylor, WI
Lester Hoag, Tomah, WI
J. Kevin and Janet Johnson, Eau Claire, WI
Dennis Ferstenou, Chippewa Falls, WI
Steven and Lois Raether, Chippewa Falls, WI
Otto Waldbuesser, Menomonie, WI
Glenn Anderson, New Auburn, WI
Dennis L. Waterman, Cameron, WI
Kim and Neal W Chapman, Frederic, WI
Willard D. Kiefer, Lake Nebagamon, WI
Kent Makela, Maple, WI
Cal Boren, Oshkosh, WI
James Zdanovec, Oshkosh, WI
Steven Foust, Oshkosh, WI
Fred Corsmeier, Appleton, WI
Eugene Berlowski, Berlin, WI
Steven Edwards, Fremont, WI
Nancy M. Livingston, Hancock, WI
Chris Splichal, Hortonville, WI
Merlin C. Becker, Manawa, WI
Gary Schneider, New London, WI
Richard Wickham, Omro, WI
Cherie Hennes, Plainfield, WI
David R. Stoiber, Scandinavia, WI
Donald Mark Lochner, Waupaca, WI
Wayne L. Ziebell, Waupaca, WI
Buzz Vahradian, Wautoma, WI
FieldStone Farms, Ltd., Wautoma, WI
James A. Rivers, Wild Rose, WI
Tina Wickham, Omro, WI
David R. Wilson, Frederic, WI
Don Grassl, Wausau, WI
WEST VIRGINIA
Lewis Foe, Arbovale, WV
J.W. Larew, Greenville, WV
Chad Moles, Elkview, WV
Timothy Fink, Tornado, WV
Russ Richardson, Arnoldsburg, WV
Robert Marshall, Kenna, WV
Cinda Francis, Sandyville, WV
Bill Pepper, Charleston, WV
Denis Foley, Hedgesville, WV
Ron Gibson, Ona, WV
David J. Bennett, Parkersburg, WV
Gerald William ``Jerry'' Waybright, Washington, WV
Jim Mitchell, Buckhannon, WV
Simeon Duke Layfield, Buckhannon, WV
Barbara Craft Myers, Valley Head, WV
wyoming
John C. Varner, Encampment, WY
Lucy Diggins-Wold, Green River, WY
______
Prepared Statement of OPERA America
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am
grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of OPERA
America, its Board of Directors and its 2,000 organizational and
individual members. We strongly urge you to support increased
appropriations of $155 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
for fiscal year 2013. This testimony and the funding examples described
below are intended to highlight the importance of Federal investment in
the arts, so critical to sustaining a vibrant cultural community
throughout the country.
Opera is a continuously growing art form that can address the
diverse needs and backgrounds of our communities. New opera companies
are being established in communities that have never before had access
to live performances. Seventy percent of the opera companies in
existence today have been established since 1960. The growth of the
field corresponds to the establishment and growth of the NEA. Over the
last 20 years, a rich repertoire of American operas has been created by
composers who communicate the American experience in contemporary
musical and dramatic terms. The growth in number and quality of
American operas corresponds directly to the investment of the NEA in
the New American Works program of the former Opera-Music Theater
Program.
Beyond the opera house, opera companies are finding new and
exciting ways to bring the essence of opera to other local theaters and
community centers, frequently with new and innovative works that
reflect the diverse cultures of the cities they serve. Strong
partnerships with local schools, too, extend the civic reach of opera
companies as they introduce children to another multi-media art form
and discover promising young talent.
Past NEA funding has directly supported projects in which arts
organizations, artists, schools and teachers collaborated to provide
opportunities for adults and children to create, perform, and respond
to artistic works. NEA funding has also made the art form more widely
available in all States, including isolated rural areas and inner
cities; indeed, NEA funded projects cross all racial, geographic, and
socioeconomic lines.
The following are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on
opera programs from the NEA's 2012 Art Works Program:
American OPERA Projects, Inc.
Brooklyn, New York
$10,000
To support the development and workshop production of Paul's Case
by composer Gregory Spears and librettist Kathryn Walat. Based on the
short story by Willa Cather, the 85 minute score featuring seven
singers and a six-piece chamber orchestration will see two semi-staged
workshops in Brooklyn and two in Princeton.
Anchorage Opera Company
Anchorage, Alaska
$11,500
To support Verdi's Macbeth as part of the company's 50th
anniversary season. Educational outreach, seminars, and public lectures
highlighting the achievements of the composer will take place in public
schools and community centers in metropolitan areas and throughout the
State's south-central region.
Beth Morrison Projects
New York, New York
$10,000
To support the world premier of Song From the Uproar: The Lives and
Deaths of Isabelle Eberhardt by composer Missy Mazzoli in collaboration
with librettist Royce Vavrek and filmmaker Stephen Taylor. Culled from
the journals of Swiss explorer, Eberhardt, at the turn of the last
century, the multimedia work explores Eastern and Western cultures, the
elation of self-discovery, and the mystery of death.
Boston Lyric Opera Company, Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts
$22,500
To support the adaptation and remounting of the comic opera The
Inspector by composer John Musto and librettist Mark Campbell, as well
as outreach activities. Based on the play The Government Inspector by
Nikolai Gogol, the production will expand the physical and orchestral
elements, working with the original creative team to make the work
accessible for larger opera houses.
Central City Opera House Association
Denver, Colorado
$22,500
To support a new production of The Turn of the Screw by composer
Benjamin Britten. Based on the Henry James novella, the 20th-century
English chamber opera will launch a season celebrating the 100th
anniversary of the composer's birth.
Chateauville Foundation
Great Falls, Virginia
$17,500
To support the fourth Castleton Festival, which takes place
annually on a farm in rural Virginia and includes opera performances
with orchestral accompaniment. The festival's mission to engage young
artists will be met by the residency program that will allow 40
advanced voice students to live, study, and perform onsite during the
festival.
Chicago Opera Theater
Chicago, Illinois
$25,000
To support Moscow, Cheryomushki by composer Dmitri Shostakovich.
The production marks the first time a Shostakovich opera will be
performed in Chicago in 25 years, and it will feature the U.S. premier
of the re-orchestrated score arranged by Shostakovich scholar, Gerard
McBurney.
Houston Grand Opera Association, Inc.
Houston, Texas
$20,000
To support year two of activities from East + West, a 4-year
program of chamber opera focused on Houston's Asian populations.
Dedicated to art as a vehicle for cultural diplomacy and community
building, the second year of the initiative will focus on Iranian and
Cambodian communities in Houston, exploring subjects such as the
relationship between first- and second-generation immigrants,
displacement of war refugees, storytelling traditions, and cultural
inheritance.
Lyric Opera of Kansas City, Inc.
Kansas City, Missouri
$16,500
To support Nixon in China by composer John Adams. Coinciding with
the 40th anniversary of the historic presidential visit, local
partnerships with the Kemper Museum of Contemporary Art and the
University of Kansas will engage new audiences.
North Carolina Opera
Raleigh, North Carolina
$10,000
To support the production of Philip Glass's Les Enfant Terribles.
The performance aligns with the company's commitment to present an
annual mainstage production of a contemporary work.
Opera Theatre of Saint Louis
St. Louis, Missouri
$40,000
To support the U.S. premier of Alice in Wonderland by composer
Unsuk Chin and librettist David Henry Hwang.
Regents of the University of California at Berkeley
Berkeley, California
$75,000
To support performances of Einstein on the Beach by composer Philip
Glass and librettist Robert Wilson. A 2-week residency with the
composer and librettist and numerous education and community programs
will bring this significant work to the stage.
San Diego Opera Association
San Diego, California
$42,500
To support the new opera Moby Dick by composer Jake Heggie and
librettist Gene Scheer, based on the novel by Herman Melville.
Seattle Opera
Seattle, Washington
$20,000
To support the new production of Orphee et Eurydice by composer
Christoph Willibald Gluck. Education events will include preview
lectures, post-performance Q and A's, and the company's Experience
Opera program, which allows student to experience in-class
presentations and dress rehearsals for free.
Tulsa Opera, Inc.
Tulsa, Oklahoma
$16,500
To support Dead Man Walking by composer Jake Heggie. Due to the
unique subject matter and its potential appeal to those not familiar
with the art form, both pre- and post-performance surveys will gauge
the level of engagement among audience members. Sister Helen Prejean
will also participate in various lectures and panel discussions prior
to the production.
Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending
Federal tax dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered
from a 40-percent budget cut in the mid-nineties and found its budget
further decreased by $22 million in the past 2 years, leaving its
programs seriously underfunded. We urge you to continue toward
restoration and increase the NEA funding allocation to $155 million for
fiscal year 2013.
On behalf of OPERA America, thank you for considering this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) was established in 1912
as a trade association to support member needs to protect water rights
and encourage conservation and water management Statewide. OWRC
represents nonpotable agricultural water suppliers in Oregon, primarily
irrigation districts, as well as water control districts, and other
special districts and local governments that deliver irrigation water.
The association represents the entities that operate water management
systems, including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and
hydropower production.
OWRC is concerned about continued reductions to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Water State Revolving
Fund Loan Program (CWSRF) and is requesting that appropriations for
this program be increased to at least $2 billion in fiscal year 2013.
The CWSRF is an efficient loan program that addresses critical water
infrastructure needs while benefitting the environment, local
communities, and the economy.
OWRC is also concerned about various efforts by EPA to increase
regulatory authority over water resources planning and urges the Senate
to take action and prevent further jurisdictional overreach. EPA's
actions to increase its jurisdiction are counterproductive to
collaborative planning and detract from the positive solutions achieved
through the CWSRF program.
fiscal year 2013 appropriations
We are disappointed that the administration's request of $1.175
billion for the CWSRF program is a sharp reduction from enacted 2011
funding, and is still far short of what is needed to address critical
water infrastructure needs in Oregon and across the Nation. As
acknowledged in EPA's budget materials, this will lead to ``fewer water
infrastructure projects,'' and therefore a reduction in improvements to
water quality. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ)
most recent ``Proposed Intended Use Plan Update #2--State Fiscal Year
2012'', lists 115 projects in need of a total of $273,263,717 in Oregon
alone.
Additionally, EPA budget materials indicate that ``a number of
systems could have access to capital through the administration's
proposed Infrastructure Bank,'' but this has not happened yet and there
are numerous dire water infrastructure needs now. OWRC supports the
creation of an infrastructure bank, but the needs facing communities
now cannot wait for a new funding mechanism, particularly when the
CWSRF has worked very efficiently in Oregon. The CWSRF has been an
extremely valuable tool in Oregon for improving water quality and
efficiently addressing infrastructure challenges that are otherwise
cost-prohibitive.
Six OWRC member districts have successfully received loans from the
CSWRF over the last several years and many more will apply if funds are
available. Numerous irrigation districts and other water suppliers need
to pipe currently open canals, thereby improving water quality by
eliminating run-off into the canals and increasing water availability
for fish and irrigators by eliminating water loss from the canal
system. These projects not only benefit the environment and the patrons
served by the water delivery system, but also benefit the economy.
Four irrigation districts received more than $11 million funding in
Oregon from the 2009 ARRA funding through the CWSRF for projects which
created valuable jobs while improving water quality. These four
projects were essential to DEQ not only meeting but exceeding the
minimum requirement that 20 percent of the total ARRA funding for the
CWSRF be used for ``green'' projects. Those districts' applications had
been on DEQ's list of eligible projects for many years and would
probably still be on that list had the ARRA funding not been made
available. We provide that comment not to complain, but to emphasize
the need for additional funding for this program.
We acknowledge and support the administration's desire to ``expand
``green infrastructure'' options and their multiple benefits'' as part
of EPA's In fact, as mentioned above, irrigation districts and other
water suppliers in Oregon are on the forefront of ``green
infrastructure'' through innovative piping projects that provide
multiple environmental benefits. However, continually reducing the
amount of funds available for these worthwhile projects is
counterproductive and has created increased uncertainty for potential
borrowers about whether adequate funding will be available in future
years. CWSRF is often an integral part of an overall package of State,
Federal, and local funding that necessitates a stronger level of
assurance that loan funds will be available for planned water
infrastructure projects. Reductions in the CWSRF could lead to loss of
grant funding and delay or derail beneficial projects that irrigation
districts have been developing for years.
We recognize that our country is facing difficult economic times
and that we must make strategic investments with scarce resources.
However, the CWSRF is a perfect example of the type of program that
should have funding increased because it creates jobs while benefitting
the environment, and is an efficient return on taxpayer investment.
Oregon is facing record levels of unemployment and the CWSRF funded
projects provide much needed construction and professional services
jobs. Moreover, as a loan program, it is not a hand-out but a wise
investment that allows local communities to leverage their limited
resources and address critical infrastructure needs that would
otherwise be unmet.
We respectfully request the appropriation of at least $2 billion
for EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund for fiscal year 2013.
environmental protection agency regulatory overreach
OWRC is very concerned about EPA's recent efforts to revise Clean
Water Act Guidance without appropriate public process or legislative
oversight. The proposed changes would greatly broaden EPA authority and
illustrates an apparent desire to dictate watershed planning methods
for the Nation using a top-down regulatory approach from a desk in
Washington, DC. This regulatory overreach will lead to uncertainty for
landowners and water users, increased litigation and destroy
collaborative efforts (including CWSRF projects) already underway in
Oregon and across the Nation. OWRC concerns are now being reflected in
new bi-partisan legislation, H.R. 4965, introduced by several
distinguished Members of Congress. EPA recently also has been pushing
Oregon's Department of State Lands (DSL) to assume the Army Corps of
Engineers 404 program. Based on the controversy and EPA's incorrect
interpretation of the Clean Water Act, OWRC opposes these efforts.
Oregon is the model for watershed planning and does not need a new
Federal agency or executive branch office to continue watershed
planning. Watershed planning in Oregon formally began in 1995 with the
development of the Oregon Plan for Salmon Recovery and Watershed
Enhancement, a statewide strategy developed in response to the Federal
listing of several fish species. This strategy led to the creation of
the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), a State agency and
policy oversight board that funds and promotes voluntary and
collaborative efforts that ``help create and maintain healthy
watersheds and natural habitats that support thriving communities and
strong economies'' in 1999.
Oregon's success in watershed planning illustrates that planning
efforts work best when diverse interests develop and implement plans at
the local watershed level with support from State government. Planning
activities are conducted through local watershed councils, volunteer-
driven organizations that work with local, State and Federal agencies,
economic and environmental interests, agricultural, industrial and
municipal water users, local landowners, tribes, and other members of
the community. There are more than 60 individual watershed councils in
Oregon that are already deeply engaged in watershed planning and
restoration activities.
OWRC has written and commented on many of the EPA activities. These
documents can be found on our Web page. Below are links to these
documents.
--http://www.owrc.org/useruploads/files/Federal/
CWAJurWhitePaper_owrc.pdf
--http://www.owrc.org/useruploads/files/Federal/
SustainableWatershedPlanningAct_OWRC%20Letter%20to%20OR%20
Delegation.pdf
--http://www.owrc.org/useruploads/files/Federal/
OWRC_comments_EPA_DraftStrategic%20Plan_July2010.pdf
In conclusion, we applaud the CWSRF program for allowing Oregon's
DEQ agency to make targeted loans that address CWA issues but also help
water quantity and quality while addressing ESA in some instances. This
voluntary approach creates and promotes cooperation and collaborative
solutions to water resources challenges.
Conversely, regulatory overreach destroys cooperation, creates
mistrust and has a very negative affect on jobs and local economies.
OWRC applauds the Congress's bi-partisan effort in the House to reel in
EPA overreach. We encourage the Senate to pass H.R. 872, support H.R.
4965, and increase oversight of EPA.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
REQUEST
The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) requests $25 million to
fully fund the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Fisheries
Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) program in fiscal year
2013 as authorized in the Omnibus Public Lands Act Public Law 111-11,
section 13002. OWRC continues to be deeply disappointed that the
administration has not requested any funding in the fiscal year 2013
budget submission for this valuable program. The FRIMA program is an
important tool for FWS to help achieve its priorities in fish species
conservation and restoration and fills a void that other FWS programs
cannot provide.
NEED
OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support
member needs to protect water rights and encourage conservation and
water management statewide. OWRC represents nonpotable agriculture
water suppliers in Oregon, primarily irrigation districts, as well as
other special districts and local governments that deliver irrigation
water. OWRC members operate water management systems, including water
supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower production.
There are more than 100 irrigation districts and other special
districts in Oregon that provide water supplies to more than 1 million
acres of irrigated cropland in the State. Almost all of these districts
are affected by either State or Federal Endangered Species Act listings
of Salmon and Steelhead, Bull Trout or other sensitive, threatened or
endangered species.
FRIMA meets a critical need in fishery protection and restoration
and compliments other FWS programs. Fish passage and fish screens
installations are a vital component to fishery protection with several
benefits:
--Keeps protected fish species out of water canals and delivery
systems;
--Allows fish to be safely bypassed around reservoirs and facility
structures; and
--Eliminates water quality risks to fish species.
Oregon irrigation districts anticipate no less than $500 million in
funding will be required to meet current fish passage and fish screen
needs. Limited cost-share funds are available from the Oregon Watershed
Enhanced Board (OWEB) program in Oregon, but the primary cost-share for
fish screen and fish passage projects has been provided by the
districts and their water users. Project needs include both
construction of new fish screens and fish passage facilities as well as
significant upgrades of existing facilities to meet new requirements of
the NOAA Fisheries Service and FWS.
BACKGROUND OF FISHERIES RESTORATION IRRIGATION MITIGATION ACT PROGRAM
FRIMA, enacted November 2000, created a Federal partnership program
entailing voluntary cost-share fish screen construction for water
withdrawal projects in Idaho, Oregon, Washington and western Montana.
FWS is to implement this program through the four States' fishery
agencies. The funding goes to local governments for construction of
fish screens and fish passage facilities. Irrigation districts and
other local governments that divert water for irrigation can access the
funding directly; individual irrigators can access funding through
their local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), which are
local governments affiliated with the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS).
The original legislation in 2000 (Public Law 106-502) was supported
and requested by the Pacific Northwest Partnership, a coalition of
local governmental entities in the four Northwest States. As one of the
members of that coalition, we appreciate your consideration of this
request. When the Congress reauthorized the program in 2009 in the
Omnibus Public Lands Act minor clarifying changes were made to the
legislation while reauthorizing the program for 5 more years at $25
million a year.
FUNDING
The legislation calls for $25 million annually, to be divided
equally among the four States from 2001 forward. Agency administrative
costs cannot exceed 6 percent of the funding. FWS has never requested
funding for FRIMA in its budgets since passage of the legislation. The
Congress provided the first funding in 2001 through a write-in of $4
million to be shared among the four States. The agency did not get the
program up and running until late 2002, at which time the first moneys
were distributed.
In 2000, in its report accompanying the initial authorizing
legislation for FRIMA, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated
outlays of $70 million between 2001 and 2004. The actual appropriation
was only $8.8 million during that time period and all of the money was
a write-in. For fiscal year 2005, the Congress provided $2 million for
the program in the Consolidated Appropriations Act and, $2 million in
fiscal year 2006. The fiscal year 2007 funding of $1 million was part
of an appropriation to FWS but was not a separate, designated
appropriation. Again, all of those appropriations were the result of
congressional write-ins, not FWS budget requests.
As you can see, total amount of money that the Congress has written
in for the program is woefully inadequate for the accomplishments
anticipated for the program. The administration did not request funding
for the program for fiscal year 2013, consistent with its past budget
submittals, despite widespread benefits from the money that the
Congress has provided.
OWRC appreciates the funding the Congress has provided for the
FRIMA program in the past. That funding has begun to address the need
for fish screens and fish passages to protect sensitive, threatened,
and endangered fish species in the States in the Northwest, but there
still continues to be a significant need.
PROJECT BENEFITS
A report by FWS covering program years fiscal year 2002-2012
provides State-by-State coverage of how the congressional provided
funding has been used in the program. Funding funneled through FWS to
State fishery agencies is distributed using an application and approval
process that is based on a ranking system implemented uniformly among
the States, including the following factors:
--fish restoration benefits;
--cost effectiveness; and
--feasibility of planned structure.
The project must provide improved fish passage or fish protection
at water diversion structures and must benefit fish species native to
and present in the area, including those listed on State or Federal
endangered species or conservation lists. The project must use
applicable State and Federal requirements for project construction and
operation.
FRIMA-funded projects will increase the survival of many native
fish species in a relatively short period of time. Compared to other
recovery strategies, the risks posed by these activities are low and
the assurance of success in increasing numbers of fish is high.
Dislocation of existing social and economic activities is minor.
Screening and passage can make a very substantial contribution
utilizing existing implementation mechanisms and methods well accepted
by landowners and rural communities.
COST SHARE
FRIMA provides for a maximum Federal cost-share of 65 percent. The
applicant's cost-share is 35 percent plus the ongoing maintenance and
support of the structure for passage or screening purposes.
Applicants operate the projects and the State agencies monitor and
review the projects. This program is headquartered in the Portland,
Oregon, regional office of FWS. For more information, see the FWS
Fisheries Resources Web site for the Pacific Region at: http://
www.fws.gov/pacific/Fisheries/FRIMA.
OREGON'S PROJECT BENEFITS
Twenty-six fish screens or fish passage projects in Oregon have
been funded using funding from FRIMA for part of the project since the
start of the FRIMA program. These projects have led to:
--Installation of screens at 17 diversions or irrigation pumps;
--Removal or modification of 12 fish passage barriers; and
--Three-hundred sixty-five miles being re-opened to fish passage.
In addition, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has
used some of the FRIMA funding to develop an inventory of need for fish
screens and passages in the State. Grants have ranged from just under
$6,000 to $400,000 in size with a local match averaging 64 percent of
the project costs, well more than the amount required under the Act (35
percent). In other words, each Federal dollar invested in the FRIMA
program generates a local investment of just more than $1 for the
protection of fish species in the Pacific Northwest.
The following are examples of how Oregon has used some of its FRIMA
money:
Santiam Water Control District Project.--Fish screen project on a
large 1,050 cubic feet per second (cfs) multipurpose water
diversion project on the Santiam River (Willamette Basin) near
Stayton, Oregon. Partners are the Santiam Water Control
District, ODFW, Marion Soil and Water Conservation District,
and the City of Stayton. Approved FRIMA funding of $400,000
leverages a $1,200,000 project. Species benefited include
winter steelhead, spring Chinook, rainbow trout, and cutthroat
trout.
South Fork Little Butte Creek.--Fish screen and fish passage
project on a 65 cfs irrigation water diversion in the Rogue
River Basin near Medford, Oregon. Partners are the Medford
Irrigation District and ODFW. Approved FRIMA funding is
$372,000 and leverages a $580,000 total project cost. Species
benefited include listed summer and winter steelhead, coho
salmon, and cutthroat trout.
Running Y (Geary Diversion) Project.--Fish screen project on a 60
cfs irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near
Klamath Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Wocus Drainage
District, ODFW, and Jeld-Wen Ranches. Approved FRIMA funding of
$44,727 leveraged a total project cost of $149,000. Species
benefited included listed red-band trout and short-nosed
sucker.
Lakeshore Gardens Project.--Fish screen project on a 2 cfs
irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near
Klamath Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Lakeshore Gardens
Drainage District and ODFW. Approved FRIMA funding is $5,691,
leveraging a total project cost of $18,970. Species benefited
include red-band trout, short-nosed sucker and Lost River
sucker.
WHY FUND NOW
FRIMA should be a priority program of the U.S. Department of the
Interior as it prepares to meet the court-ordered January 1, 2014,
deadline for a new Federal Columbia River Power System Biological
Opinion that provides reasonable and prudent alternatives to mitigate
impacts to Columbia-Snake river salmon and steelhead. FRIMA funded
projects funded will help the Bureau of Reclamation, Bonneville Power
Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA Fisheries
meet these requirements.
Moreover, FRIMA funds projects that are ready to be constructed and
will provide immediate improved protections for fish and immediate jobs
for the construction of the projects. Dollar-for-dollar, providing
screening and fish passage at diversions is one of the most cost-
effective uses of restoration dollars, creating fishery protection at
low cost, with low risk and significant benefits. While we acknowledge
the efforts of the U.S. Department of the Interior and its agencies in
habitation restoration through the Cooperative Landscape Conservation
Program, this is a longer range program for fish and habitat
protection. FRIMA projects provide immediate protection for fish and
fill a large unmet need in the Pacific Northwest for cost-share
assistance with fish screening and fish passage installations and
improvements.
We urge the full authorization funding of $25 million for FRIMA in
fiscal year 2013 and urge the Congress's oversight in encouraging FWS
to budget for this successful program in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the
hearing record.
______
Prepared Statement of the Outdoor Alliance
The Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of Access Fund, American Canoe
Association, American Hiking Society, American Whitewater,
International Mountain Bicycling Association and Winter Wildlands
Alliance, six national, member-based organizations representing
millions of Americans who paddle, climb, mountain bike, hike, ski and
snowshoe on our Nation's public lands, waters and snowscapes.
The Outdoor Alliance has extensive experience working with Federal
land managers across the country concerning recreation and conservation
policies. Adequate funding for the National Park Service, U.S. Forest
Service, and Bureau of Land Management is required to support public
access and enjoyment of the cherished public lands and rivers they
manage. Although Federal land managers are integrating recreation,
conservation, and restoration programs to more effectively manage
public lands for Americans, budget cuts to these agencies will mean
less access to and conservation of our public land. Under-funded and
under-staffed land managers, when forced to make resource protection
and visitor use decisions, are much more likely to close or highly
restrict public access.
The Outdoor Alliance supports a common sense budget approach that
adequately funds Department of the Interior and Department of
Agriculture activities essential to conservation and the provision of
public recreation access to high quality public lands and waters. Human
powered and active outdoor recreation supports the $730 billion annual
outdoor recreation economy and is critical in reconnecting our youth
and our increasingly diverse citizenry with nature. To achieve these
goals, we offer the following budget recommendations for fiscal year
2013.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE--FOREST SERVICE
The Outdoor Alliance supports the President's fiscal year 2013
budget request of $4.86 billion for USFS, an increase of $15.5 million
more than the fiscal year 2012 appropriated level.
Recreation on national forest lands greatly supports local
economies and employment. The 2010 National Visitor Use Monitoring
Report found that spending by recreation visitors in areas near
national forests totals almost $13 billion annually. Protecting these
economic benefits requires an adequately funded planning process, an
effective infrastructure of trails and roads, and protected natural
landscapes and rivers. Forest Service land management plans (with
appropriate inventory and monitoring efforts) are critical to respond
to existing and developing management challenges, and to inform
intelligent and strategic forest management that allows for responsible
recreational access. Forest plans must be maintained and revised
repeatedly to maintain relevancy. Updated data and information is
critical for present-day planning and management efforts, and to ensure
that forest planning is integrated effectively. In the last 8 years
funding for Forest Service planning dropped by more than one-third, and
we see associated unmet issues and obligations that lead directly to
restrictions of various Outdoor Alliance activities.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a consolidated
budget line item to facilitate a consolidated approach to landscape
management, merging Land Management Planning, and Inventory and
Monitoring, into a single budget line item called Land Management
Planning, Assessment, and Monitoring. This proposed consolidated budget
line item provides the agency flexibility to implement the requirements
of the new Planning Rule (collaborative science-based approach for
planning, monitoring, and conducting assessments that considers
information from and about all lands affected by, or influencing,
planning unit activities). To maintain a basic planning program that is
able to respond to today's management challenges, we support the
President's requested budget of $205 million for Land Management
Planning, Assessment & Monitoring.
The Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness program oversees
all recreation on National Forest lands. This program is chronically
under-funded and understaffed. Outdoor Alliance supports the
President's allocation of $267 million that will permit the Forest
Service to begin to prioritize resources and facilities, maintain
current on-the-ground staff, and continue basic recreation resource
analyses and planning. Additionally, this funding level will assist in
leveraging partnerships with the human-powered recreation community,
who devote many thousands of volunteer hours to conservation and
stewardship projects on our national forests. Additional funds will
allow these critical activities to be accomplished in a timelier
manner.
The National Forest System serves more than 50 million visitors
annually who participate in activities that include cross-country
skiing, hiking, climbing, boating, and mountain biking on more than
153,000 miles of trails. Nearly all Forest visitors use the trails to
some extent and the recreation economy depends on quality trail
experiences, yet the Forest Service struggles with maintenance backlogs
in the billions of dollars. We believe that $346 million in fiscal year
13 for Capital Improvements and Maintenance is the basic support needed
to avoid adding to the massive deferred maintenance backlog, improve
human powered trail infrastructure, mitigate resource impacts, and
provide high-quality recreational experiences on Forest Service lands.
Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) is a new funding approach
that merges several different funds into one large restoration funding
line item. Last year the administration and the Congress agreed on a
three-region pilot (Regions 1, 3, and 4) to test IRR on the ground.
However, the President's budget for 2013 proposes skipping the
assessment phase and adopting IRR wholesale across all Forest Service
lands in 2013. This would mean no assessment of what worked and what
did not and is not prudent.
The Outdoor Alliance does not support the absorption of Legacy
Roads and Trails funding into IRR in fiscal year 2013. Our national
forests are interspersed with old roads that receive little or no use
yet cause serious environmental impacts and pose long-term financial
threats. Removing old and unused roads and investing in the roads and
trails used by hikers, climbers, backcountry skiers, mountain
bicyclists, and boaters is good for recreation, good for the
environment, creates jobs, and improves water quality benefitting
downstream users. Since its creation in 2007, the Legacy Roads and
Trails Remediation Fund has improved more than 12,000 acres of
watershed, maintained 3,170 miles of trails, improved 10,959 miles of
authorized roads, and decommissioned 2,970 miles of unauthorized roads.
The Legacy Roads initiative creates or retains approximately 1,500 jobs
every year which provide a significant economic stimulus to rural
America. If the program is merged into the IRR, there is no guarantee
that any funds would be used for the purposes the Congress intended in
establishing this program. Outdoor Alliance is concerned that although
the Congress and the administration agreed to test the concept in a
three region pilot program last year, there has been no assessment of
its success and now the program is being rolled out nationwide. We
believe such an assessment is critical before implementation across the
board occurs.
The Outdoor Alliance supports an fiscal year 2013 appropriation of
$793.1 million for the Integrated Resource Restoration budget line for
the restoration and management of priority watersheds, with at least
$75 million of that allocated to continue the important work of the
Legacy Roads and Trails program.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR--NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Our national parks offer opportunities for world-class recreation
and they serve as iconic locations for Outdoor Alliance activities.
Enthusiasts travel from all over the world to climb, hike, boat, bike,
and ski in places like Zion, Rocky Mountain, and the North Cascades
National Parks. Importantly, our parks also serve as crucial economic
engines for local economies. While the administration's overall request
for the Park Service is essentially flat, it proposes cuts to base park
operations by almost $22 million which will likely eliminate hundreds
of full-time employees and lead to deteriorating Park resources. If we
are serious about maintaining our Parks as economic engines for local
economies it is critical that we maintain funding for base park
operations. We are hopeful that the Congress will improve on the
administration's budget request and provide critical funding for base
park operations.
The Outdoor Alliance supports the President's proposed fiscal year
2013 appropriation of $2.3 billion for the Operation of the National
Park System, including $52 million for National Recreation and
Preservation. However, the administration's request must be increased
if $2.3 billion will not at least maintain basic park operations after
fixed costs have been addressed.
The Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program helps
people build parks and trails and preserve open space and river
corridors in their local communities. The RTCA program produces a
multiplier effect for local economies. It leverages Federal funding by
assisting locally-led conservation and outdoor recreation projects
nationwide to develop important community infrastructure, inspire
volunteerism and environmental stewardship, and connect Americans to
close-to-home recreation opportunities. This is especially important
for kids. Accordingly, the Outdoor Alliance supports an RTCA
appropriation of at least $10 million for fiscal year 2013 in order for
this essential capacity-building conservation and recreation program to
maintain its high level of effectiveness.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR--BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Many Outdoor Alliance members recreate on BLM lands across the
country, including those in the National Landscape Conservation System.
Opportunities to recreate on BLM lands--such as rock climbing at
Colorado's Shelf Road, mountain biking around Moab, Utah, boating New
Mexico's Rio Chama, backcountry skiing at Gunnison Gorge NCA in
Colorado--are some of the most sought-after recreation opportunities in
America. Outdoor Alliance believe that the BLM is uniquely positioned
to contribute to the success of the America`s Great Outdoors initiative
and its goals of reconnecting Americans to our exceptional recreation
resources. Accordingly, we support the President's inclusion of $70.3
million fiscal year 2013 budget for Recreation Management that will
help to begin to enable BLM to strengthen its protection and management
of popular, high quality recreation areas. We also believe that the
President's call for funding of $35.1 million for National Landscape
Conservation System programs is necessary to maintain necessary
staffing, enable adequate planning and resource monitoring to protect
natural and recreational resources and allow for a quality visitor
experience.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
The Land and Water Conservation Fund uses off shore oil and gas
royalties to address the national need to preserve natural areas and
provide recreation opportunities. Outdoor Alliance supports the
President's stated goal of fully funding the Land and Water
Conservation Fund by 2014 and supports his fiscal year 2013 LWCF
requests. We also believe that the Congress may have opportunities to
significantly exceed these figures this year and encourage them to do
so. In addition, we support the President's suggested funding of the
Forest Legacy Fund.
Wild and Scenic Rivers offer Americans some of the best outdoor
recreation opportunities on Federal lands and is a core component of
the America's Great Outdoors Initiative. Explicitly funding Wild and
Scenic River program staff and activities within each agency would
ensure that agencies have the capacity to protect these rivers and
provide world-class recreation opportunities.
We support the administration's proposed $9.3 million for the BLM
Wild and Scenic River Program, request that a new line item for the
Forest Service Wild and Scenic Rivers program be funded at $19 million
out of the Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness budget, and
that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program line item in the NPS budget be
funded at no less than $1 million to complement the Park Unit,
Partnership Rivers, and Special Resource Studies budget lines.
department of commerce: national oceanic and atmospheric administration
The President's budget has recommended $10.8 million for the
Fisheries Habitat Restoration program, which is comprised of the
Community-based Restoration Program that restores coastal and marine
habitat and the Open Rivers Initiative that removes obsolete dams and
other stream barriers in coastal watersheds that currently block salmon
from their native spawning habitat. While these two programs are
focused on improving fish habitat, they provide direct benefits to
recreational users of our waterways by enhancing the riverscape we
enjoy and reconnecting rivers currently blocked by dams that are
barriers to navigation. We strongly recommend the program receive $19
million in fiscal year 2013, and that the President's proposal to merge
the program with the Estuary Restoration Program and the Marine Debris
Program be rejected.
Thank you for considering our perspectives.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pacific Salmon Commission
Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the subcommittee, I am W.
Ron Allen, Chairman of the U.S. Section's Budget Committee on the
Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC). The U.S. Section prepares an annual
budget for implementation of the Treaty. The integrated budget details
program needs and costs for Tribal, Federal, and State agencies
involved in the Treaty. Under the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, the
U.S. Section recommends that the Congress:
--Fund the tribes' program at a restored funding level of $4,800,000
for tribal research projects and participation in the U.S.-
Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty process, an increase of $500,000
more than the President's requested level for 2013. This
funding level represents status quo funding plus adjustments to
meet increased obligations under the 2009-2018 Pacific Salmon
Treaty Agreement. The funding for tribal participation in the
U.S./Canada Salmon Treaty is a line item in the BIA's budget
under the Rights Protection Implementation, Wildlife and Parks,
Other Recurring Programs Area.
Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs, the U.S. Section
recommends that the Congress:
Provide base funding of $417,000 for USFWS participation in the
Treaty process, and provide funding of $315,000 for the Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission's Regional Mark Center. This
funding level represents an increase for the Mark Center to
make up for losses from other programs and allow the Mark
Center to maintain the same level of service to the U.S.
Section.
This base funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will pay
for the critically important ongoing work. The funding for Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission's Regional Mark Center is utilized
to meet Treaty requirements concerning data exchange with Canada. These
program recommendations are integrated with those of the State and
Federal agencies to avoid duplication of effort and provide for the
most efficient expenditure of scarce funds.
A copy of the integrated U.S. Section budget justification has been
made available to the subcommittee. The budget summary justifies the
funding we are recommending today. All of the funds are needed for
critical data collection and research activities directly related to
the implementation of the Treaty and are used in cooperative programs
involving Federal, State, and tribal fishery agencies and the
Department of Fisheries in Canada. The monetary commitment of the
United States is matched by the commitment of the Government of Canada.
The U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission is recommending
an adjustment to the funding for the work carried out by the 24 treaty
tribes' that participate in the implementation of the Treaty. Programs
carried out by the tribes are closely coordinated with those of the
States and Federal agencies. Tribal programs are essential for the
United States to meet its international obligations. Tribal programs
have taken on additional management responsibilities due to funding
issues with State agencies. All participating agencies need to be
adequately funded to achieve a comprehensive U.S. effort to implement
the Treaty.
We are strongly recommending maintaining base funding of $417,000
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service so the United States can
maintain the critical database to implement the Treaty. We also
strongly recommend funding of $315,000 to allow continuation of work
carried out by the Regional Mark Processing Center. This work,
maintaining and updating a coastwide computerized information
management system for salmon harvest and catch effort data as required
by the Treaty, has become even more important to monitor the success of
management actions at reducing impacts on ESA-listed salmon
populations. Canada has a counterpart database. The database will
continue to be housed at the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will contract with the
PSFMC to provide this service.
Mr. Chairman, the United States and Canada established the Pacific
Salmon Commission, under the Pacific Salmon Treaty of 1985, to conserve
salmon stocks, provide for optimum production of salmon, and to control
salmon interceptions. After more than 20 years, the work of the Pacific
Salmon Commission continues to be essential for the wise management of
salmon in the Northwest, British Columbia, and Alaska. For example,
upriver Bright fall Chinook salmon from the Hanford Reach of the
Columbia River are caught in large numbers in Alaskan and Canadian
waters. Tribal and nontribal fishermen harvest sockeye salmon from
Canada's Fraser River in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in Puget Sound.
Canadian trollers off of the west coast of Vancouver Island catch
Washington coastal Coho salmon and Puget Sound Chinook salmon. In the
Northern Boundary area between Canada and Alaska, fish from both
countries are intercepted by the other country in large numbers. The
Commission provides a forum to ensure cooperative management of salmon
populations. In 2008, the United States and Canada successfully
concluded lengthy negotiations to improve this management, including
the adjustments to the coastwide abundance-based management regime for
Chinook salmon and a framework for abundance based management for
southern Coho populations. The agreement is intended to last through
2018. The Fraser River sockeye and pink chapter to the Pacific Salmon
Treaty expired in 2010 and negotiators worked out an interim
arrangement while Canada's Cohen Commission completes its judicial
inquiry on the Fraser River sockeye fishery.
Before the Treaty, fish wars often erupted with one or both
countries overharvesting fish that were returning to the other country,
to the detriment of the resource. At the time the Treaty was signed,
Chinook salmon were in a severely depressed state as a result of
overharvest in the ocean as well as environmental degradation in the
spawning rivers. Under the Treaty, both countries committed to rebuild
the depressed runs of Chinook stocks, and they recommitted to that goal
in 1999 when adopting a coastwide abundance based approach to harvest
management. Under this approach, harvest management will complement
habitat conservation and restoration activities being undertaken by the
States, tribes, and other stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest to
address the needs of salmon listed for protection under the Endangered
Species Act. The 2008 Chinook agreement continues these commitments.
The combination of these efforts is integral to achieving success in
rebuilding and restoring healthy, sustainable salmon populations.
Finally, you should take into account the fact that the value of
the commercial harvest of salmon subject to the Treaty, managed at
productive levels under the Treaty, supports the infrastructure of many
coastal and inland communities. The value of the recreational
fisheries, and the economic diversity they provide for local economies
throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, is also immense. The value
of these fish to the 24 treaty tribes in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho
goes far beyond their monetary value, to the cultural and religious
lives of Indian people. A significant monetary investment is focused on
salmon as a result of listings of Pacific Northwest salmon populations
under the Endangered Species Act. Given the resources, we can continue
to use the Pacific Salmon Commission to develop recommendations that
help to ensure solutions that minimize impacts on listed stocks,
especially if we are allowed to work toward the true intent of the
Treaty: mutually beneficial enhancement of the shared resource.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my written testimony submitted for
consideration by your subcommittee. I want to thank the Committee for
the support that it has given the U.S. Section in the past. Please feel
free to contact me, or other members of the U.S. Section, through the
Office of the U.S. Section Coordinator to answer any questions you or
Committee members may have regarding the U.S. Section of the Pacific
Salmon Commission budget.
SUMMARY OF TRIBAL AND FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PROGRAMS UNDER THE U.S.-CANADA PACIFIC SALMON TREATY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2012 enacted 2013 Increase
appropriation recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of the Interior:
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights $4,120,000 $4,300,000 +$180,000
Implementation.............................................
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anadromous Fisheries........ 667,000 732,000 +65,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Partnership for the National Trails System
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Partnership for
the National Trails System appreciates your support over the past 18
years, through operations funding and dedicated Challenge Cost Share
funds, for the national scenic and historic trails administered by the
National Park Service (NPS). We also appreciate your increased
allocation of funds to support the trails administered and managed by
the United States Forest Service (USFS) and for the trails in the
Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) National Landscape Conservation
System (NLCS). To continue the progress that you have fostered, the
Partnership requests that you provide annual operations funding for
each of the 30 national scenic and historic trails for fiscal year 2013
through these appropriations:
National Park Service.--$16.21 million for administration of 23
trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails program
by the Washington office.
-- Construction: $380,000 for the Ice Age Trail and $200,000 for
the Pacific Crest Trail.
United States Forest Service.--$9.096 million to administer 6
trails and $1.2 million to manage parts of 16 trails
administered by the NPS or BLM. $1 million for Iditarod Trail
construction.
Bureau of Land Management.--To coordinate its National Trails
System Program: $250,000;
-- to administer these trails:
-- Iditarod Trail: $700,000,
-- the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Trail: $230,000,
-- the Old Spanish Trail: $350,000 and
-- to manage portions of 10 trails administered by NPS or USFS:
$4 million;
-- $3,140,000 for operating five National Historic Trail
interpretive centers;
-- Construction: $300,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail.
We ask that you appropriate $4.5 million for NPS Challenge Cost
Share Program and continue to direct one-third ($1.5 million) for
national scenic and historic trails or create a separate $1.5 million
National Trails System Challenge Cost Share Program.
We ask that you add $500,000 to BLM's Challenge Cost Share Program
and allocate it for the national scenic and historic trails it
administers or manages.
We ask that you appropriate from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) for land acquisition:
--to USFS:
--$7.25 million for the Pacific Crest Trail;
--$1.5 million for the Florida Trail;
--$2.65 million for the Old Spanish Trail;
--$3.24 million for the Appalachian Trail;
--$1.5 million for the Nez Perce Trail;
--$3 million for the Continental Divide Trail;
--$45,000 for the Pacific Northwest Trail; and
--$15,000 for the Arizona Trail; and
--to BLM:
--$3.5 million for the Oregon Trail in Oregon;
--$732,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail in Oregon; and
--$1 million for the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony
Express Trails in Wyoming; and
--to NPS:
--$6.2 million to continue work with the State of Wisconsin for the
Ice Age Trail;
--$2 million for the North Country Trail;
--$2.5 million for the New England Trail;
--$1.125 million for the Appalachian Trail;
--$4 million for the Ala Kahakai Trail; and
--$450,000 for the Overmountain Victory Trail.
National Park Service
The $16.21 million we request for NPS operations includes increases
for some of the trails to continue the progress and new initiatives
made possible by the additional funding the Congress provided over the
past 7 years. We support the administration's requested funding for the
new Star Spangled Banner and Washington-Rochambeau National Historic
Trails and we request $400,000 for NPS to implement planning and
administration for the New England National Scenic Trail.
We request an increase of $626,000 to expand NPS efforts to protect
cultural landscapes at more than 200 sites along the Santa Fe Trail, to
develop GIS mapping, and to fund public educational outreach programs
of the Santa Fe Trail Association. An increase of $780,000 for the
Trail of Tears will enable NPS to work with the Trail of Tears
Association to develop a GIS to map the Trail's historical and cultural
heritage sites to protect them and to develop interpretation of them
for visitors. We request an increase of $346,000 to $866,000 for the
Ala Kahakai Trail to enable NPS to work with E Mau Na Ala Hele, the Ala
Kahakai Trail Association, and other community organizations to care
for resources on the land and with the University of Hawaii to conduct
archaeological and cultural landscape studies along this trail.
We request an increase of $193,000 to $1,708,000 for the
Appalachian Trail to expand the highly successful ``Trail to Every
Classroom'' program of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. The
$1,483,000 we request for the 4,200-mile North Country Trail will
enable NPS to provide greater support for the regional GIS mapping,
trail building, trail management, and training of volunteers led by the
North Country Trail Association. This funding will also enable NPS to
move the administrative office for the North Country Trail to Michigan
for more efficient and effective collaboration with the North Country
Trail Association. The $1,389,000 we request for the Ice Age Trail
includes a $535,000 increase to build partner and citizen capacity for
protecting the natural, cultural and recreational resources on the Ice
Age NST and Ice Age Trail lands as well as to provide NPS with a
property manager for NPS-owned lands.
Construction.--We request that you appropriate for trail
construction projects $380,000 for the Ice Age Trail and $200,000 for
the Pacific Crest Trail in the national parks crossed by the trail.
Challenge Cost Share programs are one of the most effective and
efficient ways for Federal agencies to accomplish a wide array of
projects for public benefit while also sustaining partnerships
involving countless private citizens in doing public service work. The
Partnership's member organizations applaud the administration's
decision to restore these highly effective programs of the NPS, BLM,
and Fish and Wildlife Service. We request that you fund all of them and
appropriate $4.5 million in Challenge Cost Share funding to NPS for
fiscal year 2013 as a wise investment of public money that will
generate public benefits many times greater than its sum. We ask you to
continue to direct one-third of the $4.5 million for the national
scenic and historic trails to continue the steady progress toward
making these trails fully available for public enjoyment. We suggest,
as an alternative to the annual allocating of funds from the Regular
Challenge Cost Share program, that you create a separate National
Trails System Challenge Cost Share program with $1.5 million funding.
We support the administration's requested $934,000 for the Connect
Trails to Parks project to enhance the public's understanding of the
National Trails System and its relationship to the National Park
System.
United States Department of Agriculture--United States Forest Service
As you have done for several years, we ask that you provide
additional operations funding to USFS for administering 5 national
scenic trails and 1 national historic trail, and managing parts of 16
other trails. We ask you to appropriate $9.096 million as a separate
budgetary item specifically for the Arizona, Continental Divide,
Florida, Pacific Crest, and Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trails
and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail within the overall
appropriation for Capital Improvements and Maintenance for Trails.
Full-time managers have been assigned for each of these trails by USFS.
Recognizing the on-the-ground management responsibility USFS has for
838 miles of the Appalachian Trail, more than 650 miles of the North
Country Trail, and sections of the Ice Age, Anza, Caminos Real de
Tierra Adentro and de Tejas, Lewis & Clark, California, Iditarod,
Mormon Pioneer, Old Spanish, Oregon, Overmountain Victory, Pony
Express, Trail of Tears and Santa Fe Trails, we ask you to appropriate
$1.2 million specifically for these trails.
Work continues, supported by funds you provided over the past 10
years, to close several major gaps in the Florida Trail. In 2011,
Florida Trail Association (FTA) volunteers maintained 1,143 miles and
completed eight major construction and restoration projects along the
Trail. The Partnership's request of $9.096 million more than includes
$2.5 million to enable USFS and FTA to continue this maintenance, to
control invasive species, do ecosystem restoration, and otherwise
manage 4,625 acres of new Florida Trail land.
The Partnership's request of $9.096 million above also includes $2
million for the Pacific Crest Trail, $2.2 million for the Continental
Divide Trail, $1 million for the Pacific Northwest Trail, $826,000 for
the Nez Perce Trail, and $570,000 for the Arizona Trail. Some of the
additional funds requested will enable USFS to develop Comprehensive
Management Plans for the latter three trails. We also request $1
million of additional funding for construction of sections of the
Iditarod Trail.
Bureau of Land Management
While BLM has administrative authority only for the Iditarod, El
Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, and the Old Spanish National Historic
Trails, it has on-the-ground management responsibility for 641 miles of
five scenic trails and 3,115 miles of eight historic trails
administered by NPS and USFS. BLM recognized the significance of these
trails by including them in NLCS and since fiscal year 2002 has
provided funding for each of them. The Partnership applauds these
decisions of BLM and encourages its staff to budget specific funding
for each of these trails.
Although considerably more money is needed to fully administer NLCS
and protect its resources, we support the administration's request of
$69.549 million in base funding for the System for fiscal year 2013 and
ask that you appropriate as new permanent base funding $250,000 for
National Trails System Program Coordination, $700,000 for the Iditarod
Trail, $230,000 for El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Trail, $350,000
for the Old Spanish Trail, and $4 million for management of the
portions of the 10 other trails under the care of BLM. For trail
maintenance we request $300,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail and $50,000
for the Nez Perce Trail; and request $3,140,000 to operate five
historic trails interpretive centers.
We ask you to fund the Bureau's Challenge Cost Share program and to
add $500,000 directed for projects for the National Trails System as
you have done for many years with NPS's Challenge Cost Share program.
To promote greater management transparency and accountability for
the National Trails and the whole NLCS, we urge you to request
expenditure and accomplishment reports for each of the NLCS Units for
fiscal year 2012 and to direct BLM to include unit-level allocations by
major sub-activities for each of the scenic and historic trails, and
wild and scenic rivers--as BLM has done for the monuments and
conservation areas--within a new activity account for NLCS in fiscal
year 2013. Existing accounts for Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study
Areas should also be included in this new NLCS activity account. BLM's
lack of a unified budget account for National Trails prevents the
agency from efficiently planning, implementing, reporting, and taking
advantage of cost-saving and leveraging partnerships and volunteer
contributions for every activity related to these national resources.
Land and Water Conservation Fund
The Partnership applauds and supports the administration's
intention to provide $449.934 million for LWCF. We request that you
provide at least this amount to keep on a trajectory to achieve annual
full funding for the LWCF and that you make the specific appropriations
for national scenic and historic trails detailed at the beginning of
this statement and below.
United States Forest Service.--The $7.25 million we request for the
Pacific Crest Trail will continue to support the acquisition underway
by USFS Lands Team and NPS National Trail Land Resources Program
Center, protecting 3 miles of PCT in Washington, 0.5 mile in Oregon,
and 8 miles (including taking 3.4 miles off of roads) in California.
The $1.5 million requested for the Florida Trail will continue another
successful collaboration between these two agencies to protect 30
tracts and 3.4 miles of the Trail along the Suwanee River. We request
$2.65 million to protect a section of the Old Spanish Trail in the
Carson National Forest, $3.240 million to protect sections of the
Appalachian Trail in the Cherokee, Pisgah and George Washington/
Jefferson National Forests, and $1.5 million to acquire land in Hell's
Canyon of the Snake River in Oregon to protect sites along the Nez
Perce Trail.
Bureau of Land Management.--We request $732,000 for the Cascade
Siskiyou National Monument that will preserve a section of the Pacific
Crest Trail in Oregon, $3.5 million to purchase land along the Big
Sandy River in Oregon for the Oregon Trail, and $1 million to protect
sections of the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express
Trails along the Platte River in Wyoming.
National Park Service.--The National Trails System Act encourages
States to assist in the conservation of the resources and development
of the national scenic and historic trails. Since fiscal year 2000
Wisconsin has matched $13.6 million Federal LWCF funding with $27.7
million to help protect 67 miles of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail
by purchasing 51 parcels totaling 7,727 acres. Another 40 parcels are
under negotiation, appraisal, or option to purchase. The requested $6.2
million will continue this successful Federal/State/local partnership
for protecting land for the Ice Age Trail. We request $2 million to
close gaps in the North Country Trail, $4 million to acquire one parcel
for the Ala Kahakai Trail, $2.5 million to acquire three parcels for
the New England Trail, and $1.125 million to acquire parcels in
Pennsylvania and Vermont for the Appalachian Trail.
The Partnership strongly supports the new ``National Rivers and
Trails Initiative'' funding line for fiscal year 2013 as a first step
to providing consistent annual funding to acquire the land needed to
complete congressionally authorized trails. We urge you to provide
considerably more than the $4 million requested by the administration
since the LWCF funding requests a total more than $15 million.
Private Sector Support for the National Trails System
Public-spirited partnerships between private citizens and public
agencies have been a hallmark of the National Trails System since its
inception. These partnerships create the enduring strength of the
Trails System and the trail communities that sustain it by combining
the local, grassroots energy and responsiveness of volunteers with the
responsible continuity of public agencies. They also provide private
financial support for public projects, often resulting in a greater
than equal match of funds.
The private trail organizations' commitment to the success of these
trail-sustaining partnerships grows even as the Congress's support for
the trails has grown. In 2011, the trail organizations fostered
1,157,493 hours--an increase of 4 percent more than 2010--of documented
volunteer labor valued at $24,724,054 to help sustain the national
scenic and historic trails. The organizations also raised private
sector contributions of $8,740,790 to benefit the trails.
______
Prepared Statement of the Performing Arts Alliance
We urge the subcommittee to designate a total of $155 million to
the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2013. Mr.
Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am grateful
for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the Performing
Arts Alliance (PAA) and its member organizations--American Composers
Forum, Association of Performing Arts Presenters, Chorus America,
Dance/USA, Fractured Atlas, League of American Orchestras, National
Alliance for Musical Theatre, National Association of Latino Arts and
Culture, National Performance Network, New Music USA, OPERA America,
and Theatre Communications Group. The PAA is a national network of more
than 27,000 organizational and individual members comprising the
professional, nonprofit performing arts and presenting fields.
This testimony is intended to highlight the importance of the
Federal investment in the arts in order to sustain a vibrant cultural
community. With strong Federal support, the NEA can widen citizen
access to the cultural, educational, and economic benefits of the arts,
and advance creativity and innovation in communities across the United
States.
The NEA increases opportunities for the American public to enjoy
and benefit from the performing arts. Since the establishment of the
NEA in 1965, access to the performing arts has improved in communities
large and small across the country. The NEA has helped foster the
development of the many regional theatres, opera companies, dance
companies, orchestras, and performing arts centers that Americans now
enjoy. Despite diminished resources, the NEA awarded more than 2,400
grants in fiscal year 2011 to nonprofit arts organizations for projects
that encouraged artistic creativity, provided lifelong learning
opportunities, and engaged audiences in the finest the arts have to
offer.
The NEA contributes to the economic growth and development of
communities nationwide. The arts are part of a diversified 21st century
economy. Along with nonprofit arts organizations, creative enterprises
make significant contributions to State and local economies, generating
employment and tax revenues and providing goods and services in high
demand by the public. A strong arts sector is an economic asset that
stimulates business activity, attracting companies that want to offer
their employees and clients a creative climate and amenity-rich
community.
THE NONPROFIT PERFORMING ARTS COMMUNITY
The following member profiles of the PAA, which include national
service organizations representing composers, presenting, chorus,
dance, musical theatre, Latino arts and culture, new music, opera,
orchestras, and theatre fields, exemplify the economic, educational,
and quality of life benefits that performing arts organizations bring
to communities across the country.
AMERICAN COMPOSERS FORUM
American Composers Forum (Forum), one of the Nation's premier
composer services organizations, works to make composers, and the music
they create, a vibrant and integral part of our culture. Forum programs
reflect the diversity of our world, and they partner with a variety of
ensembles and organizations including faith communities, rural and
urban schools, healthcare facilities, Indian reservations, and civic
organizations. With more than 2,000 members nationwide, the
organization serves thousands of artists annually through its online
networks and social media.
ARTS PRESENTERS
Performing arts presenters bring professional performing artists
from all over the world into the communities they serve and include
organizations such as performing arts centers in major urban cities,
academic institutions, festivals and fairs as well as the artists,
artist managers, agents, and local arts agencies. The Association of
Performing Arts Presenters (APAP) is the national service and advocacy
organization with more than 1,400 members worldwide, dedicated to
developing and supporting a robust performing arts presenting field and
the professionals who work within it. APAP members bring performances
to more than 2 million audience-goers each week and spend in excess of
$2.5 billion annually, and the field of presenters serves more than 6
million audience members every week. The membership includes a range of
organizations from very small presenting groups (under $50,000 budgets)
to multi-million dollar budgets and individuals who are artists or
performing arts professionals, representing a diversity of performing
arts fields.
CHORUS
Chorus America's mission is to build a dynamic and inclusive choral
community so that more people are transformed by the beauty and power
of choral singing. Chorus America strengthens choral organizations and
provides their leaders with information, research, leadership
development, professional training, and advocacy to help them deliver
the best possible contributions to their communities and to the choral
art. The more than 2,000 choruses, individuals, businesses, and
organizations that are members of Chorus America speak with a strong
and unified voice to increase recognition of choral singing as an
essential part of society.
DANCE
More than two-thirds of America's professional dance companies are
less than 45 years old; as an established art form with national
identity and presence, dance has burst onto the scene almost entirely
within living memory. And yet, America can boast some of the greatest
dance companies of the world and can take credit for birthing two
indigenous dance styles--tap and modern dance. The key to this
spectacular achievement was the creation of a national marketplace for
dance, especially in the 1970s and 1980s. When the NEA instituted its
Dance Touring Program in the 1970s, great dance became accessible to
every community in the United States. NEA programs have continued to
ensure that the best of American dance is for all of the United States
and a showpiece for the rest of the world. Based on data from almost
300 nonprofit dance companies from across the United States, Dance/USA,
the national service organization for not-for-profit professional
dance, estimates that dance companies employed more than 12,800 people
in a mix of full-time and part-time positions; paid approximately $316
million in wages and benefits; earned $178.9 million, or 30 percent of
their income, from performances; received $235.7 million, or 47 percent
of their income in contributions; and generated more than $585 million
in economic activity across the United States.
FRACTURED ATLAS
Fractured Atlas is a nonprofit organization that serves a national
community of artists and arts organizations. Their programs and
services facilitate the creation of art by offering vital support to
the artists who produce it, and they help artists and arts
organizations function more effectively as businesses by providing
access to funding, healthcare, education, and more, all in a context
that honors their individuality and spirit. Their fiscal sponsorship
program has grown from 6 local groups to more than 2,200 nationally,
and in 2011 their membership topped 16,000 artists and arts
organizations, with an expanded audience of more than 140,000 through
their Open Arts Network.
MUSICAL THEATRE
National Alliance for Musical Theatre (NAMT) is the national
service organization dedicated exclusively to musical theatre and
serving some of the leading musical theatre producers in the world.
Last season, NAMT members collectively staged more than 18,500
performances attended by more than 11.5 million people, employed more
than 16,500 people, and provided education programs for more than 1
million students and teachers. NAMT has presented its Festival of New
Musicals annually since 1989, bringing together theatre producers and
writers, with the goal of furthering the development and production of
new musicals. NAMT's Festival has showcased almost 500 writers and
almost 300 new musicals.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ARTS AND CULTURE
Founded in 1989, the National Association of Latino Arts and
Culture (NALAC) is the Nation's only multidisciplinary Latino arts
service organization. NALAC provides critical advocacy, funding,
networking opportunities, and professional development training to
build the capacity and sustainability of the Latino arts and cultural
field to sustain artists and arts organizations in every region of the
country. NALAC's constituency is a multi-ethnic, multigenerational, and
interdisciplinary community that includes thousands of artists and
hundreds of not-for-profit Latino arts and cultural organizations in
the United States.
NATIONAL PERFORMANCE NETWORK
The National Performance Network (NPN) is a group of diverse
cultural organizers, including artists, working to create meaningful
partnerships and to provide leadership that enables the practice and
public experience of the contemporary arts in the United States. As a
nationwide network, NPN functions as an applied learning community.
NPN's resources currently support and connect 50-75 performing arts
organizations, called NPN Partners. The NPN constituency ranges from
the most grassroots operations to large regional arts centers. NPN
Partners are ethnically, culturally, and stylistically diverse and
reflect a cross-section of urban, suburban, and rural communities that
are generally under-represented.
NEW MUSIC USA
New Music USA's mission is to increase opportunities for composers,
performers and audiences by fostering the creation, dissemination, and
enjoyment of new American music, both nationally and internationally.
New Music USA places special emphasis on broadening the public
community for the music and musicians whom we serve.
OPERA
OPERA America members are found in communities all across the
country--a total of 122 companies in 43 States. In the United States,
more than one-half of these companies were established after 1970, and
more than 40 percent were established since 1980, indicating the growth
of opera throughout North America in the last 40 years. More than 6.7
million people attended a live performance at one of OPERA America's
Professional Company Members in the 2009-2010 season, including
education and outreach programs, and festivals. In 2009-2010, OPERA
America's Professional Company Members in North America presented 1,298
mainstage, festival, educational, and other programs. Beyond the opera
house, opera companies are finding new and exciting ways to bring the
essence of opera to other local theaters and community centers,
frequently with new and innovative works that reflect the diverse
cultures of the cities they serve. Strong partnerships with local
schools, too, extend the civic reach of opera companies as they
introduce children to another multi-media art form and discover
promising young talent.
ORCHESTRAS
Supported by a network of musicians, volunteers, administrators,
and community leaders, America's symphony, chamber, collegiate, and
youth orchestras total more than 1,800, existing in every State and
territory, with annual budgets ranging from less than $10,000 to more
than $90 million. More than half a million individuals are involved in
orchestras, including conductors, staff, board members, musicians, and
volunteers. Orchestra revenue totaled $1.69 billion in 2008-2009, and
their economic impact exceeds several times that amount as orchestras
create jobs, engage in commerce with local businesses, and spur local
expenditures on related goods and services. NEA grants to orchestras
and the communities they serve support arts education for children and
adults, expand public access to performances, preserve great classical
works, and foster the creative endeavors of contemporary classical
musicians, composers, and conductors. Orchestras now offer nearly
13,000 education concerts, more than 1,000 community engagement
concerts, and more than 40 kinds of programs, including pre-school
programs; in-depth, multi-year community residencies; and long-term
partnerships with schools, instrumental instruction, educational
classes for seniors, and programs in libraries and hospitals.
THEATRE
In 1961, nonprofit theatre in America consisted of only 16 theatre
companies. Today, thanks in large measure to the pivotal role played by
the NEA since 1965, the nonprofit theatre field consists of more than
an estimated 1,800 theatres located in major metropolitan centers,
urban neighborhoods, suburbs, and rural communities. Theatre
Communications Group (TCG), the national organization for the American
nonprofit theatre, reports that the estimated 1,807 nonprofit
professional theatres in the United States employ more than 119,800
theatre workers--actors, directors, playwrights, designers,
administrators, and technicians--and constitute a nearly $1.9 billion
industry. Collectively, these theatres are estimated to have offered
163,000 performances that attracted 31 million patrons. Based on recent
surveys of 171 nonprofit theatres, TCG reports that more than 1,100
outreach and educational programs are in existence today, serving more
than 2.5 million people. The direct impact of a theatre receiving
funding from the NEA comes not only in the form of project grants, but
also in the multiplier effect that NEA grants, through its matching
funds requirement, have on theatres' abilities to leverage and attract
other private and public funding.
CONCLUSION
Performing arts organizations are a vital component of community
life, allowing citizens to appreciate our Nation's culture and heritage
through excellent artistic programming. The NEA is an investment that
realizes significant returns on the Federal dollars invested, both
measurable and intangible. We urge you to designate no less than $155
million to the NEA. Thank you for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission
Introduction
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) is submitting the
following statement supporting two complementary programs:
--the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant (SWG); and
--Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Plan funding.
The SWG Program is directed at protecting and recovering native
species of greatest conservation need, whereas the Aquatic Nuisance
Species (ANS) Plan funding helps to prevent and reduce aquatic nuisance
species which pose a serious threat to native flora and fauna.
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) respectfully urges
your consideration for continued support of the State and Tribal
Wildlife Grants (SWG) Program for fiscal year 2013. This appropriation
to Pennsylvania and other States is crucial for slowing and reversing
the decline of imperiled species. In the past decade, the SWG Program
has become an integral component in the Commonwealth's wildlife
conservation efforts and crucial to implementation of federally
required State Wildlife Action Plan. State Wildlife Grants are matched
with non-Federal funds from a variety of State and nongovernmental
partners, thus allowing even greater work to be conducted. With
increasing financial stresses on States and their partners, maintaining
the Federal/non-Federal match rate of 65:35 is an important aspect of
the program.
The Congress has had the exceptional foresight to recognize that
endangered species prevention provides fundamentally efficient use of
taxpayer dollars, and early intervention is the most-effective
approach. As a Federal cooperative effort with the States and tribal
entities, State Wildlife Grants provide preventative care of natural
resources. This is the core program for preventing the listing of
endangered species and for the recovery of declining fish and wildlife.
In Pennsylvania, the Fish and Boat Commission, through SWG-funded
projects, has gained incredibly valuable information about the
distribution and abundance of species, for which we previously had
minimal data. Consequently, we have been able to delist 10 species from
the State threatened and endangered species list because we found the
populations of these species to be sufficiently abundant to preclude
listing as threatened or endangered. These new data have also
highlighted low abundances of other species toward which we can further
expect to direct additional efforts to help recover their populations
to help avoid Federal listing.
Additionally, the SWG Program has allowed the Commission and our
partners to implement proactive projects that have benefitted several
of the Commonwealth's most vulnerable species and habitats. Direct
habitat restoration, exemplified by the Commission's nationally
renowned fish passage program, has resulted in the removal of more than
170 small dams since 2004. This habitat restoration improves water
quality and opens critical habitat for numerous species of greatest
conservation need. Further, through our environmental review process,
funded by SWG, we are able to make prudent and appropriate decisions
that protect species and their habitats while advancing societal needs.
Increasing pressures from a variety of stressors and threats make the
value of this program an essential part of species protection.
State Wildlife Grants funds are vital for statewide efforts to
monitor and manage at-risk species populations, manage and restore
their critical habitats, and prevent further species decline. The
projects supported by State Wildlife Grants have improved public
safety, served private landowners, supported small business
contractors, and provided targeted management attention in every
congressional district of the Commonwealth. This proactive and
nonregulatory program, that ensures cost-effective matching funds,
provides a large return on a relatively small Federal investment.
Aquatic Nuisance Species Plans
We also respectfully urge your consideration for continued support
of funding for implementation of State Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS)
Plans. ANS in Pennsylvania are of ever-increasing concern to
Pennsylvania's $3.4 million fishing and boating industry that supports
nearly 18,000 jobs and generates $120 million in annual State and local
tax revenues. A few examples with economic and ecological impacts, that
have either been recorded in Pennsylvania, or are a potential threat
include; the fish virus viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS), zebra and
quagga mussels, the algal didymo, and fishes such as the round goby,
Eurasian ruffe and Asian carp--Pennsylvania Sea Grant Aquatic Invasive
Species: http://seagrant.psu.edu/publications/ais.htm.
Yet, despite the negative economic and ecological impacts posed by
these diverse ANS, State funding is inadequate, and most of
Pennsylvania's Federal funding to address this problem is received
through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), which is focused
on critical needs associated with the Lake Erie area. The ANS Plan
funding is the primary Federal funding available for use statewide,
without geographic restriction.
In Pennsylvania, the ANS Plan funds support Pennsylvania Sea Grant
initiatives to work with watershed associations, angling groups,
boating organizations, diving groups, State agencies, and other
interested parties to conduct programs and develop outreach materials
to emphasize the steps that can be taken to prevent the spread of ANS.
This outreach effort is emphasizing both the national Stop Aquatic
Hitchhikers! campaign message and the Pennsylvania Clean Your Gear
campaign message. It also supports Pennsylvania's participation in
regional ANS coordination efforts like the Mid-Atlantic ANS Panel and
the Great Lakes ANS Panel, because ANS movement is not limited by State
boundaries.
ANS Plan funding has been used to support the aquatic nuisance
(invasive) species workgroup of the Pennsylvania Invasive Species
Council, help develop a model rapid response plan, conduct early
detection and monitoring work for certain species, and develop an ANS
prevention sign for boat ramps that is now used by multiple agencies
across the Commonwealth.
Addressing ANS requires a diverse approach with prevention as the
initial effort. Once established, aquatic nuisance species can wreak
substantial negative ecological and economic impacts on native flora
and fauna. Preventative action is crucial to avoiding the cost and
ecological degradation that accompanies the establishment of these
aquatic invaders. As part of this prevention effort, education and
outreach provide the public, and all who may be impacted, with the
information needed to prevent or slow ANS transmission. Pennsylvania
Sea Grant has been a vital partner in providing this outreach. Special
initiatives such as ``clean your gear,'' ANS fact sheets, presentations
and other outreach efforts provide anglers and boaters with information
that can help reduce the inadvertent spread of ANS among waterbodies.
Early Detection and Monitoring can help reduce the establishment and
spread of ANS by providing an opportunity to control and potentially
eradicate an ANS before it is firmly established and broadly
distributed. Research to help repress, and perhaps eliminate, ANS is
another important facet in this effort to control these undesirable
species. ANS often demonstrate dramatic growth in abundance and
distribution after establishment, so measures to control and contain
the invasion may reduce the resulting outcomes from their occurrence.
Without the continued State ANS Plan funding, State agencies and
organizations will not have the necessary tools to leverage other
monies and resources to continue to implement this important program
which can have profound ecosystem, public health, and economic impacts.
In addition to these significant concerns posed by expansion of aquatic
nuisance species, aquatic nuisance species threaten Pennsylvania's
diverse native flora and fauna. This ANS plan funding is crucial to
maintain our natural heritage for future generations.
______
Prepared Statement of PNM Resources, Inc.
I am requesting your support for fiscal year 2013 appropriations to
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program consistent with the President's recommended
budget. I request that the subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Recovery'' funds (Resource Management
Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species
Subactivity; Recovery of Listed Species Program Element within
the $81,709,000 item entitled ``Recovery'') to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS to continue its
essential participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Recovery'' funds for the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses
incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program's
diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $43,189,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS's Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2013 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
______
Prepared Statement of Preservation Action
REQUEST
$46.925 million in appropriations (level funding) from the Historic
Preservation Fund for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs).
$9.7 million in appropriations from the Historic Preservation Fund
for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs).
$10 million in appropriations from the Historic Preservation Fund
for a Historic Preservation Grant Program run through SHPO offices.
$17.4 million in appropriations (level funding) from the
Preservation and Recreation Account for National Heritage Areas.
FUNDING FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND AND FOR THE PRESERVATION AND
RECREATION ACCOUNT--CORE SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR THE FEDERAL FUNCTIONS
OUTLINED IN THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966
Thank you Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of
the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony. We would like
to respectfully request $66.2 million in appropriations for the
Historic Preservation Fund (HPF). Recognizing our Nation's economic
challenges, this number represents a funding level approximately 17
percent less than fiscal year 2010, and about 18 percent higher than
the President's request--but still substantially less than 50 percent
of the $150 million authorized from the HPF each year. We would also
like to request level funding for National Heritage Areas of $17.4
million, paid for out of the Preservation and Recreation account.
Beginning with the HPF, we ask that this funding be allocated at
$46.925 million for State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), which
is level with fiscal year 2012 and equal to the President's request,
$9.7 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs)--which is
a slight increase of 10 percent, and $10 million for a fully
competitive historic preservation grant program administered by the
SHPOs in consultation with the National Park Service. This would
restore some degree of programmatic capabilities lost with the
elimination of funding for Save America's Treasures and Preserve
America in fiscal year 2011.
SHPOs carry out a substantial portion of our Federal historic
preservation program that provides citizens the tools needed to
revitalize, rehabilitate, and protect the places that give meaning to
America. They also assure State and local input into the designation of
the cultural resources that are important to them. Funding for SHPOs,
leverages investments through local jobs, non-Federal contributions and
long-term economic development. In 2011, the Rehabilitation Tax Credit,
administered by SHPOs, leveraged more than $4 billion in private
investment and created more than 55,000 jobs. SHPOs, as required by the
National Historic Preservation Act, also review Federal projects for
their potential impact on historic sites. In 2011, 140,600 projects
were reviewed. Another vital component administered by the SHPOs, the
Certified Local Government Grant program, provided small grants and
assistance to 1,800 communities throughout the Nation.
THPOs carry out many of the same functions as SHPOs, but on tribal
lands. While the THPOs are exempt from matching requirements, over the
life of this program, tribes overmatch the Federal funds by a factor of
between 5 and 10 to 1. There are currently more than 130 THPOs,
compared to only 12 in fiscal year 1996 when the program was first
funded. Unfortunately, the amount of funding annually appropriated to
the THPO program has not kept pace with this expansion. It is important
to keep in mind that this expansion is the result of the recognition of
tribes, not from out of control growth of a program. Thus, the addition
of new THPOs each year without additional funding actually means
substantial budget cuts for the tribes recognized by the program. With
the growing popularity of outdoor recreation, tourism and amateur
treasure-hunting, under-funding this program jeopardizes the
irreplaceable cultural artifacts from thousands of years of
civilization.
We also respectfully request $10 million for the establishment of a
fully competitive historic preservation grant program administered by
SHPOs. Recognizing the difficult economic times we are in, and our
country's need to better leverage our existing programs, this request
represents only one-third of the total previously funded through the
Save America's Treasures and Preserve America programs. In fiscal year
2011, funding for the Save America's Treasures and Preserve America
programs--collectively representing slightly more than $30 million was
completely eliminated, leaving no dedicated Federal funding stream
solely for the purpose of restoring, rehabilitating and surveying
historic places of national importance. The justification for this, as
published in the Interior Budget in Brief document last year, was so
that the National Park Service could ``focus available resources on
managing national parks and other primary responsibilities.'' We take
great exception to this observation.
The Organic Act of 1916 created the National Park Service in the
Department of the Interior ``. . . to conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objects and the wild life therein . . .'' Since
1933, the NPS has managed the Historical American Buildings Survey, the
Federal Government's oldest historic preservation program responsible
for the creation of more than 556,900 measured drawings, large-format
photographs, and written histories for more than 38,600 historic
structures and sites. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
which forms the basis of our Nation's Federal historic preservation
program within the Department of the Interior, further expanded the
role of the NPS in the designation and maintenance of historic
resources. Coupled with the fact that the NPS is the steward of more
than 27,000 significant structures, 66,000 archaeological sites and 115
million objects in museum collections, one could argue that not only is
historic preservation a core part of the mission of the NPS, it helps
define it.
We would be happy to work with a broad group of legislators,
preservationists, agencies and organizations to define the program to
meet strict performance metrics--assuring a sensible and balanced
program for restoring and sustaining our places of national
significance and a good return on investment.
We are also seeking level funding ($17.4 million) for National
Heritage Areas, paid for out of the National Recreation and
Preservation Account. National Heritage Areas, of which there are 49,
have been individually designated by the Congress because their
natural, cultural, historic, and scenic resources are considered
uniquely representative of the American experience. While the National
Park Service provides technical assistance and funding, 85 percent of
the support for National Heritage Areas comes from the impacted regions
through private, State, and local government sources. The Federal seed
monies provided have spurred grassroots conservation efforts that are
self-determining, self-defined and thereby reflective of their
individual values in a national context.
Recognizing concern about the sustainability of Heritage Areas,
recently, legislation has been introduced, which Preservation Action
supports, that would formally define the program and establish
performance metrics, and paths to self-sufficiency--so that we can get
the best return on our national investment. The administration's
proposed 50-percent reduction in funding for National Heritage Areas,
so that they can focus resources on park operations and other critical
partnership programs is disingenuous. In past attempts to cut this
funding, Interior and the NPS have cited the lack of the program
legislation that is now on the table--when they know full well of its
existence--because they helped to draft it. Cutting funding by 50
percent because the legislation does not exist yet is
counterproductive--unfairly harming the very program they are
attempting to better define. Given the economic value of Heritage
Areas, the number of jobs they produce (estimated at 152,324, paying
$3.2 billion in wages), and their ability to tie together history,
place, tourism and environment--we believe they are a good investment
and support small business.
THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IS MORE THAN JUST PARKS
Preservation and conservation are intertwined. In implementing the
National Historic Preservation Act, there was recognition of this fact
by placing the primary responsibility for both federally owned and non-
federally owned resources of national significance within the
Department of the Interior, who subsequently assigned responsibilities
to the National Park Service. Yet there seems to be an ongoing tension
between natural resources or ``parks'' and their broader
responsibilities for nonpark based ``partnership programs.'' In the
administration's budget, we see continued level funding for SHPOs and
THPOs, no funding replacing the $30 million in project grants
eliminated by not funding Save America's Treasures and Preserve
America, a 50-percent cut to National Heritage Areas, a $1.4 million
reduction in cultural resource stewardship, and reduced funding for
construction and major maintenance (in the face of an enormous
maintenance backlog and the fact that only 58.5 percent of our historic
structures are considered to be in good condition). At the same time
there is $215 million proposed for natural resource stewardship
programs (twice the amount of cultural), and a proposed increase of
$104 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund--used primarily
for land acquisition. We should be prepared to increase our investment
in preserving the very assets we already own as well as new ones.
Based upon several years of similar trends, this past year,
Preservation Action convened a Task Force consisting of eleven national
historic preservation organizations, examined this problem, and
published a series of findings and recommendations in a report called
``Aligned for Success, Recommendations to Increase the Effectiveness of
the Federal Historic Preservation Program.'' Among the Task Force's
findings are that the current structure of the Federal historic
preservation program does not ``provide for the levels of leadership,
public and private partnerships, advocacy, innovation and visibility
required to realize the transformative vision for historic preservation
set forth in the 1966 Act.'' The Task Force also found that there
exists a competition for resources between park-based and nonpark-based
cultural resources--a finding directly related to the funding choices
made by the National Park Service.
To correct the problem, the Task Force recognizes that visibility
for the historic preservation program is key so that it can get the
resources needed to fully realize the vision of the National Historic
Preservation Act. These no-nonsense solutions don't require tremendous
a lot of funding--attempting to maximize return on investment, and
better positioning existing resources:
--Realign the responsibilities for Preservation Partnership Programs
within the National Park Service under a Deputy Director for
Historic Preservation and Heritage who reports to the Director
of the National Park Service.
--Designate a Senior Policy Officer for Historic Preservation and
Heritage in the Department of Interior as a Special Advisor for
Heritage to the Secretary of the Interior.
--Make the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Chairman a full-
time position.
--Designate a senior staff position for historic and cultural
resources on the President's Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ).
We would welcome the opportunity to work with members of this
Committee to find a way to facilitate these changes, and to provide
encouragement or instruction to the National Park Service and the
Department of the Interior to make them happen. The result would be a
more-effective program, and one better able to sustain itself while at
the same time focusing on our national heritage.
Our Nation's cultural resources and natural resources are both
important. We believe that they should not be an either-or proposition.
Further, during this time of economic challenge, and widespread
discussion on investments in infrastructure, we respectfully ask that
you consider investment in our cultural resources, the preservation of
our heritage, and the jobs that go along with historic preservation as
a vital part of the solution.
Preservation Action is a nonprofit grassroots advocacy organization
founded in 1974. Our membership is made up organizations and
individuals throughout the United States who share an ongoing interest
and concern in our Nation's Federal historic preservation programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year 2013 appropriations
for American Indian and Alaskan Native programs. My name is David Z.
Bean, Tribal Council Member for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. The
Puyallup Tribe is an independent sovereign nation having historically
negotiated with several foreign nations including the United States in
the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854. This relationship is rooted in
Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, Federal laws
and numerous Executive orders. The governing body of the Puyallup Tribe
of Indians is the Puyallup Tribal Council which upholds the tribe's
sovereign responsibility of self-determination and self-governance for
the benefit of the 4,416 Puyallup tribal members and the 25,000 plus
members from approximately 355 federally recognized tribes who utilize
our services. The Puyallup Reservation is located in the urbanized
Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of Washington. The 18,061-acre
reservation is a ``checkerboard'' of tribal lands, Indian-owned fee
land and non-Indian owned fee land. Our reservation land includes parts
of six different municipalities:
--Edgewood;
--Federal Way;
--Fife;
--Milton;
--Puyallup; and
--Tacoma.
The following written testimony being submitted to the U.S. Senate
Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee
documents the Puyallup Tribe's views on the President's fiscal year
2013 Federal budget. On February 13, 2012, President Obama delivered
his fiscal year 2013 budget to the Congress. The budget proposal
focuses on job creation and the beginning steps to reducing the
Nation's projected deficits. Within the budget, $2.5 billion is
provided for the Operation of Indian Programs. This represents an
overall increase of $4.6 million from current levels. For the Indian
Health Services (IHS), $4.422 billion is provided, an increase of
$115.9 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. We
appreciate the increased funding provided for the operation of Indian
programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and IHS. However,
the years of inadequate funding and the effects of inflation has
impacted the tribe's ability to fully exercise self-determination and
self-governance. As negotiations proceed on the fiscal year 2013 budget
and future appropriations, efforts to insure adequate funding is
provided for the operation of Indian programs will be paramount. To
preserve the increased funding levels realized in recent years and
contained in the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget for BIA and IHS, the
increases should be viewed by the Congress and the administration as
new ``base funding'' amounts with annual increases to meet actual need.
Specific issues and needs are:
Department of the Interior--Bureau of Indian Affairs
Public Safety and Justice.--The fiscal year 2013 budget request
includes $353.8 million for BIA Public Safety and Justice. This
represents a $8.4 million increase more than the fiscal year 2012
enacted level which is fully supported by the Puyallup Tribe. The $88.1
million for tribal and BIA detention and corrections funding is of
great importance to the Puyallup Tribe. Within this amount, $6.3
million increase is directed to fund operations and O&M costs at newly
constructed facilities. While this increase is supported by the
Puyallup Tribe, it is of concern that current and ARRA funded
facilities will remain understaffed. It is estimated that 373 positions
are needed to fully staff existing direct service facilities and Public
Law 93-638 contracted facilities. The Department of Justice funded 13
tribes for the construction and/or expansion of detention facilities.
According to the BIA Greenbook, five new or expanded facilities will
become operational by the end of fiscal year 2013. It is estimated that
186 additional staff will be needed to operate these facilities. In
fiscal year 2009, the Puyallup Tribe received a Department of Justice
ARRA grant, in the amount of $7.9 million to construct a 43 bed adult
corrections facility. The tribe has mobilized the Project Team,
addressed all Special Conditions of the Grant Award, completed facility
environmental documentation, design and established a Groundbreaking
Ceremony for spring/summer 2012. The Project will be completed and be
coming online by the end of the third quarter of fiscal year 2013. Over
the past 2 years the Puyallup Tribe has been working closely with the
BIA-Office of Justice Services National and Regional staff on
identifying the future operating and staffing costs associated with the
Puyallup Tribe's new adult corrections facility. The Puyallup Tribe has
submitted a Public Law 93-638 contract request to the BIA for
Operations and Maintenance funding for the new facility, including Pre-
Award, Start-up, Transitional funding, Staffing and O&M funding. We are
requesting support from the subcommittee on our contract request to the
BIA for the O&M funding for the Tribe's Adult Corrections facility,
estimated at $3.1 million annually. Further, the Puyallup Tribe
requests the subcommittee support to increase funding for BIA
Detention/Corrections by $32.2 million to reflect actual funding need.
In addition, we have submitted a Public Law 93-638 contract request to
the BIA for tribal court funding, including pre-award and start-up
funding. In fiscal year 2012, the BIA was able to fund only one-third
of actual need of pre-award and start-up funding requests. We are
requesting support from the subcommittee on our contract request for
tribal court funding and to fund pre-award and start-up funding at 100
percent level of need, approximately an increase of three times the
fiscal year 2012 base funding.
Natural Resources Management.--The Puyallup Tribe as stewards for
land and marine waters in the Usual and Accustomed fish, shellfish and
wildlife areas has treaty and governmental obligations and
responsibilities to manage natural resources for uses beneficial to the
tribal membership and the regional communities. Despite our diligent
program efforts, the fisheries resource is degrading and economic
losses are incurred by Native and Non-native fishermen and surrounding
communities. Our resource management responsibilities cover thousands
of square miles in the Puget Sound region of the State of Washington
with an obligation to manage production of anadromous, non-anadromous
fish, shellfish and wildlife resources. Existing levels of support are
inadequate to reverse the trend of resource/habitat degradation. For
fiscal year 2013, $8.660 million is provided for BIA Western Washington
Fisheries Management, a small increase more than the fiscal year 2012
enacted level of $8.257. The Puyallup Tribe agrees with the Northwest
Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) request of $17.146 million for
Western Washington Fisheries Management. The $8.486 million increase in
funding would provide new monies for shellfish, groundfish,
enforcement, habitat, wildlife and other natural resource management
needs. As the aboriginal owners and guardians of our lands and waters
it is essential that adequate funding is provided to allow tribes to
carry out our inherent stewardship of these resources. The Puyallup
Tribe will continue to secure increased funding for Hatchery Operations
and Maintenance. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget contains
$4.838 million for tribal hatcheries, compared to the fiscal year 2012
budget request of $5.452 million. The Puyallup Tribe supports the NWIFC
recommendation to fund the Fish Hatchery Maintenance at $5.452 million,
an increase of $614,000 more than the President's fiscal year 2013
request. The Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW) Supplemental and U.S./
Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty programs has allowed for the expansion of
tribal participation in the State forest practice rules and regulations
and participation in inter-tribal organizations to address specific
treaties and legal cases which relate to multi-national fishing rights,
harvest allocations, and resource management practices. We request
subcommittee support to provide funding for the TFW at the President's
request of $2.777 million and U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty program
at $4.8 million, an increase of $436,000 more than the President's
request of $4.364 million. The Puyallup Wildlife Management program has
been the lead agency in management activities to benefit the South
Rainier elk herd since 2004. The South Rainier elk herd is the primary
stock of elk harvested by the Puyallup Tribe. The tribe has not only
established more reliable methods for population monitoring, but has
also been proactive in initiating habitat enhancement projects,
research and land acquisition to ensure sustainable populations of elk
for future generations. Funds that are available to the tribe have been
on a very competitive basis with a limited amount per program via USFWS
Tribal Wildlife grants and the BIA Unresolved Hunting and Fishing
Rights grant program. We request subcommittee support to provide base
funding to the Tribes Wildlife Management Program in the amount of
$100,000 through the BIA Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights program
in fiscal year 2013 appropriations.
Education.--The fiscal year 2013 budget requests funding of $795
million for the Education program, a decrease of $3.8 million from
current levels. We operate the pre-K to 12 Chief Leschi Schools which
included a verified 2008-2009 School student enrollment of 910 plus
students, including ECEAP and FACE programs. With an increasing number
of pre-kindergarten enrollment, Chief Leschi Schools will exceed design
capacity in the near future. Additional education facility space will
be required. Additional, the cost of operation and maintenance of the
Chief Leschi School facilities continues to increase in the areas of
supplies, energy and student transportation costs. The tribe will work
with the Congress and the BIE to increase funding in fiscal year 2012,
including:
--Tribal Grant Support Cost for Tribally Operated Schools--$72.3
million; Student Transportation--$73 million;
--School Facilities Accounts--$109.8 million in facilities operations
and $76 million in facilities maintenance; and
--Indian School Equalization Formula--$431 million.
Operations of Indian Programs and Tribal Priority Allocations.--The
President's fiscal year 2013 budget is in drastic need for increased
funding for the BIA Operations of Indian Programs. Within the
Operations of Indian Programs is the Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA).
The TPA budget functions include the majority of funding used to
support ongoing services at the ``local tribal'' level, including;
natural resources management, child welfare, other education, housing,
and other tribal government services. These functions have not received
adequate and consistent funding to allow tribes the resources to fully
exercise self-determination and self-governance. Further, the small
increases TPA has received over the past few years has not been
adequate to keep pace with inflation. The Puyallup Tribe is requesting
support from the subcommittee to fund the Operation of Indian Programs
at the fiscal year 2013 request of $2.5 billion and Tribal Priority
Allocations at a minimum of $897,436 million, an increase of $6,366
million of the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. We further request
support from the subcommittee to increase funding for Indian Child
Welfare (TPA) by $45 million; increase Urban Indian Child Welfare
programs by $15 million; and increase BIA Child Welfare Assistance by
$55 million.
Department of Health and Human Services--Indian Health Service
The Inadequate funding of IHS is the most substantial impediment to
the current Indian Health system. The Puyallup Tribe has been operating
healthcare programs since 1976 through the Indian Self-determination
Act, Public Law 93-638. The Puyallup Tribal Health Authority (PTHA)
operates a comprehensive ambulatory care program to the Native American
population in Pierce County, Washington. The current patient load
exceeds 9,000, of which approximately 1,700 are tribal members. There
are no IHS hospitals in the Portland area so all specialties and
hospital care have been paid for out of our contract care allocation.
The Contract Care allocation to PTHA has been significantly inadequate
to meet the actual need since fiscal year 2004 when the Puyallup Tribe
subsidized Contract Health with a $2.8 million contribution. By fiscal
year 2012 the tribal subsidy had reached a staggering $6 million. Given
that the PTHA service population is only comprised of 17 percent
Puyallup tribal members, tribal budget priorities in fiscal year 2011
and 2012 has made continued subsidies to the PTHA financially difficult
for the Puyallup Tribe. The fiscal year 2013 budget requests $5.5
billion in discretionary budget authority for IHS. This represents a
$115.9 million increase more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
For Health Services programs the fiscal year 2013 budget request is
$3.978 million, an increase of $112 million more than the fiscal year
2012 enacted level. Included within the increases are funding for
Contract Support Costs ($476.4 million), Contract Health Services
($897.5 million), and Alcohol and Substance Abuse funding ($195
million). The Puyallup Tribe fully supports funding increases for
existing IHS programs and will work the Congress to continue efforts to
increase funding for IHS and the critical programs administered by this
Agency.
______
Prepared Statement of the Quinault Indian Nation
``The Great Spirit bestowed life to all of us . . . including the
animals, birds, fish, insects, and plants. Our collective Native
warnings and predictions were ignored in the rush to capitalize and
exploit the bountiful resources of the land. Countless irreplaceable
species are preserved now in museums or documents in textbooks. As the
consequences of unmanaged exploitation and pollution reach irreversible
proportions, the United States heeded our centuries old appeals for
environmental protection. We only hope it's not too late and that
Mother Nature's wounds can still be healed. We will continue to serve
as the environmental conscience to the Nation and the world.''----
Joseph B. DeLaCruz, President, Quinault Indian Nation, 1972-1993
In the spirit of these profound words of our former President, I am
honored to appear before this Committee on behalf of the Quinault
Indian Nation and provide testimony on our priority requests and
recommendations on the fiscal year 2013 budgets for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS).
Tribal Specific Priority Requests
$8.714 million a Year for Blueback Restoration (for 2013-2020)--
BIA.
$4.64 million for Substance Abuse and Comprehensive Drug Strategy
Plan--BIA and IHS.
$2.21 million for the McBride Road Maintenance and Emergency
Reservation Exit--BIA.
Support Local/Regional Requests and Recommendations
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians.
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board.
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
Support National and Self-Governance Budget Priorities
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Increase of $8.8 million to fully fund Contract Support Costs
(CSC).
Increase of $13.7 million to fully fund Fixed Costs/Pay Costs.
Increase of $89 million for Tribal Priority Allocations.
Fully fund all provisions of the Tribal Law & Order Act of 2010.
Office of Self-Governance--Request not to consolidate in other
division within Indian Affairs.
Indian Health Service
Increase of $99.4 million to fully fund Contract Support Costs
(CSC).
Increase of $200 million for Contract Health Services (CHS).
Increase of $40 million for alcohol and substance abuse programs
Increase of $304 million for Mandatory Costs to maintain current
services
Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG)--Increase $5 million to the
IHS OTSG
justification for tribal specific requests
$8.714 Million Annually for Blueback Restoration (Annually From 2013-
2020 = $61 Million)
The Blueback Restoration Program is designed to halt the current
habitat loss and deterioration and to repair and restore natural
habitat forming processes and sockeye production on the Quinault
floodplain. Conditions that will result from implementation of this
program will benefit other salmon stocks in the system and will serve
to protect private property and public infrastructure. The program plan
calls for formation of public and private coalitions and partnerships
to implement restoration actions.
The Quinault River Blueback (Sockeye Salmon) Restoration Program
will help to restore the natural beauty and productivity of the
Quinault River Basin to historic levels, thus making it a more
attractive tourism destination. In addition, the program will provide
local construction jobs during its implementation phase, and the
restoration program will result in conditions that will improve and
sustain commercial and sport fishing on the Quinault River. The program
will also benefit local residents and businesses by reducing the
likelihood of flooding and property loss and increasing local economies
both in the near and long-term future. Implementation of the
restoration program will help avoid the burdensome and restrictive
consequences of having the Quinault sockeye listed as threatened or
endangered under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
This unique and valuable stock of salmon is near collapse due
mostly to degraded habitats in the upper Quinault River Basin and in
Lake Quinault. This habitat loss has occurred over the past century due
to historic timber harvesting, property development, and infrastructure
construction. Natural processes on the floodplain began unraveling in
the late 1800s and the deterioration is continuing in the present time.
This is a long-term project expected to take up to 20 years to
complete structure placement and enhancement, including the engineering
and material procurement, with full implementation occurring in the
decades following as natural processes rebuild the habitat to historic
conditions. Through successful efforts of this program, it will protect
and restore the livelihoods of 100 commercial fishermen and 25 sport
fishing guides in Grays Harbor and Jefferson Counties and the Quinault
Indian Reservation.
The program will also contribute partial support for approximately
20 jobs in the fish processing industry in western Washington, thus
improve the economic status of the families living in the communities
within the Quinault Indian Reservation. The program will provide
employment for 10-30 laborers and equipment operators in Grays Harbor
and Jefferson counties during the construction phases of individual
projects. This project will reverse adverse environmental impacts by
restoring habitats and ecosystems of the Quinault River and Lake
Quinault while at the same time stabilizing the river channel in
efforts to protect infrastructure and property loss.
The construction phase of this plan was implemented in the fall of
2008 with the construction of 12 engineered log jams. With full funding
as needed on an annual basis, the basic construction phase of this
project is expected to be completed at the end of fiscal year 2020.
Fertilization, data acquisition and monitoring will continue for many
years.
$4.64 Million for Substance Abuse and Comprehensive Drug Strategy Plan
The Quinault Indian Nation Substance Abuse and Comprehensive Drug
Strategy Plan seeks to improve, integrate, and strengthen the overall
health and services to protect the communities on the reservation from
the significant risks related to drug production, sale, and use by
targeting enforcement, outreach, prevention, stabilization, and harm
reduction services to high risk-populations.
The Quinault Indian Nation is located along the southwest coast of
Washington State. We are facing ever-escalating threats of drug
trafficking, narcotic distribution, gang activity and weapons
offenses--leading to devastating social, health and environmental
consequences including damage to the pristine ecosystems. It is
documented that for every 1 pound of methamphetamine that is produced,
there are 6 pounds of hazardous waste materials created.
The regional topography renders us susceptible to drug smuggling
and production. The Washington section of the U.S.-Canadian border is
approximately 430 miles in length, a significant portion of which is
vast, dense forest. The border has 13 official ports of entry (POEs),
but the rest of the border is largely unpatrolled. Drug smugglers
exploit the national parks and forests, as well as other forestlands
and waterways adjacent to the border, to smuggle drugs into Washington.
Similarly, the clandestine manufacturing of methamphetamine in this
region is of epidemic proportions.
To combat this problem, the Quinault Indian Nation Tribal
legislative body (the Business Committee) formed and funded the
Quinault Nation Narcotics Enforcement Team (QNNET) in September, 2011.
Reporting directly to the Attorney General of the Quinault Indian
Nation, QNNET works to prevent and suppress narcotic trafficking and
drug use through intensive investigations. QNNET also collaborates and
communicates with other local law enforcement agencies, the Department
of Justice, elected officials and the community at large. During the
first quarter of fiscal year 2012, we have made 48 arrests with 100
percent convictions and confiscated heroin, meth, prescription drugs,
weapons and explosives. Cases have been prosecuted in tribal, State,
and Federal courts.
The General Accountability Office (GAO) is currently conducting a
study that will focus on:
--the scope of border and security issues facing Indian country;
--what tribes are doing to combat the problems; and
--the challenges and successes in working with Federal partners.
The Quinault Indian Nation will make a perfect case study for the
GAO undertaking and gain National visibility for the collective and
multi-jurisdictional efforts of law enforcement and behavioral health
agencies.
The Quinault Indian Nation's Substance Abuse component to the
Comprehensive Drug Strategy Plan is part of a broader more
comprehensive alcohol and drug strategy that recognizes the need to
plan for the future. Quinault Indian Nation drug prevention and
education programs are funded at 72 percent less than the national
average per capita. To provide equivalent substance abuse prevention,
treatment, and interdiction funding consistent with national levels,
the Quinault Indian Nation must generate and budget $4,640,000 annually
through Federal and State grants combined with tribal investment into
these critical and vital programs. The estimated distribution of this
annual budget need is:
Prevention.--$1.8 million annually;
Treatment.--$1.54 million annually; and
Interdiction.--$1.3 million annually.
The Nation has encouraged collaborative relationships among
Government departments, health authorities, professionals, community
members and families to create conditions that prevent drug use, treat
drug users, educate the public, and hold offenders accountable and
control access to supply while helping ensure safer communities.
Most importantly, we have actively sought the guidance and wisdom
of our elders and with the participation of our youth, community,
churches and school districts we have undertaken a multidisciplinary
approach and strategy, emphasizing prevention, enforcement, treatment
and aftercare. Unfortunately, the best plans prove valuable only when
the funding is available to execute and implement the strategy. We have
found that at every level and in every discipline, funding to support
our strategy is appallingly inadequate. We stress the urgent need to
reclaim our communities to protect our families, our elders and our
next seven generations from this menacing and deteriorating drug on the
Quinault Indian Nation Reservation.
$2.21 Million McBride Road Maintenance and Emergency Reservation Exit
Route: BIA/Roads Maintenance Program
The Quinault Reservation is located in Grays Harbor County in the
village of Taholah, Washington; a rural isolated and economically
deprived area. The village of Taholah lies in a tsunami danger zone.
The site of the village is barely above sea level and experts have
determined that the sea level is rising because of global warming
patterns. For Taholah, tsunami is a health and safety risk factor that
we must live with everyday. The Quinault Reservation is interlaced with
thousands of miles of roads that are left over from large logging
contracts that ended in about 1980. Most of these roads do not have the
required right-of-way and do not receive funding for maintenance.
The village of Taholah is accessible via SR 109 that parallels the
Pacific Ocean. The McBride Road, a single forest road, is the only
escapement route available to the 1,000 community members of the
Quinault Indian Nation living in the village of Taholah. Its state of
disrepair necessitates that immediate action be taken to bring the road
up to a Class B gravel road status to be used in cases of emergency.
The cost for this project is $876,500 to repair 10.75 miles and could
be accomplished within a 3-month timeframe during dry weather
conditions. The Project will create four new jobs in right-of-way
acquisition and road engineering and will impact about 400 jobs of
timber workers, fishermen, and fishing guides that rely on these roads
for their livelihood.
Major portions of this route are at sea level. What is particularly
important to understand is that the portions of this road above sea
level are susceptible to mudslides. Three such mudslides have occurred
in the past 5 years. In a single event, the road blocked access for 3
days. Medical needs for village people became an issue, while those in
need of kidney dialysis were particularly affected. Some tribal members
were able to evacuate the village by using another, longer alternate
route. Still, this application is unsafe for use by the general public
because the forests roads are not patrolled, well maintained, have
limited signage and cell reception.
Thank you for allowing me to provide this testimony on behalf of
the Quinault Indian Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of Restore America's Estuaries
Restore America's Estuaries is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization that has been working since 1995 to restore our Nation's
greatest estuaries. Our mission is to preserve the Nation's network of
estuaries by protecting and restoring the lands and waters essential to
the richness and diversity of coastal life. Restore America's Estuaries
is a national alliance of 11 community-based organizations that protect
and restore coastal and estuarine habitat. Our 11 member organizations
include:
--American Littoral Society;
--Chesapeake Bay Foundation;
--Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana;
--Save the Sound--a program of the Connecticut Fund for the
Environment;
--Conservation Law Foundation;
--Galveston Bay Foundation;
--North Carolina Coastal Federation;
--People For Puget Sound;
--Save The Bay--San Francisco;
--Save the Bay--Narragansett Bay; and
--Tampa Bay Watch.
Collectively, we have more than 250,000 members nationwide.
For fiscal year 2013, Restore America's Estuaries supports the
following coastal programs and funding levels within the Department of
the Interior and Environmental Protection Agency:
Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program.--$14.87 million; and
Environmental Protection Agency National Estuary Program.--$35
million.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE COASTAL PROGRAM
The Coastal Program is a voluntary, incentive-based program that
provides technical and financial assistance to coastal communities and
landowners to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat on public
and private lands. The Coastal Program works with other Federal, State,
local, and nongovernmental partners and private landowners to deliver
strategic habitat protection and restoration for the benefit of Federal
trust species.
Support for the management and stewardship of our coastal
ecosystems that bridge land and sea has never been more important due
to the accelerating pace of environmental change now occurring. While
environmental degradation of estuaries has continued in recent years,
the Coastal Program has been a key program aimed at on-the-ground
habitat restoration. Despite the program's relatively small cost--it is
having a huge impact on-the-ground. A recent estimate by USFWS Coastal
Program staff show that the program leverages $8 non-Federal dollars
for every Federal dollar spent--this makes the Coastal Program one of
the most cost-effective habitat restoration programs within the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Restore America's Estuaries has enjoyed a collaborative
relationship, with the Coastal Program for many years. The nature and
scope of our partnership spans the national and local levels as we work
with CP headquarters on long-term issues, and locally the program works
with our member groups through Regional CP staff to conduct on-the-
ground habitat restoration.
As an example of a true partnership, the Coastal Program recently
worked with RAE member Save The Bay--San Francisco as well as the San
Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge to restore salt marsh on Bair
Island. This project is helping to provide critical habitat for a
variety of species, including the endangered California clapper rail
and the salt marsh harvest mouse, and a number of birds that traverse
the area on their journey across the Pacific.
On the East Coast, the Coastal Program assisted RAE member
Chesapeake Bay Foundation to choose and prepare a site to plant redhead
grass near the Magothy River in Maryland. This is a good example of the
invaluable technical assistance that the Coastal Program is able to
provide to a nongovernmental organization, which can then better
restore habitat for numerous migratory bird and interjurisdictional
fish species.
In the Gulf, the Coastal Program worked side-by-side with RAE
member Galveston Bay Foundation to construct geotextile tube offshore
breakwaters on Snake Island Cove. This effort has led to the protection
of 200 acres of estuarine marsh from erosion and the creation of a 65-
acre calm shallow water area conducive to seagrass restoration.
The Coastal Program also is essential in efforts to restore fish
passage of anadromous fish populations and restore riverine habitat.
RAE member Conservation Law Foundation worked with the Coastal Program
and other regional partners to support the removal of dams along the
Penobscot River as well as install fishways to restore native Atlantic
salmon.
Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support and
funding for USFWS Coastal Program. This program delivers habitat
protection and restoration in priority coastal areas on both public and
private lands through partnerships with other Service programs, Federal
agencies, State and local agencies, tribal governments and native
corporations, nongovernmental organizations, universities,
corporations, and private landowners.
Further, we believe that the Coastal Program's ability to work with
coastal communities and landowners on both public and private lands has
been key to the program's ability to deliver restoration of priority
coastal habitats, including coral reefs, shorelines, marshes, wetlands,
uplands, and rivers and streams.
USEPA NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
The National Estuary Program is a nonregulatory, network of
voluntary community-based programs that safeguards the health of
important coastal ecosystems across the country program. The program
utilizes a consensus-building process to identify goals, objectives,
and actions that reflect local environmental and economic priorities.
Currently there are 28 estuaries located along the Atlantic, Gulf,
and Pacific coasts and in Puerto Rico that have been designated as
estuaries of national significance. Each NEP focuses it work within a
particular place or boundary called a study area which includes the
estuary, and surrounding watershed.
Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support of the NEP
and ask that you continue to invest directly in the stewardship of our
Nation's coasts by ensuring that the authorized amount of $35 million
be provided for the NEP for fiscal year 2013, and that of these funds
each of the 28 NEPs in the field receive $1 million.
CONCLUSION
Restore America's Estuaries greatly appreciates the support this
subcommittee has provided for these important programs. These programs
help to accomplish on-the-ground restoration work which results in
major benefits:
Jobs.--Coastal habitat restoration creates more than 30 jobs for
each $1 million invested. That's more than twice as many jobs
as the oil and gas sector and road constructions industries
combined.
Leverage.--USFWS Coastal Program leverages non-Federal dollars at
a ratio of 8 to 1. In a time of shrinking resources, these are
rates of return we cannot afford to ignore and help to
accomplish more on-the-ground conservation.
Fish.--Traditional fisheries management tools alone are
inadequate. Fish need healthy and abundant habitat for
sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries.
We appreciate your taking our requests into consideration as you
move forward in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process and look
forward to working with you to ensure the health of our Nation's
estuaries and coasts.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sac and Fox Nation
Chairman Simpson and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my
name is George L. Thurman, and I am the Principal Chief of the Sac and
Fox Nation. I thank you for the opportunity to present the Sac and Fox
Nation's testimony before this esteemed subcommittee. We appreciate
your dedication to righting the wrongs our people suffered in the past
and suffer in the present. Thank you for supporting the increases for
Indian programs. We understand the fiscal constraints of the Country
and together we can provide a future that has many opportunities for
self-sufficiency through Self-Governance.
Sac and Fox Nation Tribal Specific Budget Requests:
--Add $4.8 million to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Detentions/
Corrections to fully funded the Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile
Detention Center; and
--Direct the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs to continue the
Federal corporate charter for Sac and Fox--support tribal
economic development.
National Budget Requests:
Bureau of Indian Affairs:
Contract Support Costs.--Fully fund $8.8 million increase
included in President's request
Fixed Costs/Pay Costs.--Fully fund--Provide $13.7 million
increase
Fully fund all provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act of
2010
Do not consolidate the Office of Self-Governance; must remain
stand-alone
Indian Health Service:
Contract Support Costs.--$99.4 million more than President's
request
Mandatory Costs.--$304 million increase to maintain current
services
Indian Health Care Improvement Fund.--$45 million increase
Contract Health Costs.--$200 million increase
Alcohol and Substance Abuse.--$40 million increase
Office of Tribal Self-Governance.--$5 million increase
Support the Requests of the National Indian Health Board
Support the Requests of the National Congress of American Indians
About the Sac and Fox Nation
The Sac and Fox Nation is headquartered in Stroud, Oklahoma, and
our tribal jurisdictional area covers Lincoln, Payne, and Pottawatomie
Counties. Of the 4,000 enrolled tribal members, 2,600 live in Oklahoma.
We are proud pay tribute to a Sac and Fox descendent and Great Native
American, Jim Thorpe. One of the most revered Olympic athletes who have
ever represented the United States; Mr. Thorpe won the pentathlon and
decathlon in the 1912 Olympics.
Tribal Specific Budget Requests--$4.8 Million for Juvenile Detention
Center
The passage of the tribal Law and Order Act was applauded by the
Sac and Fox Nation because we saw this as the opportunity for the
Federal Government to finally fulfill the commitment to the Nation and
fully fund our Juvenile Detention Center (JDC). In 1994, the Sac and
Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) opened its doors after years
of planning and construction made possible by funding from the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. The JDC is the
first juvenile facility designed for American Indians/Alaska Natives as
well as the first juvenile facility developed under Public Law 100-472,
the Self-Governance Demonstration Project. The JDC is a full service,
24-hour juvenile detention facility that provides basic detention
services to all residents to insure their health, safety, and welfare
and provides programs tailored to meet the specific needs of our
clients. These programs include behavioral management, substance abuse,
spiritual, cultural, self-esteem, arts and crafts, health and fitness,
horticulture, nutrition, life skills, counseling, and educational
programs. The 39 tribes included in the Southern Plains Region will
support the JDC but due to underfunding and staffing shortages, the JDC
cannot accommodate the detention needs of the regional tribes.
In recent appropriations testimony provided by Assistant Secretary
Larry Echo Hawk, he requested $6.5 million for Detention/Correction and
an additional 18 FTEs. We take great exception to the this request
inasmuch as the Department of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Affairs has
never provided the full funding that was committed for the
appropriation, planning and construction process of the JDC. The Sac
and Fox Nation, due to the failure of the full funding commitment by
Federal officials not being honored, has had to utilize funds that
could have been used for other social services needs. The Sac and Fox
Nation is committed to working with the Department of the Interior/
Bureau of Indian Affairs officials in an effort to help them fulfill
their financial commitment. With the promise of full funding realized,
the JDC will be ready, willing and able to meet the needs of tribes who
need our help in guiding their children toward a successful future
while providing a culturally and spiritually sensitive environment.
In fiscal year 2004, the Office of the Inspector General issues the
report, ``Neither Safe nor Secure''--An Assessment of Indian Detention
Facilities, citing the existence of serious safety, security, and
maintenance deficiencies at detention centers throughout Indian
Country. One of the primary recommendations was the need to identify
and remedy staffing shortages whereby Indian Affairs responded that
``current facilities still remain understaffed by a total of 373
positions (74 positions for Indian Affairs direct service programs and
299 positions for programs operated by tribes under Public Law 93-638
and Self-Governance compacts).\1\ The Sac and Fox Nation is requesting
that the Bureau of Indian Affairs recommits to funding for the JDC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior Budget
Justifications--Green Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal Specific Request--Federal Corporate Charter
Since Federal recognition as an organized tribe, the Sac and Fox
people have fought to maintain the well-being of our people. The Sac
and Fox have persevered to maintain our sovereignty through history and
into the era of Self-Governance despite broken treaties and inadequacy
of Federal funding.
Historically the people of the Sac and Fox Nation stood alongside
many nations to seek and pave paths to new frontiers for all tribes in
the United States. This is evident in our Supreme Court victory on May
17, 1993 against the State of Oklahoma with regard to registering
vehicles and issuing license plates for tribal members.
Then, once again, the Sac and Fox Nation forged new territory in
the seeking of Federal Corporate Charter in accordance with the Indian
Reorganization Act of 1934 and the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936.
In 1987 the Sac and Fox Nation moved this exercise of Self-Governance
forward with the signing of a Federal Corporate Charter by, then
Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Ross Swimmer. The key purposes
of our Charter are to advance the standard of living of the tribe
through the development of tribal resources, the acquisition of new
tribal land, the preservation of existing land holdings, the better
utilization of lands, the development of a credit program for the
tribe, and the furtherance of economic industrial development within
the tribal jurisdiction.
In October 2007, after decades of attempting to place tracts of
land into trust through the process administered by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, the Sac and Fox Nation placed 24 tracts of land into
trust in accordance with our Federal Corporate Charter. Where trust
applications had been disapproved in the past by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs for reasons such as not having an easement despite the fact the
Sac and Fox Nation owns the adjacent property, the Sac and Fox Nation
placed these 24 tracts into trust in accordance with the Charter and
Laws of the Sac and Fox Nation. On November 6, 2007, the Sac and Fox
Nation issued notice of these actions to the Secretary of the Interior,
the Southern Plains Regional Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Oklahoma State agencies, and each respective County agency. The Sac and
Fox Nation's peak of accomplishment was hit hard by opposition in a
letter from the Bureau of Indian Affairs Southern Plains Region dated
March 7, 2008 stating ``it is a well-established legal precedent, that
absent the Secretary's approval of such conveyance, trust status is not
imposed.'' The Sac and Fox Nation holds firm that Secretarial approval
was granted in the signing of the Federal Corporate Charter. We stand
strong behind the foresight of the leaders of the Sac and Fox Nation
that held close the vision of improving the quality of life for our
people through the economic development provisions of the 1987 Federal
Corporate Charter.
The insight of the leaders of the Sac and Fox Nation subsequent to
those essential to the 1987 Federal Corporate Charter ignited the
initiative to further extend the resources of the Sac and Fox Nation to
improve the well-being of its people by the passing of a tribal
resolution on May 13, 2008 petitioning the Secretary of the Interior to
approve a second Federal Corporate Charter. Consultation with then
Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Carl Artman, at the 64th annual
NCAI Convention and Trade Show held in Denver in November 2007 and in
an audience granted during a trip to Muskogee, Oklahoma in the spring
of 2008, led to the signing of a second Federal Corporate Charter on
May 22, 2008. The significant intentions of the second Federal
Corporate Charter were to advance the standard of living of the Nation,
its citizens, other Indians, and other persons associated with the
Nation, through the acquisition of new Indian land, the preservation
and expansion of Indian land holdings, the development of natural
resources, the better utilization of land, the development of credit
programs for the acquisition, development, and improvement of lands and
the reduction of fractionated heir ships. In addition the Nation could
further explore economic and industrial development on Indian lands;
promote economic self-sufficiency and political self-determination for
Indian tribes and members of Indian tribes; encourage inter-tribal,
regional, and international trade and business development in order to
assist in increasing productivity, improving the standard of living of
citizens of Indian tribes, and improving the economic self-sufficiency
of the governing bodies of Indian tribes.
Although the Sac and Fox Nation has two Federal Corporate Charters
approved and signed by two former Assistant Secretaries of Indian
Affairs, opposition has arisen again. The 2008 Federal Corporate
Charter signed by former Assistant Secretary Carl Artman waits to be
scrutinized by the Solicitor's office of the Department of the Interior
in advisement to the National Indian Gaming Commission. A letter
received from the National Indian Gaming Commission dated February 17,
2012, states that ``the Office of General Counsel will coordinate with
the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor on whether the
Indian lands definition is permissible under IGRA and whether such
lands are eligible for gaming under IGRA.'' While Interior review was
neither solicited nor warranted, the historical resistance of the
Office of the Secretary of the Interior is peaking over the shoulders
of the National Indian Gaming Commission. The current Assistant
Secretary of Indian Affairs, Larry Echo Hawk, has diverted questions
regarding Interior's position with regard to our Federal Corporate
Charters to standard bureaucratic statements such as ``I cannot answer
at this time as it is under review by the Office of Solicitor.''
Attempts to seek an audience with Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk are
weighed down with a discouraging screening process while the fate of
the economy of the Sac and Fox Nation gets lost in redtape. Assistant
Secretary Echo Hawk's written testimony to the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs on the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for
Indian Programs in the Department of the Interior states the Department
of the Interior is seeking an increase for $43.8 million in funding for
the Strengthening Tribal Nations initiative yet the Department of the
Interior does not support the Sac and Fox Nation's Federal Charters
which require no increase in Federal funding and directly address the
Bureau of Indian Affairs initiatives.
The Sac and Fox Nation is proud to say we are a Self-Governance
Tribe. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2013
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial public benefits
including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural, historical and recreation heritage. As LWCF is funded from
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these
funds should go to their intended and authorized use as a conservation
offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
As part of the LWCF request in fiscal year 2013, the National Park
Service included $2.441 million for the acquisition of land at Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. I am pleased that this
funding was included in the request and urge the Congress to provide
necessary funds for LWCF for this important project.
Southern California is 1 of only 5 locations in the world that
feature the Mediterranean biome (a geographically limited ecosystem).
Characterized by mild, rainy winters and warm, dry summers, these
ecoregions are moderated by the windward presence of cold ocean
currents offshore. The landscapes in these areas are noted for the
evergreen shrublands, called chaparral in California, which host very
diverse, but spatially limited, ecosystems of flora and fauna. These
Mediterranean biomes also present attractive climates for human
habitation, leaving the ecosystems highly threatened by development.
Protecting undeveloped lands in these fragile ecological areas has
become especially urgent in the burgeoning Los Angeles metropolitan
area.
The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area was established
in 1978 to protect land in the mountains northwest of the Los Angeles
basin. In creating this park, the Congress noted the region's important
scenic, recreational, and historic resources, as well as the public
health benefits from protecting lands in the Santa Monica Mountains. In
addition to National Park Service lands, a number of State-owned lands,
including Point Mugu, Leo Carrillo, Malibu Creek, and Topanga State
parks and several State beaches, are located within the boundaries of
the national recreation area.
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2013 is the 6.16-acre
Ramirez Canyon property, which lies in the Zuma/Trancas Canyons area of
the park. The Zuma and Trancas Canyons have been inhabited for more
than 10,000 years. Ancestors of the Chumash Indians gathered food and
found shelter in the canyons, which were later included in a Spanish
land grant of 13,330 acres and became Rancho Topanga Malibu Sequit.
Eventually the Pacific Coast Highway crossed the land, making its
beauty accessible to travelers. Most of this land is now under National
Park Service ownership, protecting its multitude of natural and
historic resources, but a number of inholdings remain unprotected.
This tract is part of a larger property that benefits from the
year-round flow of Ramirez Creek, providing important riparian habitat
shaded by sycamore trees. The tract itself predominantly contains oak
woodlands habitat, which was identified in the California State
Wildlife Action Plan as an underprotected ecological community type.
Oak woodlands within the park support an array of wildlife, including
native wildflowers, acorn woodpeckers, spotted towhees, valley quail,
pocket gophers, gray foxes, mule deer, and perhaps even an occasional
mountain lion. This land has been designated environmentally sensitive
habitat under the California Coastal Act.
The property has important linkages with already protected lands,
including an invaluable trailhead providing access from Kanan Dume Road
to the National Park Service lands at Zuma/Trancas Canyons. The land
has been subdivided into developable parcels, and a ready access road
adds to the development potential of the property. This is a critical
time for Santa Monica Mountains NRA to acquire the Ramirez Canyon
property, as delay will only increase the likelihood of residential
housing adding to habitat fragmentation and environmental degradation.
The National Park Service at Santa Monica has identified a number
of additional properties for future acquisition, and it is important
for the Park Service to continue the acquisition and protection of
these ecologically, recreationally, and archaeologically important
scenic lands. The fiscal year 2013 President's budget recommendation of
$2.441 million through the Land and Water Conservation Fund will permit
the acquisition of Ramirez Canyon and other important lands in the
Zuma/Trancas Canyons.
In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund of $450 million, as proposed in the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget, including critical funding for the Santa
Monica Mountains NRA. I want to thank the Chairman and the members of
the subcommittee for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of
this nationally important protection effort in California, and I
appreciate your consideration of this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sawtooth Society
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2013
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial public benefits
including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural, historical and recreation heritage. As LWCF is funded from
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these
funds should go to their intended and authorized use as a conservation
offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
As part of the LWCF request in fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) included an allocation of $500,000 for the Salmon-Selway
Initiative in Idaho's Sawtooth National Recreation Area. I am pleased
that this funding was included in the request and urge the Congress to
provide necessary funds for LWCF to finish this important project.
Located in central Idaho, the Salmon-Selway Ecosystem, totaling
almost 4 million acres, is one of the largest and wildest habitats in
the continental United States. A rugged complex of mountains, rivers,
and forests, it includes the Selway-Bitterroot and the Frank Church-
River of No Return wilderness areas, five national forests, numerous
rivers, and the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. The area provides
unique habitats critical for fish and wildlife including threatened and
endangered species such as Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout,
lynx, and gray wolves. Each year in late summer, salmon and steelhead
trout return to the high reaches of the Salmon and Clearwater Rivers,
traveling 900 miles and climbing 7,000 feet from the Pacific Ocean to
the mountain tributaries of their birth--the highest salmon spawning
grounds on Earth. An appropriation of $500,000 from the LWCF in fiscal
year 2013 will complete the work that was initiated in fiscal year 2012
for the protection of the Rodeo Grounds Ranch. This project is one of
the largest remaining inholdings in the Sawtooth National Recreation
Area and helps to conserve the traditional landscape and scenic
character of the region, protect wildlife habitat, water quality, and
ensure public access for recreation.
The 756,000-acre Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA) comprises
one of the largest and most magnificent national recreation areas in
the United States. Four mountain ranges:
--the Sawtooths;
--Boulders;
--White Clouds; and
--Smokies
provide scenic landscapes in every direction, with more than 50 major
peaks more than 10,000 feet, 300 lakes, and 250 miles of trails. There
are more than 1,000 high mountain lakes and glacial tarns here, as well
as the headwaters of four of Idaho's major rivers:
--the Salmon;
--South Fork of the Payette;
--the Boise; and
--the Big Wood.
More than 300 species of wildlife inhabit the forests, valleys, and
rocky peaks of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area including gray
wolves, mountain goat, pronghorn antelope, mule deer, elk, coyote, red
fox, and black bear. Birding enthusiasts can encounter a wide range of
species from Clark's nutcracker, junco and chickadees to the more
elusive sandhill crane and bald and golden eagles. Furthermore, the
SNRA's abundance of lakes and rivers play an important role in the
protection and re-establishment of salmon populations to Idaho's
waterways.
The Sawtooth NRA offers some of the finest and most renowned
outdoor recreation in the world including fishing, white-water sports,
hiking, backpacking, snowmobiling, mountain biking, and Nordic skiing.
With 37 developed campgrounds, family camping attracts more
recreationists to the Sawtooth National Recreation Area than any other
single activity. The Sawtooth NRA is heaven for those looking for
scenic drives with three National Scenic Byways--the Sawtooth, Salmon
River, and Ponderosa Pine scenic byways--converging in Stanley, Idaho,
the largest settlement in the Sawtooth NRA.
With a proud ranching tradition stretching back for over a century,
traditional land uses have long been interwoven with the public values
here, and stewardship of these natural and recreational assets has been
outstanding. To protect the historic uses and compatible public
recreation values of this remarkable landscape, USFS has utilized LWCF
appropriations dating back to 1972 to acquire conservation easements
that protect some 17,000 acres of private land within the national
recreation area.
Available for acquisition at the Sawtooth NRA in fiscal year 2013
is a conservation easement on the 157-acre Rodeo Grounds Ranch. Located
just 5 miles from the historic town of Stanley, the property is a well-
known and prominent component of the viewshed along Idaho Route 21--the
Ponderosa Pine Scenic Byway--that connects the Sawtooth NRA to Boise.
With substantial frontage on Valley Creek, a major Salmon River
tributary, the ranch provides habitat for all four fish species listed
as threatened or endangered in the Sawtooth NRA:
--Chinook salmon;
--sockeye salmon;
--bull trout; and
--steelhead.
USFS has identified Valley Creek as one of the most important
tributaries in the Upper Salmon River watershed for the recovery of the
Chinook salmon, especially for rearing and spawning habitat. Protection
of Rodeo Grounds Ranch will advance fisheries recovery efforts,
protecting a total of 1.8 miles of Valley Creek and its tributaries and
approximately 96 acres of related riparian areas.
The conservation easement on Rodeo Grounds Ranch will allow for
continued historic use and private ownership of the property, while
conserving its natural values and recreational access by anglers to
Valley Creek. This access would likely be lost if the property were to
be developed, converted from existing use, or fragmented into smaller
holdings. Moreover, incompatible development of this key Sawtooth
gateway property would irreparably compromise a scenic landscape that
draws hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. The easement will
protect the historic ranch structures and the scenic landscape of the
valley.
In fiscal year 2013, an appropriation of $500,000 from the LWCF
will augment funding provided in fiscal year 2012 to allow the
completion of this important conservation easement acquisition valued
at $3 million. Protection of Rodeo Grounds Ranch, a highly visible
property and longstanding priority for USFS, will protect the fisheries
and recreational resources of the ranch and help ensure the scenic
integrity of the Sawtooth NRA.
In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the LWCF of $450
million, as proposed in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget,
including critical funding for the Salmon-Selway Initiative. I want to
thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Idaho, and I appreciate your consideration of this
funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Skokomish Tribe of Washington State
I am Joseph Pavel, Vice Chairman of the Skokomish Tribe of
Washington State. I would like to thank the subcommittee for the
opportunity to present testimony on the fiscal year 2013 Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies budget.
Like all governments, the Skokomish Indian Tribe handles a number
of everyday operational responsibilities as well as continuing the
necessity of long-term planning activities. Daily the tribe continues
to strengthen the institutional and executive capacity to effectively
manage the expansion of new programs. The Skokomish Indian Reservation
is a rural community located at the base of the Olympic Peninsula with
a population of more than 1,000 people. The 5,300-acre reservation is a
fraction of the 2.2-million-acre of the tribe's Treaty area. The
Skokomish Tribe operates several departments including administration;
community development; information services; early childhood education
(includes the Skokomish Head Start program); education; health clinic;
housing; legal; natural resources; public safety; public works; and
Tuwaduq Family Services. These departments provide a broad range of
governmental services to our citizens.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS PROGRAMS
Law Enforcement.--The Skokomish Tribe respectfully requests
increased funding for our law enforcement programs within the Bureau of
Indian Affairs.
The Tribal Council created the Skokomish Department of Public
Safety in 1995. The department has grown from one untrained officer, to
six Washington State certified/Washington State equivalency trained or
BIA certified law enforcement officers. The SPSD provides land and
water patrol, and emergency services 24/7 in Hood Canal Basin. It
enforces tribal ordinances, treaty rights, court orders, and State/
Federal statutes. Our officers provide day-to-day law enforcement
services on the Reservation. They are also responsible for patrolling
the 2.2 million acres that make up our treaty protected fishing and
hunting areas. SPSD not only services the Reservation but also roughly
10,000 neighboring county residents and 15,000 annual tourists.
Skokomish dispatch is cross linked with Mason County Dispatch. With
only one scheduled per shift, Public Safety Officers patrol alone and
respond alone to both misdemeanor and felony calls. Officers are placed
in danger because back up from other agencies could be delayed in
responding, if they are available at all. For natural disasters, SPSD
officers are recognized as 1st Responders for the area. To be fully
staffed at a baseline minimum for the area and scope of service that
the Skokomish Department of Public Safety is tasked with, we need a
total of 18 officers. Thus, we are almost 80 percent less than what is
needed to safely serve our community. Currently, the tribe contributes
approximately $200,000 per year to cover the BIA shortfall in funding
for the tribe's Public Safety Department. This funding comes from fuel
taxes levied by the tribe. In an effort to efficiently use our limited
resources, the tribe entered into a memorandum of understanding with
the Mason County Sheriff's Office to use a provisional officer on an
as-needed basis. This occurs when one of the four patrol officers is on
leave or training.
The tribe constantly looks for ways to efficiently use the funding
available while improving services. Recently, the tribe worked with the
BIA Office of Justice Services (OJS), to receive technical assistance.
The technical assistance came in the form of a monitoring process
designed to evaluate the compliance of policy, standards, and
professional practices of the tribe's law enforcement program. The BIA
evaluator used a Program Monitoring Instrument (PMI) which consists of
standards that will be reviewed and evaluated to determine if the
program is in compliance with each specific standard. The department
has already used the initial recommendations to begin improving in
areas of training, re-writing the standard operating procedures; and
instituting community policing strategies. In the end, the tribe will
be able to document that we meet and/or exceed the standards of the BIA
for public safety agencies.
We strongly support the $500,000 request for Conservation Officers.
These law enforcement professionals serve a vital role in ensuring that
our fishermen are able to properly exercise their rights to the treaty-
protected resources. The tribe has to cover and manage a large area in
fisheries related activities. Over the past few years we have
experienced increased tension between treaty fishermen and non-Indian
fishermen. While these conflicts have not escalated into serious
physical harm, we fear without proper law enforcement presences that it
will.
Tribal Courts.--Having a fair and qualified judiciary is the
bedrock of any government's justice system. Skokomish has long
understood this. In 1963, the Skokomish Tribe was the first tribe in
the Northwest (and one of the first in the country) to institute a
tribal court.
Today, tribal courts handle huge criminal, civil and juvenile
dockets, which could not be handled by the already over burdened State
and Federal courts. At the close of 2011, Skokomish had 362 open cases
compared to 447 open cases at the end of fiscal year 2010. These cases
range from criminal cases to child welfare cases. With the use of the
one-time funding award from the BIA in fiscal year 2011, we hired a
Probation Officer. The Probation Officer has helped satisfy and close
83 cases and continually meets with probationers. This Probation Office
has resulted in a great deal of success in clearing criminal cases and
providing support for our tribal members to exit the criminal justice
system. We fully utilized this funding until it was exhausted. Although
we have many needs with our limited resources, the Council approved the
use of tribal funds for the continuation of the probation program. We
believe it is beneficial to the members of the tribe to have a
probation program.
Thus, we urge the Congress to support Tribal Courts and provide at
least the $1.1 million that the administration has requested and
encourage the BIA to fund and support tribal probation officers for
tribal courts.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
The Skokomish Tribe strongly supports the $4.422 billion budget
request, an increase of $115.9 million more than the fiscal year 2012
enacted level. We have a tribally operated Ambulatory Health Center
located in a geographically challenged area and continue to face
financial barriers that are not unique to the Skokomish Tribe, but
unfortunately plague Indian Country as a whole. Our Contract Health
(CHS) Funds continue to be taxed and we appreciate the proposed
programmatic increase to CHS of $20 million. We continually ask for CHS
increases and we do know this need will always be in existence and
especially with the rising cost of healthcare and the increased serious
health issues our patients are experiencing such as cancer, diabetes,
and heart disease. One proposal to address these costs is the NW
Portland Area Indian Health Board's efforts to develop three regional
health facilities in the Portland area to send our tribal members to
for specialty health services not provided in our tribal clinics. This
would reduce the CHS expenditures currently spent at local specialty
providers.
Another way to reduce the burden on CHS is to focus on prevention
and find innovative ways to make our community healthier. By investing
in our member's health up front and focusing on prevention up front, we
hope to offset the rising CHS costs. In this regard, we support adding
additional funding for the Health Protection and Disease Prevention
Program. One of the Skokomish Health Center's long-term goals is to
build a culturally sensitive wellness center to focus on prevention,
medical and holistic healing programs.
Due to recent cuts in State Medicaid funding, we have experienced a
growing strain on our substance abuse treatment resources. We urge
additional funding to be available for treatment. In this regard, we
currently do not have a recovery after care facility for our clients
when they finish treatment. If a client lacks the resources and family
support, they are left to return to their previous addiction
environments, which is likely to reduce their chance of success at
recovery.
Finally, related to mental health, we have identified a need for a
youth mental health facility. While there are youth substance abuse
treatment facilities, there are no facilities available to treat mental
health issues for youth, who do not have any substance abuse issues.
This recently hit home as we had a young teenage girl who had no
substance abuse issues but was in need of in-patient mental health
services. After exhausting all avenues to find a tribal/IHS mental
health facility to place this young lady in we were unable to locate
one. The child is on the east coast and will remain in a non-Tribal/IHS
institution for lack of a facility available to bring her closer to
home with her extended family on the Skokomish Reservation. This young
lady has attempted suicide on several occasions at the facility where
she is currently located. We urge the Congress to direct the IHS to
report on its effort to develop a youth behavioral health facility to
meet the growing mental health needs of our Native youth.
TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS
In 1995, the Congress began encouraging tribes to assume historic
preservation responsibilities as part of self-determination. These
programs conserve fragile places, objects and traditions crucial to
tribal culture, history, and sovereignty. As was envisioned by the
Congress, more tribes qualify for funding every year. Paradoxically,
the more successful the program becomes, the less each tribe receives
to maintain professional services, ultimately crippling the programs.
In fiscal year 2001, there were 27 THPOs with an average award of
$154,000. Currently there are 132 tribes operating the program, each
receiving less $51,000. We join the National Congress of American
Indians and the National Organization of Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers in supporting the requested $15 million increase in funding
for this program.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Skokomish Tribe urges the subcommittee to maintain funding for
key environmental programs, in particular, funding for Puget Sound
restoration efforts. This funding is critical to the collaborative
efforts to restore the health of the Puget Sound, and in particular the
Hood Canal--the Jewel of the Puget Sound. The program is vital to the
tribe's efforts to manage and protect our treaty protected resources in
the Hood Canal.
CONCLUSION
The tribe thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to present
testimony on these important issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society of American Foresters
Good morning Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is
Robert W. Malmsheimer, and I am a professor of forest policy and law at
the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. I am here today
to testify on behalf of the Society of American Foresters (SAF).
The Society of American Foresters (SAF), with more than 12,000
forestry professionals across the country in all segments of the
profession, believes in sound management and stewardship of the
Nation's public and private forests. Funding for the Department of the
Interior (DOI) and the USDA Forest Service (USFS), both contained in
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill,
are particularly important to maintaining and improving the Nation's
forests.
We would like to begin by thanking the administration for
recognizing the importance of the USFS and forestry components of the
DOI and maintaining funding at approximately fiscal year 2012 enacted
levels for USFS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). That said, the
751 million acres of forests in the United States are subject to
tremendous pressures from wildfires, insects, disease, invasive
species, changing climates, and more. At the same time, people are
relying on forests more and more for clean water and air, recreational
opportunities, hunting, fishing, forest products, and scenic values.
These pressures and harsh economic times force Federal agencies to look
for innovative ways to complete more work with limited resources.
SAF remains deeply concerned about these issues and the overall
sustainability of the Nation's forests. To that end, SAF urges a focus
on several key areas that directly impact the range of programs within
the DOI and USFS budgets. Key areas include:
--Forest health on public and private forestlands;
--addressing barriers to active forest management; and
--SAF budget recommendations.
FOREST HEALTH
As the largest professional society for foresters in the world, SAF
represents the forest managers of both public and private forests in
the United States. Across the country, our forests are reaching a
critical threshold that, if passed, could lead to even further negative
impacts including:
--continued closures of established infrastructure;
--job losses to rural communities;
--pressure of invasive species;
--expanded areas of insects and disease;
--overstocked stands; and
--increased risk of wildfire.
Since 1910, the U.S.'s forest area has been relatively stable, with
a slight increase in the last two decades.\1\ The current volume of
annual timber growth is 32-percent higher than the volume of annual
removals. This, in part, has led to the need for restoration on 65 to
82 million acres of the National Forest System (NFS), as Chief Tidwell
mentioned in his testimony to the subcommittee on February 17, 2012.\2\
In 2012, the USFS is proposing to complete only 4 million acres of
restoration on NFS lands, yielding 2.6 BBF in forest products.\3\ This
is not enough to combat our Nation's declining forest health,
especially in light of the current bark beetle epidemic in the west
that has led to unprecedented numbers of dead and dying trees. This low
production level on public lands pressures private forestlands, which
already provide 91 percent of wood production, to meet demand.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2007. U.S. Forest Resource Facts
and Historical Trends. Available online at http://fia.fs.fed.us/
library/brochures/docs/Forest%20Facts%201952-2007%20English%
20rev072411.pdf; last accessed March 2012.
\2\ Tidwell, T. 2012. Statement of Tom Tidwell, Chief, U.S. Forest
Service before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
concerning the President's budget request for the U.S. Forest Service
in fiscal year 2013. March 6, 2010. Available online at http://
www.energy.
senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=8f60d724-f8e5-4d57-
9f01-b8a6837d9f5d; last accessed March 2012.
\3\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2012. Increasing the Pace of
Restoration and Job Creation on Our National Forests. Available online
at http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/restoration/restoration.pdf; last
accessed March 2012.
\4\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2010. National Report on
Sustainable Forests--2010. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/
research/sustain/2010SustainabilityReport/documents/2010_
SustainabilityReport.pdf; last accessed March 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constraints on forests and forest management have led to a steady
decline in the forestry-related job sector. From 2005 to 2010 primary
(forestry and logging, paper, wood manufacturing, etc.) and secondary
(residential construction, furniture, etc.) employment have seen a
combined reduction of 920,507 total jobs. In fact, total U.S. annual
timber harvests are at their lowest levels since the 1960s. This lack
of production led to the closure of more than 1,000 mills from 2005 to
2009, which decreased overall sawmilling capacity by 15 percent, and
lowered production levels less than 50 percent of capacity at the
remaining mills.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Smith, B.W., and Guldin, R.W. 2012. Forest Sector Reeling
during Economic Downturn. The Forestry Source January, 2012. Available
online at http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/saf/forestrysource_201201/
index.php; last accessed March 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BARRIERS TO ACTIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT
SAF understands that the economic downturn has impacted forest
industries. However, in recent decades other factors have developed
that also negatively affect the forestry profession and create barriers
to active forest management. One of those barriers is the Equal Access
to Justice Act (EAJA).
Last year the House Appropriations Subcommittee included report
language in its budget recommendation that addressed the complexity and
conflicts often associated with EAJA. The subcommittee requested
detailed reports on the disposition of EAJA applications, the amount of
agency funds paid as the result of the Act, the names of the fee
recipients and Federal judges involved in EAJA cases, and the hourly
rates of attorneys and expert witnesses.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Congress. 2012. Department of the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill 112th Congress First Session
Report 112-151. Available online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-
112hrpt151/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt151.pdf; last accessed March 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2011, Dr. Michael J. Mortimer, Director, College of Natural
Resources at Virginia Tech University, and I completed a study on EAJA
that examined concerns raised by interest groups, stakeholders, and
congressional members. The study, published as a peer-reviewed article
in the Journal of Forestry, examined EAJA fees paid by USFS in
litigation from 1999 to 2005. Our results, which analyzed data obtained
through Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) requests and the analysis of
public records, documented that Federal agency EAJA fee records
differed considerably. As Table 1 reflects, there was nearly a $1
million difference between the data provided in 2006 by the Secretary
of Agriculture to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources (SCENR) and the records we obtained from the USFS, and the
Secretary's response was nearly double the total amount Department of
Justice (DOJ) records indicate were paid.
TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF U.S. FOREST SERVICE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
PAYMENTS, 1999 TO 2005 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Forest Service FOIA Information........... $6,137,583
DOJ FOIA Information.................................... 3,526,632
Information provided to SCENR........................... 7,002,530
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mortimer, M.J., and R.W. Malmsheimer. 2011. The Equal Access to
Justice Act and U.S. Forest Service Land Management: Incentives to
Litigate? Journal of Forestry 109(6): 352-358.
Given these inconsistencies and the controversy surrounding EAJA
payments, SAF supports the inclusion of EAJA reporting requirements in
this year's budget. We believe that doing so will greatly improve the
transparency of EAJA payments and provide policymakers and stakeholders
with standardized information that they can use to assess the Act's
performance.
SAF BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
SAF understands that the subcommittee has to make difficult
decisions when funding Federal agencies. We would like to commend the
members of the subcommittee for your continued focused efforts on
forest sustainability. With this in mind, we will not give
recommendations for all of the programs we support. Instead, we will
focus on several of our top priorities and ask that the committee
recognize that our support is not limited to the recommendations that
follow.
SAF supports the fiscal year 2012 budget language to increase the
NFS timber harvest from 2.4 BBF to 3 BBF this fiscal year. While SAF is
encouraged by USDA Secretary Vilsack's announcement to increase harvest
levels to 2.6 BBF in fiscal year 2012,\7\ we support increased
restoration efforts by the administration to restore priority
watersheds. We look forward to continuing to work with the Congress and
the administration to see increased restoration work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Forest Service. 2012. U.S. Forest Service highlights
expansion of restoration of national forests and funding for
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration projects. U.S. Forest
Service Press Release Feb. 2, 2012. Available online at http://
www.fs.fed.us/news/2012/releases/02/restoration.shtml; last accessed
March 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USFS Research and Development (R&D) provides for essential research
on priority areas such as disturbances (including wildfire), watershed
restoration needs, local level emphasis, and strategic programs. R&D's
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is the backbone of U.S.
forestry knowledge, providing the only national census of forests
across all ownerships. Through FIA, USFS (partnering with State
forestry agencies and the private sector) collects and analyzes forest
data to assess trends on issues such as forest health and management,
fragmentation and parcelization, and forest carbon sequestration. FIA
data also evaluates forest disturbance risks, such as wildfire, insects
and disease, and spread of invasive species. SAF requests that the
Congress support FIA at no less than $69 million in fiscal year 2013.
More than 50 percent of our Nation's forests are privately owned.
This makes USFS State and Private Forestry (S&PF) allocations, used in
part to assist in managing these lands, essential to the health of our
forests. SAF strongly supports S&PF funding including the Forest Health
Management (FHM) Budget Line Items (BLI) for both Federal and
cooperative lands. We recommend funding FHM BLI's at fiscal year 2012
enacted funding levels of $112 million. These dollars are critical for
monitoring conditions of forest health on Federal and non-Federal
lands. Funds provide the assistance to prevent and mitigate insect and
disease outbreaks as well as the spread of invasive species.
SAF strongly supports the administration's request to permanently
reauthorize Stewardship Contracting within the USFS budget. The
Stewardship Contracting authority is a successful tool used by the USFS
and BLM to accomplish restoration work on multiple restoration projects
simultaneously using funds provided by projects' timber revenues. It is
also an important tool to carry out the administration's priority
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Without this
authority, these programs would be unable to complete the work outlined
in collaborative proposals. From 2006 to 2011 approximately 900
Stewardship contracts, which treated 545,625 acres, were awarded,
including 208 contracts in 2011.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Pinchot Institute for Conservation. 2012. The Role of
Communities in Stewardship Contracting: Fiscal Year 2011 Programmatic
Monitoring Report to the USDA Forest Service. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/stewardship/reports/documents/
2011/FinalFY11USFSMonEvalReport.pdf; last accessed March 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAF also commends the administration for their request to fully
fund the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLR).
CFLR encourages collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of
priority forest landscapes.\9\ In 2 years, the projects selected in
2010 created 2,100 jobs and supplied approximately 2.3 MMBF.\10\ To
ensure CFLR's continued success, SAF and five other Steering Committee
members along with approximately 140 members of other organizations,
participate in the CFLR Coalition to support continued funding at $40
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Forest Service. 2012. Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program. U.S. Forest Service Website. Accessible online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/index.shtml; last accessed March
2012.
\10\ U.S. Forest Service 2012. Fiscal Year 2013 President's Budget
Justification. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/
2013/fy2013-justification.pdf; last accessed March 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Fuels funding is a critical component to USFS and DOI
hazardous fuels reduction efforts. Funds are used to restore forest
health and resilience and reduce the cost of suppressing wildfires. In
2011, more than 74,000 wildland fires burned more than 8.7 million
acres.\11\ These funds are also used to assist the 66,700 communities
across the country currently at risk of wildland fire. SAF recommends
maintaining the fiscal year 2012 funding levels of $318 million for the
USDA Forest Service and $184 million for the Department of the
Interior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ National Interagency Fire Center, Historical Wildland Fire
Summaries, p. 9. Accessible online at http://
www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2011_statssumm/
intro_summary.pdf; last accessed February 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the significant changes to the fiscal year 2013 budget
proposal includes the merger of seven BLIs into the proposed Integrated
Resource Restoration (IRR) Line item that was enacted as a pilot
program in three regions in the fiscal year 2012 budget. SAF recommends
funding the seven BLIs at fiscal year 2012 levels if the subcommittee
does not enact IRR nationally.
I would like to close by discussing the decrease in the BLM's
Public Domain Program found in the fiscal year 2013 budget
justification. The proposed $3.5 million is a 41-percent decrease in
the program. This would reduce the number of employees managing 60
million acres from 80 employees to approximately 50. SAF recommends
funding BLM's Public Domain Program at enacted fiscal year 2012 levels.
On behalf of the Society of American Foresters, I thank you for
this opportunity.
______
[From the Journal of Forestry, September 2011]
The Equal Access to Justice Act and U.S. Forest Service Land
Management: Incentives to Litigate?
(Michael J. Mortimer and Robert W. Malmsheimer \1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Michael J. Mortimer ([email protected]) is director of Graduate
Programs, Virginia Tech, College of Natural Resources and Environment,
7054 Haycock Road, Room 411, Falls Church, VA 22043. Robert W.
Malmsheimer ([email protected]) is professor, SUNY College of
Environmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY
13210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) provides for attorneys fees
and court costs to be awarded to parties prevailing in litigation
against U.S. federal agencies. We examined EAJA awards paid by the U.S.
Forest Service from 1999 to 2005, finding more than $6 million awarded
to various plaintiffs. Awards were most commonly paid to environmental
litigants, although all categories of litigant stakeholders made use of
the law. Although it remains uncertain whether EAJA provides an
incentive to sue the U.S. Forest Service in any specific instance,
because litigation against the U.S. Forest Service generally has a low
probability of success, EAJA one-way fee shifting does alter litigation
risks among potential plaintiffs. Frequent EAJA claimants often possess
considerable financial resources calling into question how the purposes
of the law have evolved in the last 20 years.
Keywords: national forest, litigation, fees, interest groups,
courts.
``Paying litigants to sue certainly encourages legal action''
(Thomas 2000, p. 9). This quote by former chief of the U.S. Forest
Service, Jack Ward Thomas, expresses concerns that the Equal Access to
Justice Act (EAJA; codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412 and 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 5045) may be an incentive for litigation against the U.S. Forest
Service and other Federal land-management agencies. The EAJA is a fee-
shifting statute that allows litigants to recover attorney fees and
other legal expenses (such as court filing fees) from the Federal
Government when they successfully sue an administrative agency.
Numerous scholars have described the increasing use of litigation
as a tool to influence U.S. Forest Service land-management decisions.
Jones and Taylor (1995) completed the first study, examining cases
decided between 1971 and 1993. They found that the frequency of U.S.
Forest Service lawsuits increased during these 20 years and concluded
that litigation was used as a tool to effect change within the agency.
Malmsheimer et al. (2004) examined all published Federal Court of
Appeals cases from 1970 through 2001 in which the U.S. Forest Service
was a defendant. They found that the number of lawsuits involving the
agency had increased since 1970 and that ``judicial review of national
forest management is intensifying'' (Malmsheimer et al. 2004, p. 20).
In the most recent and thorough examination of U.S. Forest Service
litigation, Keele et al. (2006) examined the final outcome of all
cases, both published and unpublished, initiated from 1989 through 2002
in which the U.S. Forest Service was a defendant, again finding that
litigation directed against the agency had generally increased. Others
have confirmed these observations (Mortimer 2002, Broussard and
Whitaker 2009). For example, the Council on Environmental Quality's
(2009) records indicate that the U.S. Forest Service is the most common
Federal agency defendant in National Environmental Policy Act
litigation. These studies suggest that litigation has become an
integral aspect of U.S. Forest Service decisionmaking and land
management: ``The legal environment is as important to national forest
. . . management as the ecological and economic environments''
(Malmsheimer et al. 2004, p. 25). The payment of attorney fees is an
important component of this legal environment.
The U.S. legal system operates under what is known as the American
rule, which provides that each party in a lawsuit must bear its own
legal expenses (Sisk 1993). This differs from the English rule under
which the losing party pays the winner's legal costs. Fee-shifting
statutes in the United States are a relatively rare exception to the
American rule, providing for the recovery of legal expenses in a manner
similar to the English rule. Although some criticize the economic
incentives created by fee-shifting statues and citizen suit provisions
(Benson 2006, Greve 1990), others believe that subsidizing litigation
against land-management agencies through the EAJA is a socially
valuable use of public resources (Nie 2008). In either case, it is
indisputable that citizen suits are an important aspect of modern
public natural resource management.
The EAJA is a one-way fee-shifting statute that specifically allows
parties who bring successful lawsuits against Federal land-management
agencies to recover their costs, such as attorney fees and filing
costs, directly from the agencies' budgets. The EAJA was originally
intended to:
--make the Federal justice system more accessible to parties
defending themselves against what the Congress perceived as
unreasonable Government action;
--provide an incentive for citizens to contest excessive Government
regulation;
--supply additional compensation for citizens who were injured by
Government actions; and
--deter overreaching regulation by Federal agencies (Hogfoss 1985,
Sullivan 1984, Mezey and Olson 1993, Sisk 1993).
By providing attorney and other fees, the Act removed some of the
economic obstacles citizens face when contesting Government regulation.
Table 1 lists EAJA process and eligibility requirements. Although it
was recognized, at the dawn of environmental public interest
litigation, that a bevy of institutional obstacles existed preventing
access to the Federal court system (Large 1972), the EAJA was not
established with that particular set of litigants in mind. It has,
however, over the last 20 years evolved to address a broader class of
litigant stakeholder.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1.--The Equal Access to Justice Act fee recovery requirements (28
U.S.C. 2412(d)(2)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 504(b)(1)(B))
Process requirements (Plaintiff must meet all)
Plaintiff must have incurred legal expenses.
Plaintiff must have prevailed in some aspect of the case.
Plaintiff must submit an application for a fee award to the court
within 30 days of the final judgment.
Plaintiff must allege that the Government's position was not
``substantially justified.''
Eligibility requirements (Plaintiff must meet one)
Individuals with a net worth of $2 million or less.
Businesses with no more than 500 employees and a net worth of $7
million or less.
Charitable or other tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations with no more
than 500 employees.
Agricultural cooperative associations with no more than 500
employees.
Other partnerships, corporations, associations, units of local
government, or organizations with a net worth of not more than $7
million and no more than 500 employees.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Although little empirical research has been conducted regarding the
EAJA's impact on land-management agencies, the law's role in
potentially spurring litigation has been a topic of press and
congressional investigation and speculation for nearly 10 years.
Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Knudson's 2001 series in the Sacramento
Bee entitled ``Environment, Inc.'' presented a high-profile discussion
of the environmental movement's reliance on litigation and attorney
fees. In the series, Knudson focused primarily on litigation directed
against the Fish and Wildlife Service's administration of the
Endangered Species Act. Knudson (2001) found that during the 1990s, 434
environmental cases were brought against the Federal Government and the
Government paid out more than $31.5 million in attorney fees. In 2006,
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) requested agency information on the amount
of EAJA fees paid out by USFS from 1999 through 2005. An editorial on
USFS litigation in The Missoulian \2\ concluded that the EAJA ``has
become a self-funding mechanism for environmental groups fundamentally
opposed to prevailing national forest management direction''
(Missoulian 2007). Most recently, a Wyoming attorney and former
Department of the Interior employee claimed that the Government paid
environmental law firms more than $1.6 million between 2003 and 2005
for litigation involving national forests in six USFS regions \3\
(Budd-Falen 2009). Despite persistent interest and allegations
surrounding the EAJA and USFS litigation, no comprehensive empirical
study and analysis (with the exception of the response to Senator
Bingaman's request) has systematically examined the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A newspaper in one of the most litigious National Forest System
Regions (see Keele et al. 2006).
\3\ Regions 1-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The effects of a particular fee-shifting policy are highly
dependent on contextual variables. Characteristics of the adversaries,
the relative value of the fee awards to the parties, and the parties'
respective views of the strength of their cases make empirical
examinations inherently challenging (Rowe 1984). This should not be
surprising, because work to date has noted the complexity and
uncertainty in predicting the potential effects of fee arrangements on
litigation behavior as well as the unsettled state of understanding of
these effects (Kritzer 2002). This study attempts to quantify and
contribute to an understanding of the role of one-way fee shifting in
USFS litigation.
Methods
Since EAJA payment figures are not generally publicly available, we
used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) \4\ to compile EAJA payment
data from the USFS and the Department of Justice (DOJ). We asked DOJ
for payment information because it defends the USFS in the Federal
court system and we believed its EAJA payment records would supplement
USFS records. Written FOIA requests were made to the USFS on October 3,
2006 and to the DOJ on October 11, 2006. We received responses from the
USFS on November 27, 2006 and from the DOJ on April 11, 2007. We
requested a list of all EAJA fees paid by the USFS from 1990 to 2005,
including the amount of EAJA fees paid, litigants' names, court
decision dates, and judicial decision citations. We also requested
copies of all documents containing any information regarding the
payment of EAJA fees during this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 5 U.S.C. 552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results
USFS and DOJ supplied differing information to our FOIA requests.
USFS provided records from 1999 through 2005. The DOJ provided USFS-
based EAJA records from 1989 through 2006--including data from 1989 to
1998 that the USFS was unable to provide. As Table 2 indicates, EAJA
fee records differ considerably. For example, in 2006 the Secretary of
Agriculture provided the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources with information about EAJA fees paid by the USFS (Senate
Hearing 2006). As Table 2 reflects, there is nearly a $1 million
difference between the data provided in the 2006 by the Secretary and
the records we obtained from the USFS, and the Secretary's response is
nearly double the total amount DOJ records indicate were paid. The EAJA
has no agency recordkeeping or reporting requirements, and the
inconsistencies we found in the agency's and DOJ's records substantiate
ongoing congressional concerns that EAJA payments are being
inadequately tracked by Federal agencies (Western Congressional Caucus
2009). These concerns have manifested as proposed bipartisan
legislation in the prior sessions of Congress.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ H.R. 4717, 111th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ provided EAJA award records for 17 years (1989 through 2006)--
10 more years than USFS. These records indicate that during this time
the USFS paid more than $6 million in EAJA payments. Focusing on the
overlapping years (1999 through 2006), the USFS data differed
considerably from the DOJ records--USFS records indicated it paid an
additional $2.5 million in this 6-year period (see Table 2).
TABLE 2.--COMPARISON OF THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT FEES, BY YEAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAJA payments Secretary of
------------------------------------ Agriculture
response to the
U.S. Senate
Year U.S. Forest Committee on
Service FOIA DOJ FOIA data Energy and
data Natural
Resources's
request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999...................................................... $794,774 $498,406 $814,774
2000...................................................... 232,348 240,710 602,698
2001...................................................... 999,938 457,535 581,567
2002...................................................... 626,741 704,230 1,077,441
2003...................................................... 794,414 586,649 1,236,668
2004...................................................... 1,412,804 571,676 1,557,804
2005...................................................... 1,276,564 467,427 1,131,578
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 6,137,583 3,526,632 7,002,530
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOIA, Freedom of Information Act.
Source: Data provided by the U.S. Forest Service, DOJ, and Congressional Research Service.
Payments
USFS records indicated that EAJA fees were awarded in 149 instances
from 1999 to 2005, resulting in the agency paying more than $6 million
in fees during this 7-year period (Table 3).\6\ To put these numbers in
context, between 1982 and 1994 all Federal agencies reported court EAJA
decisions awarding $29.6 million, with an average award size of $5,250
(U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO] 1998). The number of cases
per year in which the agency paid fees ranged from 9 cases in 2002 to
29 cases in both 2001 and 2004, with an average annual number of cases
of 21. Total fee awards per year ranged from $232,348 in 2000 to
$1,412,804 in 2004, with annual awards averaging $876,798. The average
award per case during the 7 years was $41,192, although 18 payments
exceeded $100,000 (Table 4). It is unclear whether average annual fees
are increasing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ One case, which resulted in a $75,000 payment, did not list a
year of payment. We omitted that case from our inventory and subsequent
analysis.
TABLE 3.--U.S. FOREST SERVICE'S EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT AWARD PAYMENTS BY YEAR FROM 1999 TO 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Average
Year EAJA payments cases/payments payment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................................................ $794,774 21 $37,846
2000............................................................ 232,348 12 19,362
2001............................................................ 999,938 29 34,481
2002............................................................ 626,741 9 69,638
2003............................................................ 794,414 23 34,540
2004............................................................ 1,412,804 29 48,717
2005............................................................ 1,276,564 26 49,099
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 6,137,583 149 41,192
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Data provided by the U.S. Forest Service.
TABLE 4.--FREQUENCY OF U.S. FOREST SERVICE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
AWARDS FROM 1999 THROUGH 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency
Award/payment amount (number of
payments)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $500.......................................... 3
$501-1,000.............................................. ..............
$1,001-5,000............................................ 28
$5,001-10,000........................................... 16
$10,001-20,000.......................................... 21
$20,001-30,000.......................................... 20
$30,001-50,000.......................................... 23
$50,001-75,000.......................................... 14
$75,001-100,000......................................... 6
$100,001-150,000........................................ 12
$150,001-200,000........................................ 3
$200,001-300,000........................................ 3
Over $300,000........................................... ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Data provided by the U.S. Forest Service.
Payment Location and Recipients
We used the information from the USFS records to understand where
the cases supporting EAJA payments were located. These records also
allowed us to learn the types and names of plaintiffs receiving EAJA
fees.
We categorized the responses to our FOIA request by USFS region
(Figure 1). Payments per region ranged from $114,310 in Region 9
(Eastern Region) to $1,408,140 in Region 1 (Northern Region; Table 5).
The number of cases ranged from 4 in Region 9 to 30 in Region 1. It is
important to note that Region 2 did not provide data for 1999 and 2000
and that Region 8 did not provide data for 2005. This suggests that our
results underestimate the number of fees paid and their total amount.
Figure 1.--Boundaries of the U.S. Forest Service regions (map was
provided courtesy of U.S. Forest Service). Note that there is no Region
7.
TABLE 5.--U.S. FOREST SERVICE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT AWARDS BY
REGION FROM 1999 THROUGH 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Region \1\ EAJA payments cases/payments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... $1,408,140 30
2 \2\................................... 360,776 19
3....................................... 632,908 21
4....................................... 698,645 20
5....................................... 999,239 13
6....................................... 850,584 22
8 \3\................................... 347,943 5
9....................................... 114,310 4
10...................................... 406,350 5
WO...................................... 318,689 10
-------------------------------
Total............................. 6,137,584 149
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There is no Region 7.
\2\ Region 2 did not provide 1999-2000 data.
\3\ Region 8 did not provide 2005 data.
WO, Washington Office.
Source: Data provided by the U.S. Forest Service.
USFS records were also used to categorize the litigants receiving
EAJA fee awards. We organized the fee recipients into five categories:
Attorney/Law Firm.--Fee recipients who could be easily identified
as an attorney or a law firm.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ It is important to note that the fee recipients in the attorney
category represented clients that can be categorized into one of the
other categories--all attorneys and law firms represented clients in
these cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Interests.--Fee recipients involved in commodity
production, such as ranching and grazing operations, timber
companies, and mining organizations.
Environmental Organizations.--Fee recipients whose stated
organizational goal was to protect some aspect of the
environment.
Individuals.--Fee recipients who were individuals and not readily
identifiable as attorneys (but who may include attorneys).
Other.--Fee recipients, such as Native American tribes, who could
not be classified into another category.
USFA records listed a fee recipient for 120 of the 149 EAJA awards
the agency reported (Table 6). Eighty-three (69.2 percent) of these 120
recipients were environmental organizations, and more than two-thirds
($3.2 million) of EAJA fees were paid to these organizations. The
agency records did not allow us to determine whom attorneys or law
firms represented. Thus, the number and percentage of fee recipients in
the other four categories may vary from the results presented in Table
6.
TABLE 6.--NUMBER AND DOLLAR AMOUNT OF U.S. FOREST SERVICE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT AWARD PAYMENTS FROM 1999
THROUGH 2005, BY TYPE OF FEE RECIPIENT
[Percentages may not equal 100 percent because of rounding]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Dollar amount
Equal Access of Equal Percentage of
Type of fee recipient to Justice Act Access to Equal Access
awards Justice Act to Justice Act
received awards award dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental................................................... 83 $3,219,447 69.4
Commodity....................................................... 6 400,932 8.6
Attorney/law firm............................................... 9 308,627 6.7
Individuals (may include attorneys)............................. 11 426,124 9.2
Other........................................................... 11 286,286 6.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Data provided by the U.S. Forest Service.
USFS data allowed us to determine the litigants that repeatedly
received EAJA awards. All the litigants awarded fees in more than one
case were environmental groups (Table 7). Nine of these 14 groups are
listed by Gambino Portuese et al. (2009) in their list of 12 most
frequent parties opposing USFS in land-management cases from 1989 to
2005. In fact, The Wilderness Society is the only ``high frequency
party''--parties Gambino Portuese et al. (2009) found averaged two or
more cases per year--that was not involved in more than one of the EAJA
cases. This raises questions, which our data can not conclusively
answer: do these groups litigate more because their legal costs are
reimbursed, and/or do they request EAJA fees so often because they
litigate often? A lack of risk to plaintiffs operating under one-way
fee shifting, like the EAJA, where the plaintiff bears no possibility
of having to pay the agency defendant's legal costs can theoretically
favor litigation, particularly over less expensive conflict settlement
options (Rowe 1984, Gambino Portuese et al. 2009).
TABLE 7.--ORGANIZATIONS LISTED AS A PLAINTIFF IN MORE THAN ONE LAWSUIT
AGAINST THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE THAT RESULTED IN AN EQUAL ACCESS TO
JUSTICE ACT PAYMENTS FROM 1999 THROUGH 2006, BY NUMBER OF TIMES LISTED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
times listed
Organization name as plaintiff
in EAJA suit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Wildlands...................................... 6
Center for Biological Diversity......................... 6
Earthjustice............................................ 3
Forest Guardians........................................ 8
Heartwood (includes Kentucky Heartwood)................. 7
Idaho Sporting Congress................................. 8
Kettle Range Conservation Group......................... 4
Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center....................... 2
League of Wilderness Defenders.......................... 4
Native Ecosystems Council............................... 7
Oregon Natural Resources Council........................ 5
Sierra Club/Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.............. 12
Swan View Coalition..................................... 4
The Ecology Center...................................... 9
---------------
Total............................................. 85
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Data provided by the U.S. Forest Service.
Discussion
The challenge in analyzing our results is that we are left with
perhaps more questions than with which we began. Although we can
contribute to the empirical understanding of fee shifting and land-
management litigation, we cannot resolve the entirety of questions
surrounding EAJA with any degree of certainty.
In terms of what our study can definitively tell us, we know this
much. We can establish that USFS faces a formidable litigation
environment and that the number of lawsuits is increasing. We found
that lawsuits against the agency are accompanied by requests for legal
fees under the EAJA and that the agency has paid out approximately $6
million over a 7-year period--although we acknowledge that this dollar
total is imprecise. This is a relatively small percentage of USFS's
annual budget,\8\ and that is not surprising because only a small
percentage of the thousands of projects proposed by USFS are ultimately
litigated. We also found that the most common USFS EAJA fee recipients,
environmental groups, are also the organizations that file the most
lawsuits against the agency (Gambino Portuese et al. 2009). Finally,
although not homogenous, most of these frequent environmental litigants
possess substantial financial resources (Table 8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For example, the fiscal year 2009 U.S. Forest Service budget
for the National Forest System was $1.51 billion (USDA 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By using the example of national forest litigation and of the
litigants from our study, we can also establish that current use of
EAJA by these plaintiffs diverges from the law's initial purpose on its
passage nearly 30 years ago. As discussed earlier, the congressional
intent behind the EAJA appears focused. The overarching theme behind
the statute's passage was the prevention of ``excessive Government''
regulation. The three goals of the EAJA were to ``(1) encourage parties
that are the subject of unreasonable Federal Government action to seek
reimbursement for attorney's fees and other costs, (2) restrain
overzealous regulators, and (3) ensure that the Government pays for the
costs of refining and formulating public policy'' (GAO 1998, p. 8).
Bill sponsor Senator Pete V. Domenici stated that the EAJA's purpose
was ``to redress the balance between the Government acting in its
discretionary capacity and the individual'' (House Hearing 1980). The
EAJA was intended to allow plaintiffs access to the legal system to
challenge excessive regulation by the Federal Government, particularly
where such regulations caused economic harm to members of the public.
Although agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
typically engage in public regulation, land-management agencies, such
as USFS, do not. Legal actions directed against land-management
agencies are rarely brought by individuals or small businesses
contesting excessive Government regulation. Rather, litigation against
USFS usually challenges discretionary land-management decisions.\9\ The
Congress was informed that EAJA could be used in lawsuits contesting
agency decisions. For example, during EAJA's legislative hearings
Federal agencies, including the EPA, warned the Congress of the bill's
potential to encourage excessive interference with agency
decisionmaking (Mezey and Olson 1993). Whether the Congress disregarded
or underestimated these concerns is difficult to discern; however,
recent events, such as the Western Congressional Caucus members'
(Western Congressional Caucus 2009) and Idaho Senate Delegation's
(2009) letters to DOJ, indicate that some legislators believe EAJA may
not be addressing its original purposes. The Congress's intention when
it enacted EAJA was to address the resource disparity between private
litigants and the Government--the ultimate ``repeat player'' (see
Galanter 1974). However, our findings suggest EAJA's legal eligibility
requirements may not be restricting its use to groups with limited
financial resources. For example, we found the organizations involved
in more than one EAJA case collectively reported net assets in 2005 of
more than $88 million and annual revenues of more than $116 million
(Table 8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For example see Figure 5 of Keele et al. (2006), which
illustrates the types of management activities most often challenged in
U.S. Forest Service land-management litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 8.--DESCRIPTION AND 2005 FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS
LISTED AS A PLAINTIFF IN MORE THAN ONE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE U.S. FOREST
SERVICE, WHICH RESULTED IN EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT AWARD PAYMENTS
FROM 1999 THROUGH 2006, BY NUMBER OF TIMES LISTED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization name Net assets Revenues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Wildlands...................... $438,600 $521,833
Center for Biological Diversity......... 2,347,991 3,477,044
Earthjustice............................ 28,261,755 21,086,300
Forest Guardians........................ 511,326 764,626
Heartwood............................... 86,539 159,435
Idaho Sporting Congress................. 31,657 60,428
Kettle Range Conservation Group......... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center....... 73,199 350,684
League of Wilderness Defenders.......... 16,171 82,996
Native Ecosystems Council............... ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
Oregon Natural Resources Council (now 1,181,477 1,214,995
Oregon Wild) \3\.......................
Sierra Club \4\......................... 54,604,888 85,183,435
Swan View Coalition..................... 84,040 37,891
The Ecology Center...................... 1,166,694 3,158,765
-------------------------------
Total............................. 88,804,337 116,098,442
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tax extension filed.
\2\ Information not available on Guidestar.
\3\ Guidestar data from 2004.
\4\ Agency records repeatedly list the Sierra Club as an EAJA fee
recipient. Because the Sierra Club is ineligible to receive fees as a
501(c)(4) organization, the court awards were most likely awarded to
the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.
Source: Guidestar.org., n.d.
We can also draw some informed conclusions from both the fee-
shifting literature and from our findings. We recognize immediately
that the behavior of any particular litigant is highly context specific
and the effects of fee-shifting legislation such as EAJA are difficult
to predict. Additionally, the rationale to litigate is multivariate;
Armstrong (2008), e.g., lists nine plausible reasons why a party would
choose litigation over alternative dispute resolution. That said, the
literature is consistent in suggesting that fee shifting reduces the
risk of choosing litigation for would-be plaintiffs (e.g., Rowe 1984).
Litigation under the American Rule is an inherently risky conflict
resolution alternative because failure to prevail can be financially
costly to the parties. It is even more risky under a fee-shifting
arrangement, such as the English Rule, wherein the loser pays the
winners' legal expenses. This risk is shared symmetrically only if both
parties are potentially liable for prevailing opponent's legal costs--
known as two-way fee shifting--something EAJA does not require. If USFS
prevails, the losing plaintiffs are not required to pay the
Government's legal fees and costs associated with defending the action.
In turn, this may reduce the perceived risk of commencing litigation
(Rowe 1984). Kagan (2001) suggests that the number of lawsuits brought
to trial is a function of how plaintiffs perceive the ``stakes'' in
those lawsuits. That is to say, the likelihood of success and the
expected value of winning lawsuits are related directly to the number
of lawsuits. Exposure to unfavorable rulings, the costs of bringing the
lawsuit, and the threat of having to pay other party's legal costs all
contribute to the decision to litigate. However, EAJA influences this
decision process by providing for partial fee shifting.
Additionally, because lawsuits against USFS are unlikely to succeed
in general, these suits could subsequently be classified as low-
probability litigation.\10\ It has been noted that ``plaintiffs in . .
. low-probability litigation . . . are likely to be risk seeking''
(Guthrie 2000 p. 187), and more likely to prefer judicial outcomes to
negotiated settlement options. Partial fee shifting's distortion of
lawsuit risk presumably encourages both repeat plaintiffs and an
increasing number of lawsuits. Our EAJA litigation findings--that
frequent USFS litigators are also frequent EAJA claimants--provide
evidence of this, although as we have noted several times this
relationship is not well defined or understood. The potential to avoid
paying their own fees (and never having to pay their opponent's fees)
means that EAJA-eligible plaintiffs do not face the same risks as do
typical defendants under the American Rule (Rowe 1984). Frequent USFS
plaintiffs as rational, self-interested litigators would likely have
some sensitivity to the monetary costs of lawsuits (Fein 1984, Greve
1990, Adler 1996, Barnett and Terrell 2001). The financial risk
asymmetry created by EAJA would not be lost on such plaintiffs. Other
factors must be considered as well: Malmsheimer et al. (2004, p. 24)
hypothesized that groups secure other benefits from litigation ``. . .
such as publicity and delay of U.S. Forest Service action . . .'' and
Juni (2002, p. 93-94) likewise noted that ``environmental groups'
donations may suffer if [they use a nonlitigation] . . . approach [that
can be] viewed as less `splashy.' '' Alternatively, it has been
suggested that litigation is actually an effective means to facilitate
cooperative bargaining and agreements between plaintiffs and agency
defendants (Coglianese 1996). Regardless of the specific set of
motivations facing a particular plaintiff--and on which we can only
ponder--one-way fee shifting under the EAJA decreases the potential
financial risk associated with national forest litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ During a 20-year period from 1989 to 2009, plaintiffs suing
the U.S. Forest Service prevailed on the merits in only 19.3 percent of
the cases (based on an analysis of the database described at Keele et
al. 2006). Although the effects of any one suit may be extensive, for
purposes of this article, we generally consider such litigation to have
a low probability of success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, there are various questions about which we can only
speculate. We have previously mentioned the riddle of whether more
frequent litigants naturally make more frequent EAJA requests for legal
fees or whether more frequent EAJA awards facilitate more frequent
litigation. This we cannot answer. Likewise, we cannot address whether
the EAJA has incentivized any particular lawsuit. Nor can we quantify
the role that EAJA fees might play in the overall operating budgets of
potential plaintiffs--thereby framing EAJA's relative potential as an
incentive--because we do not have access to these organizational
finances. What little information we do have access to (Internal
Revenue Service Form 990s) is inconsistent and lacking in detail among
the various plaintiffs in this study. Likewise, we cannot conclude that
in the absence of the EAJA the number of lawsuits against the U.S.
Forest Service would subside. Finally, we cannot make any claims to how
paying $6 million in legal fees has affected the U.S. Forest Service,
apart from noting that, generally, the specter of lawsuits does affect
agency perceptions and behaviors (Mortimer et al. 2011). In keeping
with what prior scholarship has noted (see Kritzer 2002), there are
formidable empirical challenges to making concrete claims on the effect
of fee shifting, and it is no less the case in this instance.
Conclusion
The increasing use of litigation as a tool to influence Federal
public land-management agency decisions remains controversial and
politically charged. Our investigation of EAJA's interaction with the
U.S. Forest Service suggests several findings important to future
policy discussions and to understanding the relationships among the
litigants:
--The EAJA creates a litigation risk asymmetry that may cause
stakeholders dissatisfied with U.S. Forest Service land-
management decisions to embrace litigation. Enabling this
behavior through one-way fee shifting is, of course, a public
policy decision, but statutory reform of any perceived
inequities or undesirability associated with EAJA and one-way
fee shifting would necessarily require plaintiffs to face some
``. . . real prospect of out-of-pocket loss'' (Guthrie 2000, p.
211).
--There remains insufficient evidence to conclude that the EAJA is a
driver for any particular plaintiff to challenge any particular
U.S. Forest Service project. Decisions to litigate are likely
driven by multiple factors and policymakers should realize that
EAJA reform might not eliminate or reduce U.S. Forest Service
land-management litigation. For example, some organizations'
raison d'etre is to initiate ``public interest litigation.''
Even if EAJA were completely repealed, these organizations
would likely continue to sue land-management agencies. Also,
some national forest management decisions are so offensive to
some stakeholders that litigation is probably inevitable.
Additionally, as Gambino-Portuese et al. (2009, p. 22, emphasis
in original) noted, ``the vast majority of parties (74.4
percent) are only involved in one lawsuit. These are groups and
individuals whose interest is in a specific U.S. Forest Service
project or activity and who use litigation to try to change
that particular . . . land management decision.'' It is
doubtful that these ``one-timers'' take EAJA's distortion of
litigation risk into account when they make litigation
decisions. Most importantly, many organizations have found that
litigation provides an effective policy forum. It is often a
more effective and less costly alternative to the resources
required to effect policy changes in administrative and
legislative branches or participate in collaborative public
land-management efforts.
--The original intent of the EAJA has drifted with its use in
national forest management litigation. In our study, most EAJA
payments were made to environmental interest groups with widely
varying financial capabilities. We note that many are quite
well financed and therefore not the class of plaintiffs for
which the law was designed to provide access to the expensive
federal litigation system. The increasing capabilities and
sophistication of such public interest litigants, their
relative financial resources, and the social desirability of an
evolution in the usage of the EAJA might be related topics of
inquiry for future policy studies of fee shifting and the EAJA.
Literature Cited
Adler, J.H. 1996. Rent seeking behind the green curtain. Regulation
4:26-34.
Armstrong, P.M. 2008. Why we still litigate. Pepp. Disp. Resol. Law
J. 8(3):379-384.
Barnett, A.H., and T.D. Terrell. 2001. Economic observations on
citizen-suit provisions of environmental litigation. Duke Environ. Law
Policy 12(1):1-38.
Benson, B.L. 2006. Unnatural bounty: Distorting the incentives of
major environmental groups. PERC Policy Series (PS-37):29.
Broussard, S.R., and B.D. Whitaker. 2009. The Magna Charta of
environmental legislation: A historical look at 30 years of NEPA-Forest
Service litigation. For. Policy Econ. 11: 148-154.
Budd-Falen, K. 2009. September 15 Memorandum Re: Environmental
litigation gravy train. Available online at
www.westernlegacyalliance.org/images/pdfs/September_15.pdf; last
accessed Sept. 1, 2010.
Coglianese, C. 1996. Litigating within relationships: Disputes and
disturbance in the regulatory process. Law Soc. Rev. 30(4):735-765.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2009. NEPAnet. NEPA
litigation (online). Available online at www.nepa.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm;
last accessed July 15, 2009.
Fein, B. 1984. Citizen suit attorney fee shifting awards: A
critical examination of Government subsidized litigation. Law Contemp.
Prob. 47(1):211-232.
Galanter, M. 1974. Why the ``haves'' come out ahead: Speculations
on the limits of legal change. Law Soc. Rev. 9:95-160.
Gambino-Portuese, B., R.W. Malmsheimer, A. Anderson, D.W. Floyd,
and D.M. Keele. 2009. Litigants' characteristics and outcomes in Forest
Service land management cases 1989 to 2005. J. For. 107(1):16-22.
Greve, M.S. 1990. The private enforcement of environmental law.
Tulane Law Rev. 65:339-394.
Guidestar.Org. n.d. About us. Available online at
www.guidestar.org/; last accessed June 18, 2007.
Guthrie, C. 2000. Framing frivolous litigation: A psychological
theory. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 67(1):163-216.
Hogfoss, R. 1985. The Equal Access to Justice Act and its effect on
environmental litigation. Environ. Law 15(3):533-563.
House Hearing. 1980. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Courts,
Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House
Committee on the Judiciary on S. 265. U.S. House of Representatives,
96th Cong., 2nd Sess.
Idaho-Senate-Delegation. 2009. Available online at
www.westernlegacyalliance.org/images/pdfs/november_9.pdf; last accessed
Sept. 1, 2010.
Jones, E.S., and C.P. Taylor. 1995. Litigating agency change: The
impact of the courts and administrative appeals process on the Forest
Service. Polit. Stud. J. 23(2):310-336.
Juni, R.L. 2002. Public access to environmental dispute resolution
processes: U.S. and U.K. trends towards a common approach. P. 87-103 in
Environmental dispute resolution: An anthology of practical solutions.
MacNaughton, A.L., and J.G. Martin (eds.). ABA Publishing, Chicago.
Kagan, R.A. 2001. Adversarial legalism: The American way of law.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 339 p.
Keele, D.M., R.W. Malmsheimer, D.W. Floyd, and J.E. Perez. 2006.
Forest Service land management litigation 1989-2002. J. For.
104(4):196-202.
Knudson, T. 2001. Litigation central: A flood of costly lawsuits
raises questions about motive (third of five parts). Sacramento Bee,
April 24.
Krent, H.J. 1993. Fee shifting under the Equal Access to Justice
Act--A qualified success. Yale Law Policy Rev. 11(2):458-508.
Kritzer, H.M. 2002. Lawyer fees and lawyer behavior in litigation:
What does the empirical literature really say? Texas Law Rev. 80(7):
1943-1983.
Large, D.W. 1972. Is anybody listening? The problem of access in
environmental litigation. Wisconsin Law Rev. 62(1):62-113.
Malmsheimer, R.W., D. Keele, and D.W. Floyd. 2004. National forest
litigation in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. J. For. 102(2): 20-25.
Mezey, S.G., and S.M. Olson. 1993. Fee shifting and public policy:
The Equal Access to Justice Act. Judicature 77(131):13-20.
Mortimer, M.J. 2002. The delegation of lawmaking authority to the
U.S. Forest Service: Implications in the struggle for national forest
management. Admin. Law Rev. 54(3):907-982.
Mortimer, M.J., M.J. Stern, R.W. Malm-Sheimer, D.J. Blahna, L.K.
Cerveny, and D.N. Seesholtz. 2011. Environmental and social risks:
Defensive National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Forest Service.
J. For. 109(1):27-33.
Nie, M. 2008. The underappreciated role of regulatory enforcement
in natural resource conservation. Polit. Sci. 41:139-164.
Rowe, T.D. JR. 1984. Predicting the effect of attorney fee
shifting. Law Contemp. Probs. 47(1):139-171.
Senate Hearing. 2006. Hearing before the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources on Proposed Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request for the
Forest Service. U.S. Senate, 109th Cong., 2nd Sess.
Sisk, G.C. 1993. A primer on awards of attorney's fees against the
Federal Government. Arizona State Law J. 25(4):733-800.
Sullivan, J.J. 1984. The Equal Access to Justice Act in the Federal
Courts. Columbia Law Rev. 84(4):1089-1117.
The Missoulian. 2007. Equal access to injustice, more like it. The
Missoulian, March 19, Opinion page.
Thomas, J.W. 2000. What now? From a former Chief of the Forest
Service. P. 10-43 in A vision for the U.S. Forest Service: Goals for
its next century. Sedjo, R.A. (ed.). Resources for the Future Press,
Washington, DC.
USDA. 2009. Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Summary and Annual Performance
Plan. Available online www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY11budsum.pdf; last
accessed Jan. 17, 2011.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 1998. Equal Access to
Justice Act: Its use in selected agencies. GAO/HEHS-98-58R, Washington,
DC. 28 p.
Western Congressional Caucus. 2009. Available online at
www.westernlegacyalliance.org/images/pdfs/
doj_eaja_final_letter_11_3_09.pdf; last accessed June 10, 2010.
______
Prepared Statement of the South Eastern Wildlife & Environment
Education Association, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the more
than 1,100 members of the South Eastern Wildlife & Environment
Education (SEWEE) Association, Friends Group for Cape Romain, EFH ACE
Basin and Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuges in South Carolina, I would
like to thank you for your commitment to the National Wildlife Refuge
System (NWRS) through increased funding over the past few years. We
realize that in this time of budget cuts, it may be difficult to
justify increasing the NWRS funding, but once the Refuges start to
decline it will cost many times more than these small increases to
return them to a condition that will fulfill their mandates. We
respectfully request that you consider the following in your
appropriations:
--Fund NWRS $495 million in fiscal year 2013, essentially keeping
level funding from fiscal year 2012.
--Fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $700 million
for fiscal year 2013.
--Fund Visitor Services for the NWRS at $80 million for fiscal year
2013.
--Support $3.8 million in fiscal year 2013 for Challenge Cost Share
(CCS).
Our partner refuges are located along coastal South Carolina in
five counties, from Myrtle Beach through Georgetown and Charleston and
into the nationally acclaimed ACE Basin area. The budget increases in
the past few years have helped them to increase management, protection,
and restoration of the Refuges and given them the ability to better
meet their Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) goals. For example, in
2010 the Cape Romain Refuge Manager left for another position in
Florida and in early 2011 the resident biologist was promoted to this
position. We were so excited to have this happen, as this person has
worked on this refuge for several years and had a great perspective of
the needs and challenges. However, with delays in budget approvals,
they were not able to fill the now vacant position of the biologist
that year. This was a major problem as Cape Romain has the most active
Loggerhead Sea Turtle nest protection program in South Carolina, which
is a major project for the biologist. Our dedicated refuge manager made
sure this project was able to continue while more than 1,200 nests were
laid in the refuge that summer. With your support of continued
Operations and Maintenance funding for fiscal year 2012, Cape Romain
will now be able to hire a biologist this year as we prepare for a new
nesting season. This has become even more critical as Hurricane Irene
had major impacts on the refuge islands last year and new procedures
will be needed to monitor and protect all the nests laid in the refuge
this year. All of our refuges operate with very small staffs, so they
would not be able to handle any staff reductions. They have already
participated in staffing reviews and reductions and are at their
minimum level, so we ask that you allow them to keep their current
levels.
Another major need in Operations and Maintenance is for dredging of
the Cape Romain docks and landing at Garris Landing and on Bulls
Island. Between natural silting action and extreme high tides, the dock
basins at these sites are almost unusable at low tide. Their boats
cannot be subjected to potentially ``bottoming'' overnight as the
repairs would be very expensive. Also, the boat landing has filled in
as well and is almost inaccessible at low tide. This not only impacts
the refuge staff, but all the recreational and commercial boaters who
use this facility. As no one can control the extremes in tides that we
are experiencing, the only option is to dredge this area to allow it to
be used by the public and by refuge staff. We appreciate your support
of the funding levels for fiscal year 2012 and ask that you support the
continuation of that level for fiscal year 2013 so that projects like
this can be done before they become more expensive.
Our partners are also involved in land acquisitions that are funded
in part by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. These oil and gas
revenues have allowed Waccamaw NWR to work with The Nature Conservancy
to protect valuable lands within their boundaries that were offered for
sale by International Paper as they scaled back their holdings. These
floodplain areas are now protected for various species and have water
and land trails for use by the public to explore. Cape Romain NWR is
working with Francis Marion National Forest and the National Park
Service to protect lands along the Gullah Geechee National Historic
Corridor and to protect long-leaf pine habitat from the coast to the
midlands as part of the America's Great Outdoors project. Funding of
LWCF at the requested levels will allow this valuable work to continue.
SEWEE Association has been the Friends Group for Cape Romain NWR
since 1996 and in 2002 we added EFH ACE Basin NWR and Waccamaw NWR as
our partners. We have been able to provide Environmental Education to
more than 100,000 students and teachers through our staff and
volunteers on these refuges and gain tremendous support for our
partners through this work. We also have provided interns and
technicians to the refuges to help with special projects, such as the
Loggerhead Sea Turtle nest protection; eradication of invasive species;
water quality monitoring and shorebird surveys. We also were able to
supply major funding to help with the exhibits of the new Waccamaw
Environmental Education Center and with upgrades to audio-visual
equipment at Cape Romain's Sewee Visitor and Environmental Education
Center. Our association members are passionate about our refuges and
want to see them have a chance to meet their mission. Therefore we ask
you to help us through these requests:
--The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) estimates
that the NWRS needs a budget of at least $900 million annually
in operation and maintenance funding in order to properly
administer its 150 million acres as mandated in the Refuge
Improvement Act. The current budget is far short of the amount
actually required to effectively operate and maintain the
Refuges. In this time of tightening budgets, we respectfully
request that you keep the NWRS budget at the same level as
fiscal year 2012 ($495 million) so that the Refuges do not
backslide even further in protecting these valuable lands and
ecosystems.
--The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created in 1965 and
authorized at $900 million. We ask that you fund the LWCF at
$700 million for fiscal year 2013. These funds are used for
land acquisition to protect wildlife and their habitats. With
the effects of a changing climate, it is more important now
than ever to establish key wildlife corridors between protected
areas so wildlife can migrate to more suitable habitat as their
historic ones changes. These landscape level conservation
efforts through conservation easements and land purchases are
the best way to protect the diversity of flora and fauna. The
price of real estate is low at this time and the $700 million
can go much further in protecting habitats than it can in a
higher market. When we start to lose species due to lack of
food, water, shelter, or space, we are changing the balance of
nature. We urge you to fund the LWCF at $700 million for fiscal
year 2013. The LWCF is not funded by taxpayer money.
--The refuges give the American people places to connect with nature
and get involved. In 2011 refuge Friends and volunteers
contributed 1.5 million hours of work for the refuge system.
This is about eight volunteers for every one refuge system
employee. These Friends and volunteers do approximately 20
percent of all work on refuges for free. Without a refuge
system employee to guide them, the volunteers can't perform
these valuable free services. We request $80 million for
Visitors Services for the NWRS.
--Please support the Challenge Cost Share (CCS) with $3.8 million in
fiscal year 2013. Partners are the key to successful
conservation. The Federal Government doesn't need to foot the
bill alone. Through programs that leverage Federal dollars
(such as the CCS program), partner organizations such as our
Refuge Friends groups can get matching dollars from other
entities to give the American taxpayers more for their dollars.
Projects such as trails, education, boardwalks, and habitat
restoration give the American public places to connect with
nature and relax.
In conclusion, the SEWEE Association believes the National Wildlife
Refuge System can meet its important conservation objectives only with
strong and consistent funding leveraged by the valuable work of refuge
staff and volunteers. We again extend our appreciation to the
subcommittee for its ongoing commitment to our NWRS. We encourage you
to approve a $495 million for the fiscal year 2013 NWRS operations and
maintenance budget managed by FWS and to approve $700 million for
fiscal year 2013 for the LWCF land acquisition budget as well as
funding refuge Visitor Services at $80 million and the CCS at $3.8
million.
______
Prepared Statement of the SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium
My name is Charles Clement and I am the President and CEO of the
SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium (SEARHC). Chairman Simpson,
Ranking Member Moran, and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure
to be here and I thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
Committee.
I have been involved in the provision of Alaska Native healthcare
for 15 years. Prior to my employment at SEARHC I worked for the
Southcentral Foundation in Anchorage, Alaska, as the vice president/
chief operating officer; vice president--operations; director of
information technology/chief information officer; and special assistant
to the president. As the new president/CEO of SEARHC, I am amazed at
the positive impact the consortium has on the health spectrum of Alaska
Natives.
SEARHC is an inter-tribal consortium of 18 federally recognized
tribes situated throughout the southeast panhandle of Alaska. Our
considerable service area encompasses more than 35,000 square miles, an
area larger than the State of Maine. With no road system connecting our
communities, the challenges to deliver robust health services are
considerable.
I am proud to say that SEARHC meets these challenge through a
network of community clinics and through the Mount Edgecumbe Hospital.
We provide an array of health services that includes medical, dental,
mental health, physical therapy, radiology, pharmacy, laboratory,
nutritional, audiology, optometry and respiratory therapy services. In
addition we provide supplemental social services, substance abuse
treatment, health promotion services, emergency medical services,
environmental health services and traditional Native healing.
We administer more than $42 million in IHS facilities and related
programs and services and have had more than 115,040 encounters in the
last fiscal year. These are Federal services which we operate on behalf
of the Federal Government through a self-governance compact and
associated funding agreement.
To carry out IHS programs under this contract requires us to incur
certain fixed costs, including a number of costs mandated by the
Federal Government. These costs include substantial annual audit costs,
insurance costs and an array of administrative costs to operate our
personnel and financial management systems.
Only a portion of the contract support costs for the above health
services are covered in the direct service budget which IHS contracts
to pay for under our funding agreement. This is because IHS either does
not incur these costs at all (in the case of audit expenses and
insurance costs), or because IHS receives resources to carry out these
functions from other portions of the IHS budget, other divisions of the
Department of Health and Human Services, or even other departments of
the Federal Government. Still, these are mandatory fixed costs which
SEARHC must incur every year, and--for SEARHC--these costs are
negotiated annually by the DHHS Division of Cost Allocation, Western
Field Office.
Decades ago SEARHC was required to accept a contract that did not
provide for the payment of these contract support costs. Over the
years, through amendments to the Indian Self-Determination Act, the
Congress changed the law to require that full contract support costs be
added to the negotiated budget for our direct services. Thus today,
both the law, as well as our compact and funding agreement, require
that contract support costs be added in full.
IHS, however, has not paid the full amount owed under our contract.
In fact, it is not clear how much IHS will honor under the contract
until it is fully performed. Even this year--nearly half way through
the year--we have no idea what IHS will pay us because IHS has not
announced how it will distribute this year's contract support cost
funding, which was an increase of $74 million increase.
As an example of the impact contract support cost underfunding has
on SEARHC, last fiscal year SEARHC was underpaid approximately $2.8
million in fixed contract support costs. SEARHC has no tax base and,
thus, has no way to make up for the difference other than to use
resources that would otherwise support the delivery of services. This
shortfall severely impacted on our ability to fully aid the Alaska
Native community and our ability to provide the maximum level of care
to our beneficiaries. Interestingly, in other areas of Government
contracting, the United States does not fail to pay for its contracted
for services.
SEARHC is a member of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
Coalition, and we fully endorse the NTCSCC's testimony. Full funding of
support costs in fiscal year 2013, at $100 million increase more than
the President's request would impact SEARHC daily operations by
allowing for our contract support costs to be fully paid and preventing
the need to use direct service funds to supplement contract support
costs normally unpaid by IHS.
It has been almost 8 years to the day since the Supreme Court
required that the Government honor its self-determination contracts
with tribal healthcare providers in the landmark case Cherokee Nation
of Oklahoma v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631 (2005). Honoring these contract
support costs obligations is inimical to SEARHC's ability to provide
robust health services to our community.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee
and would be happy to answer any questions you have for SEARHC.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southcentral Foundation
Southcentral Foundation (SCF) is a tribal organization that
compacts with the Secretary of Health and Human Services under title V
of the Indian Self-Determination Act. Under SCF's compact we carry out
various Indian Health Service programs across our region. In doing so,
SCF acts pursuant to tribal authority granted by Cook Inlet Region,
Inc., an Alaska Native regional corporation designated by the Congress
as an Indian tribe for purposes of Indian Self-Determination Act
activities. As my testimony reflects, SCF requests that in fiscal year
2013 the Congress:
--fully fund our Mat-Su Clinic joint venture staffing requirements,
as required by our joint venture contract agreement with IHS;
and
--fully fund SCF's and all other contract support cost requirements
at $572 million, as required by more than 330 self-
determination contracts with IHS.
SCF has carried out IHS programs under Self-Determination Act
agreements for more than 25 years. In accordance with its compact with
the DHHS, SCF currently provides medical, dental, optometric,
behavioral health, and substance abuse treatment services to more than
45,000 Alaska Native and American Indian beneficiaries living within
the Municipality of Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and
nearby villages. SCF also provides services to an additional 13,000
residents of 55 rural Alaska villages covering an area exceeding
100,000 square miles and larger than the State of Oregon. To administer
and deliver these critical healthcare services, SCF employs more than
1,400 people.
Today I will focus my remarks on two issues, joint venture funding
and contract support cost funding.
Joint Venture Funding
The first issue I need to address concerns our joint venture (JV)
contract with IHS. Under section 818(e) of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, IHS is authorized to enter into JV contracts under
which a tribe borrows funds to build a facility to IHS specifications,
and IHS agrees ``to provide the equipment, supplies, and staffing for
the operation and maintenance of such health facility.'' The agreements
are contracts and they are enforceable as such.
Two years ago SCF and IHS entered into a binding JV contract. SCF
agreed to construct a new 88,451 square-foot Primary Care Clinic in the
Mat-Su Valley of Alaska, using borrowed funds from non-IHS sources. In
return, IHS agreed that it ``shall provide the supplies and staffing
for the operation and maintenance of the Facility . . . subject to
appropriations by the Congress.'' Art. VIII.A. See also Art. VIII.G
(``IHS will staff, operate and Maintain the Facility in accordance with
Articles XI through XIV of this Agreement.''); Art. XI (``As authorized
by Section 818(e)(2) of Public Law 94-437 (`subject to the availability
of appropriations for this joint venture project, commencing on the
beneficial occupancy date IHS agrees to provide the supplies, and
staffing necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Facility.
IHS will request funding from the Congress on the same basis as IHS
requests funding for any other new Facility.')''
Our concern arises out of the fact that, while we will receive our
certificate of beneficial occupancy on July 15, 2012, and thus be
operational during all of fiscal year 2013 at an IHS-calculated
staffing cost of $27 million, IHS's budget only requests 50 percent of
the staffing requirement for the Clinic (or $13.5 million). We are
gravely concerned over this gap, all the more because the original $27
million which IHS committed to pay already reflects a 15-percent
reduction of our total staffing costs. (This is because, as a matter of
policy, IHS will not staff any new facility at more than 85 percent of
the facility's staffing requirement.) If IHS does not receive
additional funds to fully meet its contract commitment to SCF, IHS
would be forced to reprogram other funds to make up for the difference.
We are not alone in this situation, and some of the other staffing
packages which IHS is committed to provide are similarly underbudgeted.
We calculate that to fund the staffing packages will require $95.2
million, not the $49.2 million requested. Before IHS requests, and
before the Congress funds, discretionary increases in other IHS
accounts, contractually committed staffing packages should be paid in
full.
Contract Support Cost Funding
The second problem is the budget's inadequate request for contract
support cost funding--another contractually required payment to Indian
Self-Determination Act contractors like SCF. The budget requests a mere
$5 million increase for fiscal year 2013, despite the fact that IHS's
former contract support cost expert Ron Demaray projects a $99 million
shortfall in fiscal year 2013 (calculated at the President's proposed
budget level). Here, we have developed our own projection because, for
the first time in some 20 years, the IHS budget justification does not
include a shortfall projection.
Contract support cost funding reimburses SCF's fixed costs of
running its contract with IHS. If IHS fails to reimburse these costs,
SCF has no choice but to cut positions, which in turn cuts services,
which in turn cuts down our billings and collections from Medicare,
Medicaid and private insurers (billings which would otherwise go into
additional staff and services for our people). The reverse is also
true. When in fiscal year 2010 congressionally appropriated an historic
increase in contract support cost funding, SCF opened 97 positions to
fill multiple healthcare provider teams and support staff.
Our fixed contract support costs are largely ``indirect costs''
that are set by the HHS Division of Cost Allocation. The remainder of
our contract support costs (about 20 percent) are set directly by IHS.
These costs include federally mandated audits, and such items as
liability and property insurance, workers' compensation insurance, and
payroll and procurement systems. We have to buy insurance. We need to
make payroll. We have to purchase supplies and services, and we have to
track property and equipment. All of our costs are independently
audited every year by Certified Public Accountants, as required by law.
Last year this subcommittee reiterated the binding nature of these
contracts and directed IHS and the BIA to fully fund all contract
support cost requirements. The BIA has done this, but the IHS budget
justification defies the Committee's direction and insists that these
contracts are not binding at all. So far as we can tell, no other
contractors are treated this way. HHS, including IHS, only treats its
contracts with Indian tribes this way--as optional, discretionary
agreements that it can choose not to pay. We provide a contracted
service for a contracted price, but IHS only pays us what it chooses to
pay.
This has to stop. In fiscal year 2013 IHS should finally pay its
contract obligations in full. The contract support cost line-item
should be fully funded at a minimum $571 million.
As SCF said last year before this Committee, underfunding contact
support costs disproportionately balances budgetary constraints on the
backs of tribal contractors. Worse yet, it punishes the people being
served by forcing reductions in contracted programs. If the Congress is
going to cut budgets or limit budget increases, fairness demands that
such actions occur in portions of the budget that are shouldered
equally by IHS and the tribes and tribal organizations (like the
contract health services line).
Again, SCF respectfully calls upon the Congress to provide at least
$571 million in contract support cost funding for fiscal year 2013, so
that the Department can finally honor these contracts in full.
Remember, every tribe has contracts with IHS to carry out some of the
agency's healthcare services, and most of those tribes are being
penalized for taking that initiative. Closing the contract support cost
gap will eliminate that penalty and directly benefit the vast majority
of Indian and Alaska Native communities served by IHS.
On a related note, SCF requests that the Congress direct IHS to
resume promptly disclosing to tribes all IHS data on contract support
cost requirements and payments. Up until last year, IHS was doing this
regularly. Then suddenly IHS stopped--we think because IHS may have
been embarrassed by errors in its data. Now, IHS claims that releasing
its data may be opposed by some tribes--even though the release of data
is mandated by section 106 of the ISDA. IHS also claims that because
the data is also used in a report to the Congress, releasing the data
violates OMB clearance procedures, and that there is some kind of
embargo on data regarding the expenditure of Federal funds (similar to
the embargo applicable to the development of the President's Annual
Budget). This is simply not so, and in prior years OMB participated in
the disclosure of IHS data to the tribes. Contract support cost
appropriations belong to the tribes, and tribes have a right to know
what is happening to these funds on a timely basis. Waiting for a
report to the Congress that includes other information is not helpful,
since most reports never get to the Congress. The few that do are
interminably delayed. In fact, the CSC Report Congress just received
from IHS regarding 2009 data was 2 years late. We ask that the
Committee add appropriate language to the appropriations Act directing
IHS to disclose its data promptly.
Thank you for granting me the opportunity to testify on behalf of
the Southcentral Foundation and the 58,000 Native American people we
serve.
______
Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe
On behalf of the tribal leadership and members of the Squaxin
Island Tribe, I am honored to submit our funding priorities and
recommendations for the fiscal year 2013 budgets for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). The fiscal
year 2013 President's proposed budget presents a renewed opportunity
for the U.S. Government to live up to the promises made to American
Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) Tribal governments. We want to thank this
subcommittee for their longstanding support and urge your consideration
of the following requests:
Tribal Specific Requests
$1.2 million increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC)
residential program in IHS.
$650,000 for law enforcement and public safety; four full-time
police officers in BIA.
Regional Requests and Recommendations
The Squaxin Island Tribe is actively involved in the collective
Northwest Tribal efforts and supports the requests and recommendations
of:
--Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board;
--Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; and
--Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
Self-Governance and National Requests/Recommendations
Bureau of Indian Affairs
+$8.8 million to Fully Fund Contract Support Costs.
+$30 million Law Enforcement.
Fully Fund All Provisions of Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010.
+$13.7 million to fully Fund Fixed Costs/Pay Costs.
+$89 million Tribal Priority Allocations (10 percent increase more
than fiscal year 2012 enacted).
Increase funding to the Office of Self-Governance to fully staff
the office for the increase of tribes entering Self-Governance and do
not consolidate this office within Indian Affairs
Indian Health Service
+$100 million to Fully Fund Contract Support Costs.
+$200 million for Contract Health Services.
+$40 million for Alcohol and Substance Abuse Programs.
+$304 million for Mandatory Costs to Fully Fund Current Services.
+Fully Fund the Implementation of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act.
+$5 million for the Indian Health Service Office of Tribal Self-
Governance.
Squaxin Island Tribe Background
We are native people of South Puget Sound and descendants of the
maritime people who lived and prospered along these shores for untold
centuries. We are known as the People of the Water because of our
strong cultural connection to the natural beauty and bounty of Puget
Sound going back hundreds of years. The Squaxin Island Indian
Reservation is located in southeastern Mason County, Washington and is
a signatory to the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. We were 1 of the first
30 federally recognized tribes to enter into a Compact of Self-
Governance with the United States. We establish our own priorities and
budgets for funds previously administered by BIA and IHS.
Our treaty-designated reservation is approximately 2.2 square miles
of uninhabited forested land. Because the Island lacks fresh water, the
tribe has built its community on roughly 26 acres at Kamilche,
Washington purchased and placed into trust. The tribe also owns 6 acres
across Pickering Passage from Squaxin Island and a plot of 36 acres on
Harstine Island, across Peale Passage. The total land area including
off-reservation trust lands is 1,715.46 acres. In addition, the tribe
manages roughly 500 acres of Puget Sound tidelands.
The tribal government and our economic enterprises constitute the
largest employer in the county with more than 1,250 employees. The
tribe has a current enrollment of 1,017 and an on-reservation
population of 426 living in 141 homes. Squaxin has an estimated service
area population of 2,747; a growth rate of about 10 percent, and an
unemployment rate of about 30 percent (according to the BIA Labor Force
Report).
Tribal Specific Requests Justifications
$1.2 Million Increase for the Northwest Indian Treatment
Center residential program in Indian Health Service
``D3WXbi Palil'' meaning ``Returning from the Dark, Deep Waters to
the Light''--Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC) has not received
an adequate increase in its base IHS budget since the original
congressional set-aside in 1993. An increase of $1.2 million would
restore lost purchasing power and meet the need to add mental health
and psychiatric components to the treatment program. This increase
would allow NWITC to continue its effective treatment of Native
Americans.
The Squaxin Island Tribe operates the NWITC, which is located in
Elma, Washington. NWITC is a residential chemical dependency treatment
facility designed to serve American Indians from tribes located in
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho who have chronic relapse patterns related
to unresolved grief and trauma. NWITC is unique in its integration of
tribal cultural values into a therapeutic environment for co-occurring
substance abuse and mental health disorders.
NWITC has nearly 20 years of experience providing residential
treatment with culturally competent models and is accredited by the
Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF), an
international accrediting organization for behavioral health programs.
The NWITC is also certified by Washington State Division of Alcohol and
Substance Abuse (DASA) Division of Behavioral Health and licensed by
the Department of Health.
In 2011, NWITC served 212 patients from 28 tribes and added
intensive case management and crisis support to alumni in order to
continue to promote positive outcomes for clients. This is a 10-percent
increase more than 2010 service levels. Our base allocation in 1994 was
$850,161. In 2010 it was $994,877. If value equity to the 1994 baseline
were maintained, the 2010 allocation would have been $1,250,895.
Despite funding challenges, NWITC has continued to develop and deliver
innovative, culturally appropriate services to meet increasingly
complex demands.
It is critical to increase the NWITC's annual base allocation from
IHS in order to sustain the current services to the tribes of the
Northwest. We respectfully request the subcommittee increase the annual
base allocation for the NWITC by an additional $1.2 million to
guarantee that patients can be admitted based on need, not State
funding streams, and that culturally infused, integrated, and
comprehensive treatment services and recovery support services will be
maintained.
$650,000 for Law Enforcement and Public Safety; Four Full-
Time Police Officers
The Squaxin Island Tribal Public Safety and Justice Department is
dedicated to protecting lives, maintaining peace and ensuring that the
property and resources of the Squaxin Island Tribe are protected. The
Department includes a 12-member police force, Tribal court, and
emergency management center.
For a number of years, the tribe has requested an increase in
baseline BIA funding to ensure that the public safety and justice needs
of our community are fully met. In the intervening years, the tribal
community and the surrounding area has grown considerably, more than
challenging our public safety and Justice Department's ability to
ensure public safety and fulfill our responsibility as managers of our
natural resources. The need for additional funding is greater now than
ever before.
We have enhanced the shellfish habitat and production programs
which increased the demand on water enforcement to address issues of
illegal harvesting. Growth in the region's commercial and recreational
fin and shell fisheries present increasing threats and challenges to
enforcement of our treaty rights and protection of our natural
resources. It is vitally important to ensure that natural resources are
protected.
Currently, the tribe only has funding sufficient for two public
safety and justice officers to be assigned to natural resources
protection, although patrols are needed to monitor clam digs, geoduck
diving and fishing areas during the respective seasons, as well as
patrol closed areas to prevent poaching or other encroachment.
Frequently, hunting and fishing seasons overlap, dividing available
human resources between land and water patrols, though the need for law
enforcement presence in both habitats are critical to public safety and
protection of our treaty rights and trust responsibility. Squaxin
hunters depend on harvesting deer and elk from our hunting areas in the
foothills of the Cascade Mountains, more than 115 miles southeast of
the reservation. Our usual and accustomed hunting lands are located
near Randle and Packwood, Washington, a 2+ hour drive from the
reservation for both treaty hunters and law enforcement patrols.
The tribe has been successful in obtaining Department of Justice
(DOJ) Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant funding for new
or enhanced programs. However, increased baseline funding is needed to
meet the ongoing public safety, enforcement and justice needs of the
tribe. DOJ grant funds can only be used to enhance public safety,
including domestic violence and crime prevention, not for basic
operations.
The Squaxin Island Tribe is seeking long- and short-term
assistance. In the short term, the tribe needs immediate funding for
four full-time police officers to achieve full 24/7 water patrol
coverage. In the long term, BIA funding for law enforcement and public
safety programs needs to be significantly increased to meet the need
for expanded protection of our natural resources, particularly water
patrol. The budget for four officers, equipment, supplies, and training
is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
--------------------------------------------
Salaries.................... $230,170
Fringe...................... 100,910
Space costs................. 3,600
Telephone and cellular...... 4,000
Noncapital equipment........ 6,000
Travel and training......... 4,000
Supplies.................... 12,000
Vehicle maintenance......... 40,000
Insurance................... 10,000
-----------------
Subtotal.............. 410,688
Indirect costs at 44.14..... 179,312
Equipment > $5,000/month.... 60,000
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 650,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Squaxin Island Tribe's Public Safety department would benefit
greatly by increased short-term funding as well as long-term base
funding needed to operate a full-fledged water patrol program to
provide the 24-hour, 7 days week coverage needed to ensure that the
community, property and resources are being protected effectively.
The Squaxin Island Tribe envisions a culturally and economically
strong community of self-governing, resilient people, united by shared
values and traditions . . . by protecting life and maintaining the
peace, protecting tribal property and resources, serving in a
reasonable and prudent manner, and carrying out these responsibilities
diligently, courteously, and with pride.
We support all requests and recommendations of the National
Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Health Board.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Sustainable Northwest
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to provide testimony before the subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies on the subcommittee's fiscal year
2013 funding priorities. On behalf of Sustainable Northwest, I would
like to take this opportunity to highlight programs, funds and tools
that are important to the people and communities of the rural West and
that we believe should receive full congressional funding in fiscal
year 2013.
My name is Martin Goebel and I am the President of Sustainable
Northwest. We are a nonprofit organization that promotes collaborative,
community-based solutions to natural resource management issues. We
work in rural communities throughout the West, bringing together
multiple, often opposing, stakeholders to create and promote solutions
through a collaborative process.
Today, I am going to address two agency budgets--the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) United States Forest Service (USFS)
budget and the Department of the Interior (DOI) Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) budget.
sustainable northwest's recommendations for fiscal year 2013
Fully fund the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
at $40 million.
Enact and fully fund the national Forest Service Integrated
Resource Restoration line item at $793 million.
Create permanent authority for the use of stewardship end-result
contracting to restore our national forests and provide local jobs.
Invest in programs that support the capacity of community-based
partners who work directly with the land management agencies, including
USFS, FWS, and Bureau of Land Management.
Fully fund the Community Wood to Energy Program at $4.25 million
and the Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program at $5 million.
Fully fund the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program at $55
million.
Allocate $1.6 million from the FWS Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation activity area to conservation and planning within the
Klamath Basin.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE
FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
The bipartisan Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
(CFLRP) was established in 2009 to encourage the collaborative,
science-based restoration of priority landscapes. The purposes of this
program are to:
--create job stability;
--achieve a reliable wood supply;
--restore forest health; and
--reduce costs of wildfire suppression in overgrown forests.
CFLRP received $10 million in fiscal year 2010, $25 million in
fiscal year 2011, and $40 million in fiscal year 2012. The President's
fiscal year 2013 budget proposal recommends maintaining funding at $40
million, and Sustainable Northwest respectfully encourages the
subcommittee to allocate full funding.
CFLRP has already proven itself to be a highly successful and
accessible program. Interest in this program is very high, with
increasing numbers of applicant sites each year. Further, CFLRP
produces tangible, documented results. In the first year alone, CFLRP
projects generated and maintained 1,550 jobs; produced 107 million
board feet of timber; generated $59 million of labor income; removed
fuel for destructive mega-fires on 90,000 acres near communities;
reduced mega-fire on an additional 64,000 acres; improved 60,000 acres
of wildlife habitat; restored 28 miles of fish habitat; and enhanced
clean water supplies by remediating 163 miles of eroding roads. Since
then, the program has expanded to include 10 new projects, for a total
of 20 projects across 13 States, across 7 USFS regions \1\. These
projects represent an incredible opportunity for advancing public-
private approaches to landscape and watershed restoration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ People Restoring American's Forests: A Report on the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, November 2011.
Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/index.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Resource Restoration Budget Line Item
Sustainable Northwest strongly supports the national Integrated
Resource Restoration (IRR) budget line item (BLI) included within
administration's fiscal year 2013 budget recommendations. IRR takes a
broad, multifaceted funding approach to restoration of our national
forests. The goal of the IRR line item is to increase funding
efficiency by combining funding for forest management activities
previously funded under wildlife & fisheries habitat management; forest
products; vegetation & watershed management; legacy roads and trails,
and roads; hazardous fuels non-wildland urban interface; and
rehabilitation and restoration budget line items.
This BLI was included in USFS's budget as a pilot program in fiscal
year 2012. It was limited to USFS Regions 1, 3, and 4. The President's
budget recommends expanding the IRR to a national program covering all
USFS regions in fiscal year 2013 and fully funding it at $793 million.
We support this expansion because we believe IRR is an important tool
in building a forest restoration economy that will create new jobs in
rural communities. It will better integrate funding and authorities
related to forest restoration and water quality, while reducing
administrative costs. This is a forward-thinking approach to budgeting
within USFS, and we urge you to support this approach by fully funding
IRR at $793 million in fiscal year 2013.
Permanent Stewardship End-Result Contracting Authority
Stewardship end-result contracting is one of the best tools
available for funding stewardship and restoration on our national
forestlands. It increases the ability of districts and field offices to
carry out high quality restoration projects by lowering project
administration costs. It helps achieve land management goals and
improve the collaborative atmosphere on our national forests. With its
best value contracting authority, stewardship contracting helps improve
the quality of work on the ground and increases economic opportunities
and jobs in communities located near public lands.
Between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2010, USFS awarded 874
contract and agreements for restoration treatments on more than 558,020
acres nationwide. Current legislation authorizes USFS and Bureau of
Land Management to enter into stewardship end result contracts until
September 30, 2013. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget assumes
that the agencies are able to secure permanent stewardship contracting
authority. We believe stewardship end-result contracting is a necessary
and important tool to the help our forests and our rural communities
achieve ecological and economic outcomes. We strongly support permanent
authorization.
Strengthening Community Capacity for Collaboration and Land Stewardship
Community capacity is the collective ability and resources rural
communities have to solve diverse challenges and meet the multiple
needs of their communities by drawing on human, social, cultural and
physical capital. By investing in building the collaborative and
stewardship capacity of rural communities, the Federal Government can
support collaborative and common ground solutions to improve the
delivery and effectiveness of Federal budgets; promote small business
development and job creation; foster ``bottom up'' natural resource
decisions that include the input of local citizens and governments; and
save and leverage money by working through local organizations.
Programs and initiatives of USFS like CFLRP, stewardship contracting,
the new planning rule and the watershed condition framework all rely on
effective partnerships between the Federal Government and community
based locally led organizations. These investments are critical.
One example of the impact of capacity funds can be seen through the
work of the Blue Mountain Forest Partners (BMFP), a collaborative
organization on the Malheur National Forest. With public and private
grant funds, BMFP is increasing its institutional capacity to become a
self-governed entity and to serve as a catalyst for forest restoration
and job creation in Grant County, Oregon. The BMFP has increased
project size, decreased the amount of time required to reach agreement,
avoided litigation and appeals over the last 5 years, and have been
selected to participate in the CFLRP program through a project on the
Malheur National Forest. For small and emerging organizations such as
BMFP, capacity programs offer the opportunity to increase skills and
sophistication necessary to create and maintain capacity for
collaborative decisionmaking and responsible land stewardship.
Community Wood to Energy Program and Woody Biomass Utilization Grant
Program
The use of woody biomass to generate thermal energy provides a
tremendous opportunity to reduce our dependency on petroleum, reduce
carbon emissions by displacing combustion of fossil fuels, support
ecologically based forest restoration, and promote a distributed energy
economy which includes rural communities as part of the solution. USFS
programs such as the Community Wood to Energy Program (CWEP) and Woody
Biomass Utilization Grant Program (WBUG) provide support for
development of woody biomass facilities and markets. If funded at the
President's fiscal year 2013 request of $4.24 million, CWEP will
provide grant funds to State, tribal, and local governments to develop
community wood energy plans; acquire community wood energy systems; and
secure technical assistance for public facilities that use woody
biomass as the primary fuel. WBUG encourages woody biomass removal
through restoration activities and use of woody biomass in facilities
with commercially proven technologies. Sustainable Northwest supports
the President's request for full funding for CWEP at $4.25 million and
WBUG at $5 million.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2013
BUDGET
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW) is one of the
FWS's critical conservation tools for voluntary, citizen and community-
based fish and wildlife habitat restoration activities on privately
owned land. PFW serves as a bridge to landowners to develop individual
partnerships and habitat restoration projects for the benefit of fish
and wildlife species. In many instances, restoration projects can help
decrease risks and burdens associated with regulatory activity, as well
as increase the underlying value of these properties. The approach is
simple: engage willing partners and landowners, using direct financial
and technical assistance, to conserve and protect fish and wildlife
values on their property. Working with more than 44,000 private
landowners from 1987-2010, PFW has successfully restored and enhanced
1,026,000 acres of wetlands; 3,235,000 acres of uplands; 9,200 miles of
stream habitat; and worked with more than 3,000 partnering
organizations. Sustainable Northwest supports the administration's
recommendation of $55 million for PFW in fiscal year 2013.
Funding for Conservation in the Klamath Basin
The Administration's fiscal year 2013 budget recommendation for the
Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation activity area within the
FWS includes $1.6 million for conservation, planning, and restoration
within the Klamath Basin. This funding is essential, as demand on FWS
in the Klamath is expected to increase dramatically in 2013 and 2014, a
direct result of ongoing demand on limited water supplies and potential
efforts to implement the plans outlined in the Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement. Klamath Basin funding is needed to restore high-
priority stream habitats and recover listed and native fish species in
the Klamath system and work cooperatively with stakeholders on natural
resource management issues. Restoration of the Klamath Basin fisheries
and habitat is a high priority for Sustainable Northwest, and we ask
that you ensure support for this important work.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tanana Chiefs Conference
My name is Jerry Isaac and I am the President of the Tanana Chiefs
Conference. TCC is a nonprofit inter-tribal consortium of 39 federally
recognized tribes located in the interior of Alaska. TCC is a Co-Signer
of the Alaska Tribal Health Compact under title V of the Indian Self
Determination and Education Assistance Act, Public Law 93-638. TCC
serves approximately 13,000 Native American people in Fairbanks and our
rural villages. Our traditional territory and current services area
occupy a mostly roadless area almost the size of Texas, stretching from
Fairbanks clear up to the Brooks Range, and over to the Canadian
border.
I will be testifying on two matters. First, I will provide an
overview of the Joint Venture Construction Program and specifically
address TCC's staffing needs. Second, I will explain the impact
suffered by TCC and others from the contract support cost shortfall and
how that shortfall will have the most impact for those entities
starting to operate replacement or joint venture facilities in fiscal
year 2013.
TCC needs the full staffing package amount in fiscal year 2013, as
agreed to in our Joint Venture Agreement.
The Joint Venture Construction Program is authorized in section
818(e) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, Public Law 94-437.
The authorization directed the Secretary of HHS to make arrangements
with Indian tribes to establish joint venture projects. The program is
executed through a JVCP agreement--a contract--in which a tribal entity
borrows non-IHS funds for the construction of a tribally owned
healthcare facility, and, in exchange, the IHS promises to lease the
facility, to equip the facility and to staff the facility.
In the Conference Report which accompanied the Department of the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2010,
the conferees explained the importance of the Joint Venture program.
That program is a unique way of addressing the persistent backlog in
IHS health facilities construction projects serving American Indians
and Alaska Natives. The conferees reported, ``The conferees believe
that the joint venture program provides a cost-effective means to
address this backlog and to increase access to healthcare services for
American Indians and Alaska Natives. The conferees are aware that IHS
is currently reviewing competitive applications from tribes and tribal
organizations to participate in the 2010 joint venture program and
encourage the Service to move forward with the process in an
expeditious manner.''
IHS has followed the direction of the Congress and/or the
conference report. In 2010 IHS signed a legally binding Joint Venture
Construction Agreement with TCC. In the agreement IHS agreed to
``request funding from the Congress for fiscal year on the same basis
as IHS requests funding for any other facilities.'' Given that IHS has
requested full-funding for some projects and less than full for others,
it appears that IHS has not requested funding on the same basis across
all facilities.
TCC is concerned to say the least, at the proposed funding for our
Joint Venture project. IHS requested less than 27 percent of the
staffing package for TCC (or around $8 million) even though our
facility will be open for the entire fiscal year. Alaska is a unique
place in which the additional costs for recruitment, training and
program creation are far higher than in the lower 48. TCC will need the
full $30 million staffing package to be successful this opening year.
TCC has done everything in our power to see a successful opening in
fiscal year 2013. TCC has remained in close contact with IHS throughout
the construction of our projects. We are on budget and ahead of
schedule. Both Secretary Sebelius and Dr. Roubideaux were able to visit
with TCC last fall. Since that visit, the date of completion for the
clinic has moved up. IHS's funding requests were based on last year's
projected opening dates. But TCC's current beneficial occupancy date
for our JV clinic is September 2012. TCC's clinic will open much
earlier than what is reported in the IHS budget justification.
TCC has never before owned its own primary care medical facility.
This is because the majority of our current clinic space is leased from
Banner Health at Fairbanks Memorial Hospital (FMH). Additionally, in
the past TCC has purchased lab, radiology, housekeeping, laundry,
groundskeeping, and maintenance services from FMH. These are services
that TCC will begin self performing in less than 5 months when we move
into the new clinic. Already we have started the planning process for
the transition and recruitment of the staff we will need.
Staff within IHS have written that our Joint Venture partnership
could be characterized as a model for what can be achieved between
Tribal Health Organizations and IHS to improve access to healthcare for
American Indian and Alaska Native people. TCC is well on our way to
upholding our end of the Joint Venture agreements. We need IHS, and the
Congress, to hold up the Government's side of the bargain.
TCC will be fully operational for all of fiscal year 2013. Our
staffing packages should be provided in the full amounts proportionate
to our operations. Any reduction from the full staffing amount will
only result in decreasing our ability to provide services to our
beneficiaries. Worse yet, it could endanger our ability to service the
debt we have incurred in constructing the new clinic.
The contract support cost request by IHS will worsen the national
CSC shortfall and require further program cuts for Self-Determined
Tribes, and the burden will fall especially hard on those tribes which
will operate new facilities in fiscal year 2013.
Related to the Joint Venture Construction Program is our concern
with IHS's requested funding for contract support costs. These costs
are owed to tribes and tribal organizations like TCC performing
contracts on behalf of the United States pursuant to the Indian Self-
Determination Act. ``Contract support costs'' are the fixed costs which
we incur and must spend to operate IHS's programs and clinics.
The Indian Self Determination Act depends upon a contracting
mechanism to carry out its goal of transferring essential governmental
functions from Federal agency administration to tribal government
administration. To carry out that goal and meet contract requirements,
the Act requires that IHS fully reimburse every tribal contractor for
the ``contract support costs'' that are necessary to carry out the
contracted Federal activities. (Cost-reimbursable government contracts
similarly require reimbursement of ``general and administrative''
costs.) Full payment of fixed contract support costs is essential:
without it, offsetting program reductions must be made, vacancies
cannot be filled, and services are reduced, all to make up for the
shortfall. In short, a contract support cost shortfall is equivalent to
a program cut.
Funding contract support costs in full permits the restoration of
Indian country jobs that are cut when shortfalls occur. The fiscal year
2010 reduction in the contract support cost shortfall produced a
stunning increase in Indian country jobs. Third-party revenues
generated from these new positions will eventually more than double the
number of restored positions, and thereby double the amount of
healthcare tribal organizations like our's will provide in our
communities.
The problem is that for 2013, IHS has requested only a $5 million
increase. Yet, the current shortfall is already $50 to $60 million, and
with several new clinics becoming operational, the fiscal year 2013
shortfall will likely grow to more than $90 million. Against that
contract requirement, a $5 million increase is obviously inadequate.
When contract support costs are not paid, we have no choice but to
take the shortfall in funding out of the programs themselves. Because
TCC will be creating and expanding programs to operate our JV project,
our reliance on CSC will also expand. This is also true for tribes
initiating other new Federal programs as the initial building of a
program is heavily reliant on contract support.
A continued increase in shortfalls for contract support costs, in
addition to the limited funding requested for TCC will end up punishing
a majority of the Native beneficiaries in Alaska. The Government has a
legal duty and trust responsibility to provide for the full staffing
packages and the full contract support costs it has, by contract,
agreed to pay. We are not asking for a favor; we are only expecting
that the government will hold up its end of the bargain.
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the honor of presenting
testimony today.
______
Prepared Statement of Taos, New Mexico
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2013
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial public benefits
including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in the LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural, historical and recreation heritage. As the LWCF is funded from
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these
funds should go to their intended and authorized use as a conservation
offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
As part of the LWCF request in fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) included an allocation of $2.656 million for Carson
National Forest. I am pleased that this funding was included in the
request and urge the Congress to provide necessary funds for LWCF for
this important project.
Some of the finest mountain scenery in the Southwest is found in
the 1.5-million-acre Carson National Forest. Elevations rise from 6,000
to 13,161 feet at Wheeler Peak in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, the
highest peak in New Mexico. The scenery varies from high desert scrub
and red soil to spruce and fir-filled mountainsides and wildflower
meadows. In addition to the various landscapes, there are also many
recreational opportunities in the forest. The magnificent mountain
scenery and cool summer temperatures lure visitors to enjoy fishing,
hunting, camping, and hiking. Winter activities include skiing,
snowshoeing and snowmobiling. There are 330 miles of trails for hiking,
horseback riding, mountain biking, and 4-wheel drive exploring. For the
backcountry enthusiast, there are 86,193 acres of wilderness in the
forest that have been virtually undisturbed, where travel is restricted
to foot or horseback.
There are many species of animals in the Carson National Forest
including mule deer, elk, antelope, black bear, and bighorn sheep along
with many species of songbirds and a wonderful display of wildflowers.
The forest has 400 miles of clean mountain streams and many lakes that
offer outstanding trout fishing including rainbow, eastern brook,
German brown and cutthroat trout.
Available for acquisition as part of the Carson National Forest is
the 5,087-acre Miranda Canyon property located just 10 miles south of
Taos. The property is adjacent to the western edge of the national
forest and ranges in elevation from 7,200 to 10,801 feet. It has
enormous scenic value, as it forms the southern backdrop to Taos and is
highly visible as one travels south along Route 68.
The 5,000-acre Miranda Canyon property contains important watershed
lands that feed public water supplies for local communities and
maintain flows of clean, cold water to the nationally significant Rio
Grande. The highest elevation lands on the property fall within the
Headwaters Rio Grande de Rancho watershed, which is rated as
functioning properly under the USFS Watershed Condition Framework.
Acquisition of this area will prevent conversion for development,
meeting the Framework goal to protect the best, and will complete the
agency's ownership of this watershed. The majority of the property at
lower elevations falls within two other watersheds that are rated as
functioning at risk. Acquisition will allow the USFS to apply a range
of restoration actions to move these watersheds up a condition class.
These watersheds are also significant in that they contain an important
recharge zone for the underlying aquifer, which provides domestic water
for the communities of Llano Quemado and Ranchos de Taos.
The property also has various vegetative types from low elevation
sagebrush and pinon juniper to high elevation mixed conifer forest
containing large aspen stands. There are also numerous meadows and
riparian vegetation that provide excellent habitat for wildlife. The
landscape has numerous ridges and peaks that provide breathtaking views
of the Rio Grande Gorge to the west and of Wheeler Peak, the highest
peak in New Mexico, to the north. Picuris Peak is located on the
property along a popular hiking route. The property also contains
historical features such as the Old Spanish Trail, a pack mule trail
that served as a link between land-locked New Mexico and coastal
California between 1829 and 1848, after which other routes became more
popular. Recognizing the national significance of this historic trade
route, the Congress designated it the Old Spanish National Historic
Trail in 2002. Other geological features on the property include a
unique small volcano and 1.7-billion-year-old rock outcrops that rival
the age of rock found at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.
Due to the strong opposition of the Taos community to a proposal to
develop the Miranda Canyon property into 150 lots, the landowner has
agreed to a multi-phase 3-year conservation sale to the Carson NF. If
Miranda Canyon had been subdivided and developed, tremendous
recreational, scenic, and ecological resources would have been
diminished or lost forever. Even without county subdivision approval,
the Miranda Canyon property could have been developed into 140-acre
lots, with potentially adverse impact on the drinking water supply of
nearby communities. Because the landowner's timing did not allow for a
long-term purchase agreement, The Trust for Public Land stepped in and
purchased the property in January 2011. The conveyance of this $10.8
million tract to the USFS is moving ahead in phases, with Phase I
receiving an allocation of $3.442 million from LWCF in fiscal year
2012.
While this arrangement offers a bit of breathing room for the
agency to secure the necessary acquisition funding, it is critical that
the purchase continue to move ahead in fiscal year 2013 with another
allocation of $2.656 million for Phase II. Only when Miranda Canyon is
fully conveyed to the Carson National Forest will it be permanently
protected for the public, ensuring protection of this vital watershed
and the associated local water quality as well as enhancing
recreational opportunities such as hunting, camping, hiking, mountain
biking, and horseback riding.
In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the LWCF of $450
million, as proposed in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget,
including critical funding for the Carson National Forest. I want to
thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in New Mexico, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
Members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies, my name is Bobby Wilson and I am the
Chief of Fisheries for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. I thank
you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the State of Tennessee
in support of the continued funding for the Aquatic Nuisance Species
Plan grant to the States.
Aquatic nuisance species pose serious problems to the ecology and
economy in Tennessee. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
``National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation'', more than 874,000 citizens participated in fishing,
332,000 hunted, and 2,385,000 participated in wildlife watching
activities. Tennessee citizen's spent $592 million on fishing, $476
million on hunting, and slightly more than $1 billion on wildlife
watching. In addition, the wholesale value of commercial fishing is
estimated to be $13 million and the value for commercial musseling is
$1.5 million. Revenues from these natural resource-related activities
are important to the economy and well-being of the citizens of
Tennessee. These economic returns can only continue to occur if these
resources are protected from the invasion of aquatic nuisance species.
Tennessee is one of the most aquatically bio-diverse States in the
Nation. Currently there are at least 315 species of fish, 120 species
of mussels, and 84 species of crayfish in our waters. The State has
three major river systems (Mississippi, Tennessee, and Cumberland
Rivers) which contribute to 700,000 acres of impounded reservoirs and
19,000 miles of streams.
Some of the more problematic aquatic non-native species in
Tennessee include zebra mussels, Eurasian water milfoil, and Asian
carp. Others include several species of aquatic snakes, turtles, frogs,
crayfish, snails, and salamanders. Together more than 50 species of
aquatic animals have been identified as invasive to Tennessee.
To identify the needs for addressing the problems of aquatic
nuisance species, Tennessee developed a management plan in 2008. This
plan focused on the prevention of new introductions but also dealt with
the management and control of existing species that already exist in
our waters. There are 26 strategies and 67 actions listed in the plan
to address the concerns which include the development of educational
materials such as pamphlets, posters, DVD's, and an Aquatic Nuisance
Species Web site. It also includes hiring an aquatic nuisance species
coordinator, improving enforcement and regulations that prohibit the
possession, purchase, and transport of aquatic nuisance species in
Tennessee.
During the 3 years that our State has received the Aquatic Nuisance
Species Federal grant we have accomplished action items identified in
our management plan: We have monitored our extensive crayfish
population for the presences of nuisance crayfish; we partnered with
the Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga for the development of an aquatic
nuisance species display at their facility; we implemented a new live
bait regulation which will help prevent the introduction of various
invasive species of fish, amphibians, and crayfish; and developed the
``Angler's guide to Tennessee Fish'' which includes a section on the
identification of various aquatic nuisance species of fish and crayfish
in the guide.
However we have only touched the surface of a very serious problem.
Asian carp populations are continuing to expand in the Tennessee and
Cumberland River systems; zebra mussels have recently been discovered
in one of our most pristine and heavily visited lakes, Norris
Reservoir; and various invasive species of aquatic plants are
constantly showing up in waters where they have not been seen before.
We must continue to work on these problems as they arise as well as try
to prevent the introduction of new invasive species before they become
established and it is too late.
In speaking on behalf of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency,
and on behalf of the citizens of Tennessee, I ask that the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies approve within the budget of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife agency
the continued funding of Aquatic Nuisance Species State grants.
The State of Tennessee looks forward to continue working with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on this important issue. Again, thank
you for the opportunity to allow me to provide testimony on behalf of
the State of Tennessee.
______
Prepared Statement of The American Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals
On behalf of our 2.5 million supporters, The American Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) appreciates this
opportunity to submit testimony to the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Founded in
1866, ASPCA is the first humane organization established in the
Americas and serves as the Nation's leading voice for animal welfare.
ASPCA's mission is to provide effective means for the prevention of
cruelty to animals throughout the United States, and for that reason we
request the subcommittee consider the following concerns regarding the
Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Wild Horse and Burro Program when
making fiscal year 2013 appropriations.
WILD HORSES
In the 40 years since BLM was first charged with protecting our
country's wild horses and burros, Americans have witnessed BLM's Wild
Horse and Burro Program deteriorate into a continuous cycle of roundups
and removals with little regard to the preservation-focused mandate
dictated by The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (the Act). Our
wild horses and burros are to be revered as historical icons, treated
humanely, and managed fairly and respectfully on our public lands. We
appreciate BLM's recognition that there is a great need for reform in
the Wild Horse and Burro Program. We applaud its effort to incorporate
the use of on-the-range management methods such as immunocontraception
and to find alternatives to long-term holding of wild horses. However,
further and significant reformations must be swiftly incorporated.
Prohibit Bureau of Land Management Funding for Euthanasia or Sale of
Wild Horses as Management Methods
In December 2004, the Congress passed the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 which contained a provision
that amended the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to allow for
the sale of certain groups of wild horses and burros. This instant
transfer of title from the U.S. Government to the individual purchaser
revokes the animal's status as a protected equine and makes it
vulnerable to the still-thriving horse slaughter industry.
Additionally, in 2008 BLM publicly announced that it was considering
using its statutory authority to destroy old, sick, or unadoptable wild
horses and burros for the first time by implementing mass euthanasia as
a population control method. The roar of public opposition that
followed forced BLM to quickly withdraw the proposal. However, both the
sale provision and the language allowing for the destruction of wild
horses and burros remain in the law. ASPCA requests that the
subcommittee include the following language in the appropriations bill
that specifically prohibits funding programs or projects that subject
wild horses and burros to the possibility of slaughter or euthanasia as
a means of population control: ``Appropriations herein made shall not
be available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and
burros in the care of the Bureau or its contractors or for the sale of
wild horses and burros that results in their destruction for processing
into commercial products.''
Ensure That Removals Do Not Exceed Adoption Demand
The majority of BLM's budget is spent caring for wild horses in
long-term holding facilities. The budget requested for BLM's Wild Horse
and Burro Program has necessarily increased each fiscal year, as has
the portion of the budget that funds the care of wild horses in long-
term holding facilities. Unfortunately, instead of letting these wild
horses remain in their natural habitats as part of their established
herds, their family structures have been disrupted and they have been
removed to fenced facilities where taxpayer dollars go for their care.
There are now as many or more wild horses in holding facilities as in
the wild. Without substantial change in management techniques, the
number in holding facilities will only increase and taxpayer dollars
will be further wasted in ever increasing amounts. ASPCA believes wild
horses belong in their natural habitats and should not be subject to
the terror of removals nor the confines of holding facilities without
hope of return to the range or adoption.
Adoption rates have varied between 3,000 and 4,000 horses since
2008. During that same time period, BLM has rounded up and removed
approximately 7,800 annually, several thousand more than the adoption
demand, thereby guaranteeing most of those wild animals will be kept in
taxpayer-funded holding facilities for the remainder of their lives.
Warehousing horses in holding facilities does nothing to manage the on-
range populations and only delays the inevitable need for more
preventative management. This cycle must be broken. ASPCA encourages
BLM to limit the number of horses removed from the range to the number
matching current adoption demand.
Prioritize On-the-Range Management Over Roundup and Removal
The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act makes clear that on-
the-range management should be preferred over roundup and removal as
the primary method of wild horse management. There are multiple ways
BLM can reform its program to favor on-the-range management methods.
ASPCA realizes that there are situations where population control
is necessary, and we appreciate BLM's public recognition that fertility
control methods such as immunocotraception must be a significant part
of wild horse population management. Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP), the
contraceptive vaccine that has been used in managing horse and deer
populations for decades, was recently registered by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and is now commercially available. For the past
2 years, BLM has capped its goal for vaccinating horses at 2,000 horses
per year. For PZP to become a serious part of the solution, its use
must be increased to levels that will significantly impact population
growth. As part of President Obama's proposed fiscal year 2013 budget
for BLM, the Wild Horse and Burro Program requested a $2 million
increase specifically for research and development of population-
control methods. ASPCA recommends that the requested funds go toward
prioritizing the use of humane, reversible fertility control when it is
necessary to stem the population growth of wild horse or burro herds.
In addition to escalating its use of immunocontraception, BLM must
also reconsider Herd Management Areas (HMAs) that have been zeroed out
as wild horse and burro habitat and make them available for
reintroduction. More than 20 million acres of HMAs originally
designated as wild horse and burro habitat have been zeroed out and
horses have been removed and placed in holding facilities. This 40-year
pattern has resulted in American taxpayers paying more each year for
the cost of privatized care when millions of acres of habitat are
available. ASPCA recommends that the subcommittee direct BLM to
reestablish zeroed out HMAs as viable wild horse and burro habitat
wherever possible.
Require Humane and Transparent Roundup Operations
Finally, ASPCA requests that, when roundups are necessary, the
subcommittee charge BLM with establishing humane and transparent
standards and procedures for those operations. Observers have witnessed
horses suffering and dying due to brutal roundup practices. Foals have
been run over such extreme distances that they literally have lost
their hooves, mares have been driven to the point of physical
exhaustion, and a burro was physically assaulted with helicopter skids.
BLM recognizes a need to reform its roundup protocol. ASPCA applauds
this acknowledgement and asks that the subcommittee encourage BLM to
expedite its development of standard operating procedures for roundups
that incorporate animal welfare standards. No roundups for removal or
any other purposes should occur without procedures in place that will
ensure these incidents are never repeated. For the public to continue
to invest in this management program and to allow this agency to have
any authority over these animals, it is vital that no horses or burros
are harmed at the hands of BLM agents or contractors. We also urge the
subcommittee to designate funds for researching, and developing
protocols that take into consideration the impact of separating family
groups of wild horses during removals. To allow for more visibility of
roundup operations, and thus more accountability, we urge the
subcommittee to designate funds for the installation of video cameras
on helicopters and at trap and holding sites.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony. We appreciate
the steps BLM has already taken to reform the Wild Horse and Burro
Program, and we look forward to working with the agency on this issue
in the future. With the help of the subcommittee, the BLM Wild Horse
and Burro Program can hopefully achieve sustainability and comply with
the mission of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act: to protect
and preserve these animals as historic American icons.
______
Prepared Statement of The Conservation Fund
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, thank you for this opportunity to submit outside witness
testimony on behalf of The Conservation Fund. The Conservation Fund
(TCF) supports full funding of the President's budget request of $450
million in fiscal year 2013 for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(which includes the Federal land acquisition programs of the Bureau of
Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS), as well as several important
State grant programs). Additionally, TCF supports full funding of the
President's request for the FWS's North American Wetlands Conservation
Fund ($39.425 million) and USFS's Community Forest and Open Space
Conservation Program ($4 million). In addition, we want to thank the
subcommittee for reauthorizing the Federal Land Transaction
Facilitation Act (FLTFA) in 2010, though it is currently expired and we
support the fiscal year 2013 President's budget request to reauthorize
this important program.
The Conservation Fund (TCF) is a national, nonprofit conservation
organization dedicated to conserving America's land and water legacy
for future generations. Established in 1985, TCF works with landowners;
Federal, State, and local agencies; and other partners to conserve our
Nation's important lands for people, wildlife and communities. To date,
TCF has helped our partners to conserve more than 7 million acres.
These accomplishments are due, in large measure, to the leadership of
this subcommittee over many years to appropriate funds to Federal
agencies to acquire lands for future generations.
Below are highlights of some benefits of the LWCF and land
acquisition programs. While these projects show the tremendous
diversity of benefits of land acquisition for the public, they have one
thing in common--landowners drive each of these projects. Many farmers,
ranchers and forestland owners have significant financial equity in
their land. By enabling a landowner to sell a conservation easement or
fee title, the LWCF program provides landowners with funds to stay in
business, reinvest in businesses, or meet other financial goals.
Bureau of Land Management--Land Acquisition.--TCF supports the
fiscal year 2013 President's budget request of $33.575 million for the
Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Land Acquisition Program for its
``core'' and ``collaborative'' lists, and would like to highlight the
following projects:
Upper Snake/South Fork Snake River ACEC, Idaho--$1.75 million (#4
on core list).--Idaho's Upper Snake/South Fork is visited by
more than 300,000 people each year to enjoy world-class fishing
and floating, abundant wildlife and one of the most scenic
rivers in the West, supporting 350 jobs and generating $12
million in income per year. Working in partnership with
landowners, this project primarily utilizes conservation
easements to protect valuable fish and wildlife habitat and
agricultural lands from fragmentation while simultaneously
supporting important recreational and tourism opportunities and
allowing agricultural lands to remain in production/private
ownership.
Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon--$2 million (#6 on core
list).--An ``ecological wonder,'' supporting 3,500 species, the
54,900-acre CSNM was designated specifically for its
extraordinary biological diversity. BLM has worked with private
landowners to acquire inholdings within the national monument,
but thousands of acres remain in private ownership, closed to
public use, and unprotected from development. This project will
allow the BLM to purchase high-priority inholdings from
timberland owners within Cascade-Siskiyou, complementing BLM's
work with past LWCF appropriations.
National Park Service--Land Acquisition.--TCF supports the fiscal
year 2013 President's budget proposal of $59.421 million for the
National Park Service's (NPS) Land Acquisition Program. I would like to
highlight the following from the NPS's ``core'' list:
National Rivers and Trails Initiative--$4 million (#2 on core
list).--This new initiative would assist in the acquisition of
numerous, smaller parcels throughout the National Trails
System, creating new recreational opportunities and protecting
important natural and cultural resources. This initiative will
involve the coordination with other Federal agencies, such as
the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management that
manage lands crossed by trails.
Civil War Sesquicentennial Units--$5 million (#1 on core list).--
These funds will allow for the acquisition of land within the
NPS's Civil War battlefield parks. According to the NPS,
priority needs exist at Fort Donelson National Battlefield,
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial
National Military Park, Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield
Park, Pecos National Historical Park, Richmond National
Battlefield Park, and others park units.
--Petrified Forest National Park--$5 million (#4 on core list).--At
the request of the National Park Service, TCF is currently
working with several willing landowners to acquire key
inholdings within the Park, which feature unique
paleontological and archeological resources as well as
outstanding scenery, riparian resources and wildlife habitat.
The more than 630,000 annual visitors to the Park contribute
more than $80 million to the local economy and support more
than 600 local jobs.
Fish and Wildlife Service--Land Acquisition.--TCF supports the
fiscal year 2013 President's budget proposal of $106.892 million for
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Land Acquisition Program for
its ``core'' and ``collaborative'' lists, including:
Dakota Grasslands, North Dakota and South Dakota--$2.5 Million
(Number One on Core List).--To address the accelerating loss of
wetland and grassland habit in the Prairie Pothole region--our
Nation's ``duck factory''--FWS recently established the Dakota
Grassland Conservation Area. LWCF funds will allow willing
private landowners to sell conservation easements to the FWS to
conserve migratory birds by protecting the region's unique,
highly diverse, and endangered ecosystem.
Neches River National Wildlife Refuge, Texas--$1 Million (#6 on
Core List).--In 2006, FWS established the 25,000-acre Neches
River NWR to protect habitat for migratory birds of the Central
Flyway and bottomland hardwood forests, as well as to provide
for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. At
the request of the FWS, TCF acquired a 6,715-acre tract that
features 8 miles of Neches River frontage, dense bottomland
hardwood forest, and numerous oxbows and ponds. The FWS has an
approved appraisal of the property and TCF has raised
significant private funds to provide excellent leverage for the
requested Federal funds of $1 million in fiscal year 2013.
Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area, Montana--$19.742 Million
(Collaborative List).--As part of the Crown of the Continent
Collaborative Landscape Planning Project, this project will
allow TCF to continue working in close partnership with the
FWS, The Nature Conservancy and local ranchers to acquire
conservation easements along the Rocky Mountain Front, a
spectacular range that runs from just north of Helena to
Glacier National Park. This voluntary conservation project will
allow local ranchers to expand and strengthen their ranching
operations while conserving vital wildlife habitat for grizzly
bear and a range of other important species. Tens of millions
of private philanthropic dollars are helping to further advance
this effort for ranching families and wildlife and leverage
Federal funding.
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, Georgia--$13.636 Million
(Collaborative List).--As part of the Longleaf Pine
Collaborative Landscape Planning Project, the FWS is seeking
funds to acquire timber and recreation rights from a timberland
owner on 16,000 acres within the Okefenokee National Wildlife
Refuge. In addition, these funds, if appropriated, would enable
FWS to acquire 7,000 acre-fee land from TCF. If approved, FWS
will be able to restore the site to the native longleaf pine
system and to increase the population of the endangered red-
cockaded woodpecker, a bird of older growth pine stands.
Additionally, the lands will provide a critical fire buffer and
allow for the long-term adaptive management of the fire-based
plant community through the use of prescribed fire.
United States Forest Service--Land Acquisition.--TCF supports the
fiscal year 2013 President's budget proposal of $57.934 million for
USFS's Land Acquisition Program for its ``core'' and ``collaborative''
lists. I particularly want to highlight the following:
North Carolina Threatened Treasures--$1.25 Million (#13 on Core
List).--TCF, the Trust for Public Land, Southern Appalachian
Highlands Conservancy and Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy
and other groups are working with the USFS to conserve critical
lands in National Forests in North Carolina. One such project
is the 753-acre Backbone Ridge project, which is located near
the Blue Ridge Parkway, Grandfather Mountain State Park and
surrounded on three sides by the Pisgah National Forest
adjoining the Forest for almost 10 miles. The property will
provide a gateway for hiking in a network of protected Federal
and State lands. USFS is seeking $4.5 million over several
years to acquire a portion of the property, while the State of
North Carolina seeks to acquire the balance as a State forest.
Land and Water Conservation Fund State Grant Programs.--In addition
to these Federal LWCF projects, we wish to highlight the LWCF State
grant programs and encourage the subcommittee to give consideration to
fully funding the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for:
--FWS's section 6 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund--
$60 million;
--USFS's Forest Legacy Program--$60 million; project highlights
include:
--South Boulder Creek Watershed/Toll, Colorado (#1)--$5 million;
--East Grand/Orient, Maine (#5)--$1.8 million;
--Gilchrist State Forest, Oregon (#6)--$3 million;
--East Fork of French Broad Headwaters/Taylor, North Carolina
(#7)--$3 million;
--Blood Run National Historic Landmark Area, South Dakota (#10)--
$1.205 million; and
--Eagle Rock/Michaux State Forest, Pennsylvania (#12)--$1.5
million.
Priority Land Acquisition Programs.--Additionally, TCF encourages
the Committee to fund:
--FWS's North American Wetlands Conservation Fund--$39.425 million;
and
--USFS's Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program--$4
million.
Reprogramming Authority.--We support the fiscal year 2013
President's budget request to allow the BLM, USFWS, NPS and USFS to re-
allocate past unspent LWCF funds, i.e., ``allocate either greater or
lesser amounts than those specified under the heading ``Congressionally
Directed Spending'' accompanying Public Law 111-8 and in the table
entitled ``Incorporation of Congressionally Requested Projects'' in the
joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying Public Law 111-88
within the construction, land acquisition, or capital improvement and
maintenance accounts when necessary to complete projects based on the
original project scope or to utilize excess funds available after
completion of a project on other projects within the same account, in
consultation with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.''
The proposed language is necessary to allow the agencies to re-allocate
funds to needed areas.
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Reauthorization (S. 714/
H.R. 3365).--The FLTFA program is now expired and we support the fiscal
year 2013 President's budget request to reauthorize this important
program that provides conservation funding for the West, at no cost to
the taxpayer. Through FLTFA's ``land for land'' program, BLM sells land
identified for disposal to ranchers, farmers, businesses and others to
consolidate land ownership, create jobs, support economic development
and increase revenues to counties by putting land on the tax rolls.
These sales generate funding for BLM, USFS, NPS and USFWS to acquire
critical inholdings from willing sellers in certain designated areas,
which often complements LWCF, NAWCA, and other public and private
funding. The sales provide revenue for Federal agencies to acquire
high-priority lands with important recreational access for hunting,
fishing, hiking, boating, other activities, as well as properties with
historic, scenic and cultural resources. More than 100 groups are
working together to support the Congress's efforts to reauthorize
FLTFA.
We are grateful for the subcommittee's leadership in the fiscal
year 2013 appropriations process to support the LWCF program. Thank you
for your consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of The Humane Society of the United States; Humane
Society Legislative Fund; and Doris Day Animal League
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on items of importance
to our organizations with a combined membership of more than 11 million
supporters nationwide. We urge the subcommittee to address these
priority issues in the fiscal year 2013 Department of the Interior
appropriation.
Rock Creek Park Deer
The HSUS requests that funds made available in this act give
preference to nonlethal deer management programs. The National Park
Service (NPS) recently decided to implement lethal methods for
controlling the deer population in Rock Creek Park despite the
availability of nonlethal methods that would have cost significantly
less taxpayer money and resulted in a more effective long-term solution
to human-wildlife conflicts in the park and its environs. In future
decisions regarding deer management we ask that priority be given to
humane, nonlethal methods.
Large Constrictor Snakes
The HSUS commends the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for listing
four of nine species of large constrictor snakes as ``injurious,''
which will prohibit importation and interstate movement of these
animals as pets. A recent, comprehensive report by the U.S. Geological
Survey showed these snakes all pose medium or high risk to our
environment; none are low risk. Large constrictor snakes have been
released or escaped into the environment and have colonized Everglades
National Park and other portions of south Florida and scientists warn
they may become established in other areas of the country. Releasing
these animals to fend for themselves can also lead to an inhumane death
from starvation, dehydration, being struck by cars, or exposure to
bitterly cold temperatures. The Service must have the resources to
respond quickly to prevent the spread of these species and
establishment of new ones.
Environmental Protection Agency
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
Research focused on molecular screening has the potential to
revolutionize toxicity testing improving both its efficiency as well as
the quality of information available for human safety assessment in the
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). These ``next generation
tools'' will speed up the assessments of chemicals in the EDSP and
reduce, and ultimately, replace animal use. We urge the Committee to
incorporate the following report language:
``The Committee recognizes that EPA is continuing to extend
existing long-term reproduction studies in birds, fish, and other
species to two- or multi-generation tests for the Endocrine Disruptor
Screening Program (EDSP). The Committee is also aware that EPA is
considering replacing the two-generation mammalian study with an
extended one-generation test on the basis of an international review of
rat reproduction studies that shows the lack of utility of a second
generation. The Committee directs EPA to maximize the efficiency of
each protocol and minimize unnecessary costs and animal use by
assessing the utility (including sensitivity, specificity and value of
information added relative to the assessment of endocrine disruption)
of each endpoint in the study, including specifically the need to
produce more than one generation of offspring in the bird, fish and
amphibian EDSP Tier 2 tests and issue a public report on its findings
for comment. The Committee also directs EPA to determine what
information the Agency requires to assess and manage potential risks to
human health and the environment in regards to endocrine disruption, to
minimize to eliminate unnecessary endocrine screening and testing, and
to use existing scientific data in lieu of requiring new data, when
possible. The Committee understands that EPA is currently working with
OECD to develop and modify EDSP methods. EPA should work within the
framework and timing of the OECD Test Guideline work plan to minimize
duplicative efforts.''
Science and Technology Account--21st Century Toxicology
In 2007, the National Research Council published its report titled
``Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy.'' This
report catalyzed collaborative efforts across the research community to
focus on developing new, advanced molecular screening methods for use
in assessing potential adverse health effects of environmental agents.
It is widely recognized that the rapid emergence of omics technologies
and other advanced technologies offers great promise to transform
toxicology from a discipline largely based on observational outcomes
from animal tests as the basis for safety determinations to a
discipline that uses knowledge of biological pathways and molecular
modes of action to predict hazards and potential risks. We urge the
subcommittee to incorporate the following language:
``The Committee supports EPA's leadership role in the creation of a
new paradigm for chemical risk assessment based on the incorporation of
advanced molecular biological and computational methods in lieu of
animal toxicity tests. The Committee encourages EPA to continue to
expand its extramural and intramural support for the use of human
biology-based experimental and computational approaches in health
research to further define toxicity and disease pathways and develop
tools for their integration into evaluation strategies. Extramural and
intramural funding should be made available for the evaluation of the
relevance and reliability of Tox21 methods and prediction tools to
assure readiness and utility for regulatory purposes, including pilot
studies of pathway-based risk assessments. The Committee requests EPA
provide a report on associated funding in fiscal year 2013 for such
activity and a progress report of Tox21 activities in the congressional
justification request, featuring a 5-year plan for projected budgets
for the development of Tox21 methods, including prediction models, and
activities specifically focused on establishing scientific confidence
in them for regulatory. The Committee also requests EPA prioritize an
additional (1-3 percent) of its Science and Technology budget from
within existing funds for such activity.''
Multinational Species Conservation Fund
The administration's fiscal year 2013 budget requests $9.980 for
the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) program which funds
African and Asian elephants, rhinos, tigers, great apes like chimps and
gorillas, and sea turtles. HSUS joins a broad coalition of
organizations in support of the administration's request while ensuring
that the sales from the semi-postal stamps benefiting this program
remain supplementary to annually appropriated levels. We also request
$13 million for the Wildlife Without Borders and International Wildlife
Trade programs within the USFWS Office of International Affairs.
While we wholeheartedly support continued funding for the MSCF, we
are concerned about past incidents and future opportunities for funds
from these conservation programs to be allocated to promote trophy
hunting, trade in animal parts, and other consumptive uses--including
live capture for trade, captive breeding, and entertainment for public
display industry--under the guise of conservation for these animals.
Grants made to projects under the MSCF must be consistent with the
spirit of the law.
Protection for Walruses
We urge this subcommittee to appropriate the necessary funds in
fiscal year 2013 to permit the listing of the Pacific walrus, which has
been placed on the candidate list for threatened or endangered status
under the Endangered Species Act. The USFWS recently found that listing
the Pacific walrus was warranted, due primarily to threats the species
faces from loss of sea ice in its arctic habitat as a result of climate
change. Walruses are targeted by native hunters for subsistence;
hundreds are killed annually, with this number climbing to as many as
7,000 in some years. In some hunting villages, females and their calves
are preferentially killed, against the recommendation of the USFWS and
standard management practice. By waiting to list the Pacific walrus,
the species' likelihood of survival is in doubt. We encourage this
subcommittee to direct the USFWS to prioritize the Pacific walrus
listing by immediately moving forward with the listing process.
Bureau of Land Management--Wild Horse and Burro Program
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is one of the
leading advocates for the protection and welfare of wild horses and
burros in the United States with a long history of working
collaboratively with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)--the agency
mandated to protect America's wild horses and burros--on the
development of effective and humane management techniques. Wild free-
roaming horses and burros deserve first to be given every chance to
live out their lives wild and free, as the American public has clearly
mandated and the Congress has stated. When intervention is required, we
owe them our best efforts to ensure that any human actions that affect
their lives--such as gathers, transportation, confinement, and
adoption--are done in a way to assure their humane treatment.
Therefore, HSUS strongly supports a significant reduction in the
number of wild horses and burros gathered and removed from our
rangelands annually. We believe removing horses from the range without
implementing any active program for preventative herd growth is
unsustainable, and simply leads to a continual cycle of roundups and
removals when more long-term, cost-efficient and humane management
strategies, such as fertility control, are readily available.
For years, the BLM has removed far more wild horses and burros from
the range than it could possibly expect to adopt annually, and as a
consequence, the costs associated with caring for these animals off the
range have continued to skyrocket. For instance, between 2001 and 2007,
the BLM removed approximately 74,000 (an average of about 10,600
animals per year) from the range, but could only place 3,000 horses a
year, with the rest forced into holding facilities. The annual costs
associated with caring for one wild horse in a long-term holding
facility is approximately $500, and the average lifespan of a wild
horse in captivity is 30 years. Today, there are more than 47,000 wild
horses and burros in these pens currently. In the most recently
completed fiscal year (2011), holding costs accounted for $35.7 million
(or 47 percent) out of a total wild horse and burro budget of $75.8
million.
We are encouraged by the BLM's announcement in the spring of 2011
(referenced in the agency's fiscal year 2012 budget justifications \1\)
regarding the agency's intent to open ``a new chapter in the management
of wild horses, burros, and our public lands'' by fast-tracking
``fundamental reforms'' to its current policies and procedures.
Specifically, the agency announced that it would strengthen its
commitment to the use of fertility control by significantly increasing
the number of mares treated with fertility control--from 500 in 2009,
to a target of 2,000 in each of the next 2 years. This represents a
huge step in the right direction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bureau of Land Management 2012 Budget Justifications (Page IV
66-67) http://www.doi.gov/budget/2012/data/greenbook/
FY2012_BLM_Greenbook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea of using fertility control to efficiently manage wild
horses and burros on the range is nothing new, and one that we have
been actively supporting and involved with for several decades. As
early as 1982, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) called on the BLM
to use immunocontraception to manage wild horse and burro populations,
finding it an effective technology and part of a pro-active management
strategy. And in its 1990 report on the BLM's wild horse management
program, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found then
that keeping excess animals in long-term holding was costly and
recommended that BLM examine alternatives, such as treating animals
with reproductive controls and releasing them back on the range.\2\
Further, a 2008 paper determined that contraception on-the-range could
reduce total wild horse and burro management costs by 14 percent,
saving $6.1 million per year.\3\ Finally, the results of an economic
model commissioned by The HSUS indicates that by treating wild horses
and burros with the fertility control vaccine Porcine Zona Pellucida
(PZP), the BLM could save approximately $204 million over 12 years
while achieving and maintaining Appropriate Management Levels (AML) on
wild horse Herd Management Areas (HMA) in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, Rangeland Management: Improvements Needed in Federal Wild
Horse Program, GAO/RCED-90-110 (Washington D.C.: Aug. 20, 1990).
\3\ Bartholow, J. 2007. Economic benefit of fertility control in
wild horse populations. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 71(8):2811-2819.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, even with a significant increase in the number of mares
treated and released back onto the range, by the end of fiscal year
2012, the BLM plans to remove an additional 15,000 wild horses from our
public lands. Since there are already more than 47,000 wild horses and
burros living in Government holding facilities today--and, on average,
the agency is only able to find homes for approximately 3,000 animals a
year--by 2013, there could be more than 50,000 animals in captivity.
That's almost twice the number of wild horses and burros living on our
public lands today, and as a result, the cost of caring for these
animals off the range could more than double in a just a few years.
The BLM must balance the number of animals removed from the range
annually with the number of animals it can expect to adopt in a given
year if it hopes to effectively reduce off-the-range management costs.
For these reasons, we strongly support the BLM's request for a $2
million budget increase to fund new research on contraception and
population growth suppression methods. Developing additional methods to
reduce wild horse population growth will allow the agency to maintain
healthy herds while reducing the need for costly removal regimes that
will further flood Government holding facilities with additional
animals.
Again, we commend the Secretary and the BLM for taking critical
steps toward a more sustainable wild horse management program and
believe the subcommittee's guidance and support for humane and
sustainable management will further the implementation of a program
that will be of great benefit not only to our Nation's beloved wild
horse populations, but also to the American taxpayer.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the Nature Conservancy's recommendations for
fiscal year 2013 appropriations. My name is Christy Plumer and I am the
Director of Federal Land Programs for the Conservancy. The Nature
Conservancy is an international, nonprofit conservation organization
working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and
waters for nature and people. Our mission is to conserve the lands and
waters upon which all life depends.
As we enter the fiscal year 2013 budget cycle and another year of
this challenging fiscal environment, the Conservancy continues to
recognize the need for fiscal austerity. The Conservancy also wishes to
thank this subcommittee for the final fiscal year 2012 Consolidated
Appropriations Act funding levels for Department of the Interior and
U.S. Forest Service conservation programs. As this subcommittee begins
to tackle another difficult budget cycle, the Conservancy stresses our
concerns that the wildlife and land conservation programs should not
shoulder a disproportionate share of cuts in this budget. Our budget
recommendations this year do not exceed the President's budget request
except for a few instances in which we recommend fiscal year 2012
funding levels. Moreover, as a science-based and business-oriented
organization, we believe strongly that the budget levels we support
represent a prudent investment in our country's future that will reduce
risks and ultimately save money based on the tangible economic,
recreation and societal benefits natural resources provide each year to
the American people. We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman,
and members of the subcommittee, as you address the ongoing needs for
conservation investments to sustain our Nation's heritage of natural
resources that are also important to the economic vitality of
communities across this country.
Land and Water Conservation Fund.--The Conservancy supports the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget request of $450 million for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) with the aim of continuing to
work toward full funding for the program. The President's America's
Great Outdoors Initiative is the prominent focus of this annual LWCF
budget, and includes several top-priority landscape conservation areas
for the Conservancy including the Rocky Mountain Front/Crown of the
Continent (Montana/Wyoming/Idaho) and Longleaf Pine Conservation Area
(Florida/Georgia/South Carolina). This year, the Conservancy is
specifically supporting 18 biologically rich land acquisition projects
totaling $94.122 million. Some of our priorities include the continuing
phased acquisition of the Montana Legacy Project, Florida's northern
refuges (St. Marks and St. Vincent's), Silvio O. Conte NFWR within a
four-State integrated landscape, and Francis Marion NF in South
Carolina. We are also pleased to support the administration's proposals
for investing in conservation easements on the working ranches of
Florida's Everglades Headwaters NWR & Conservation Area, Kansas's Flint
Hills Legacy Conservation Area, North Dakota and South Dakota's Dakota
Grasslands Conservation Area, and Montana's Rocky Mountain Front
Conservation Area. All of these projects exemplify landscape-scale
conservation through the cost effective means of conservation
easements.
Forest Legacy.--We support $60 million for this program, and
specifically three projects--Pascagoula River Conservation Lands,
Carter Mountain Working Forest Conservation Easement, and Discover
Woods--totaling $7.41 million. We hope this year to complete the
acquisition of these important lands that will provide recovery for
wildlife habitat and rare species, public recreational access for
hunting and fishing, and outdoor experiences for financially
disadvantaged children and those with special needs.
Endangered Species.--The Conservancy enthusiastically supports $60
million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
(CESCF). The Conservancy and its partners have used the Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) and Recovery Land Acquisition Programs to
conserve key habitat for numerous threatened, endangered and at-risk
species and, thus, to help avoid conflicts over ESA issues. It has been
an important catalyst for several local government-led HCPs that
facilitate urban development and streamline permitting of essential
transportation and energy infrastructure. In one part of Riverside
County, California, a single HCP has facilitated development of
transportation infrastructure that alleviates congestion and creates
jobs in this rapidly growing area. The plan facilitates development on
more than 700,000 acres through acquisition of 153,000 acres in new
conservation lands. We also support continued endangered species
funding for the Table Rocks Area, Oregon, to protect critical habitat
for the threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp, and funding for the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, recovery funds for the
San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, and fish hatchery
needs associated with the recovery plans in this region.
Climate Change.--Fish, wildlife, and their habitats are and will
continue to be profoundly impacted by climate change, regardless of our
successes in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If we are to get out
ahead of such change to avoid disastrous losses in critical habitat and
the species that depend on that habitat, we must develop the place-
based science to make informed, cost-effective management investments.
The Conservancy appreciates the President's commitment to respond to
the global climate challenge, and this Committee's sustained leadership
in supporting cooperative, science-based programs to respond to the
global climate challenge help ensure resilient land and seascapes. In
particular, we welcome this Committee's ongoing commitment to both the
USGS-led Climate Science Centers as well as DOI's Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives, and efforts to ensure integration and
coordination of these initiatives with existing efforts such as the
Joint Ventures and National Fish Habitat Partnerships.
National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Conservancy supports the
Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement Coalition's request of $495
million for Refuge System O&M. This is the President's request and
represents the funding necessary to maintain management capabilities
for the Refuge System in fiscal year 2013. It is an $8.3 million
increase and takes into account the freeze on Federal salaries.
United States Geological Survey--Water Resources.--We support
increased funding levels for the National Streamflow Information
Program and the Cooperative Water Program, including work on water
availability studies and work to implement a national water use and
assessment program. As climate change, drought and population growth
increase the demands on water resources, it is critical to invest in
the integration of State and Federal water resource data and to better
understand water needs of human communities and the environment.
Bureau of Land Management: Renewable Energy Development, Rapid
Ecoregional Assessments & Resource Management.--The Conservancy
supports the administration's recommended funding for DOI's ``New
Energy Frontier'' which includes $26.8 million for BLM to support
environmentally sound development of renewable energy sources on public
lands and offshore. The request supports evaluation of the impacts of
renewable energy development on wildlife and habitat and effective
coordination with affected States and tribes to assess energy resources
and evaluate project proposals. We also support funding for BLM
completion of Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REAs), a key information
tool for the agency to respond to the growing challenges of climate
change and energy development. We also recommend robust funding for BLM
resource management and transportation planning activities. These funds
are needed to complete ongoing planning efforts and to initiate new
planning efforts in key places, without which the agency cannot make
informed energy mitigation and siting decisions and take the management
actions necessary to improve priority wildlife and aquatic habitats,
ensure water quality, control invasive species and manage off-road
vehicle use. BLM should also be encouraged to use existing data sets
when available for REAs and RMPs so that funding can be focused on
critical data needs instead of creating duplicitous data sets.
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration.--We appreciate the
Committee's support for Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration and
demonstration of collaboratively developed forest restoration plans at
a large scale. We recommend fiscal year 2012 funding be sustained for
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration with $40 million to restore
large forest landscapes, provide jobs that sustain rural economies,
reduce the risk of damaging wildfire, address invasive species, improve
wildlife habitat and decommission unused, damaging roads. We are
monitoring many CFLR projects closely and are very encouraged by
progress to date. We also recommend reauthorization of stewardship
contracting, a vital tool for forest landscape restoration.
Wildland Fire Management.--We appreciate the subcommittee's ongoing
support for the Hazardous Fuels Reduction, that removes overgrown brush
and trees through a variety of methods, leaving the forest in a more
natural condition that is resilient to wildfires. It is essential to
keep at least level funding for this program. Funding reductions will
result in greater, more damaging wildfires and larger Federal and State
outlays for emergency wildfire suppression, with more damage to life,
property, and natural resources. We note that fuels reduction also
creates jobs: for every $1 million invested, approximately 16 full-time
equivalent jobs are created or maintained, along with more than
$500,000 in wages and more than $2 million in overall economic
activity.
We urge you to repeat your instructions in the fiscal year 2012
conference report regarding allocation of hazardous fuels funding.
Community protection is a vital goal of the hazardous fuels program and
strategic treatment of natural wildland areas that supply water, wood,
recreation, and wildlife habitat protects communities and the resources
citizens are also essential. We note that the President's budget for
fiscal year 2013 has a disturbing focus on protecting structures at the
expense of wildland natural areas. Significant progress to protect
communities and natural areas has been achieved since 2001 with a
roughly equal allocation of funding between the wildland urban
interface and wildlands. Shifting too much funding away from wildlands
will forestall treatments in strategic forest locations where
treatments may prevent mega-fires, and will allow fuels to regrow on
acres already treated that need maintenance with controlled burns.
We recommend $317 million for Hazardous Fuels Reduction in the USFS
budget, with $76 million for wildland and $241 million for wildland
urban interface, and $183 million for Hazardous Fuels Reduction in the
Department of the Interior budget, with at least 25 percent allocated
for treatment of wildlands necessary to achieve the conservation
missions of the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and
Bureau of Land Management.
Integrated Resource Restoration.--We appreciate the Committee's
work to create an Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) pilot in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, allowing Forest Service
regions (Northern, Intermountain, and Southwestern) to test the
integrated budget approach. The Nature Conservancy has actively
followed implementation of the pilot in the three regions and expects
an increase in restoration outcomes to result. The Conservancy thinks
it is premature to take this pilot national, so we support continuation
of the pilot for a second year. Important lessons will be learned from
the pilot and this information is necessary if full implementation of
IRR is to succeed.
Watershed Protection, Cooperative State Fire Assistance and
Landscape-Scale Restoration.--Forest health problems and fire
management are most effectively and efficiently addressed at large
scales. The Nature Conservancy recommends support for watershed
restoration and leveraging State funding to address wildfire risks and
begin cooperative Landscape Scale Restoration. Our recommendations
include funding at the fiscal year 2012 enacted levels for Legacy Road
and Trail Remediation, with $45 million for the National Forest System,
$86 million for State Fire Assistance and $18 million for the new
Landscape Scale Restoration program, to coordinate cost-effective
investment in fuels treatments.
Forest Health Management. America's forests are threatened by a
growing number of non-native pests and diseases. The Conservancy asks
the subcommittee to maintain funding at the fiscal year 2012 enacted
level, which totals $112 million. This funding is necessary to address
effectively the most economically and ecologically damaging pests,
including the Asian Longhorned Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock
Woolly Adelgid, Sudden Oak Death, thousand-canker disease of walnut,
and the goldspotted oak borer.
United States Forest Service Research Program.--We support the
President's request for the USFS research program to maintain funding
of research to improve detection and control methods for the Emerald
Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, goldspotted oak borer, thousand
cankers disease, and other non-native forest pests and diseases.
State Wildlife Grants.--The Conservancy endorses the Teaming with
Wildlife Coalition's support for robust funding for this important
program. Strong Federal investments are essential to ensure strategic
actions are undertaken by State and Federal agencies and the
conservation community to conserve wildlife populations and their
habitats. We also support the administration's request to maintain the
current program match requirement of 65:35 to help fiscally impacted
States.
Migratory Bird, Joint Ventures and Fish Habitat Partnership
Programs.--The subcommittee has consistently provided vitally important
investments for a number of migratory bird programs. Such investments
are essential to reverse declines in bird populations through direct
conservation action, monitoring and science. We urge the subcommittee
to fund the President's request for such established and successful
programs as NAWCA and the Joint Ventures, and the Migratory Bird
Management Program. We support the President's request for the FWS
Coastal Program and Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and request
strong funding this year for the National Fish Habitat Initiative,
particularly in light of the recent Memorandum of Understanding
announced between the Secretaries of the Interior, Commerce and
Agriculture in support of the Initiative.
International Programs.--There are large unmet needs for
international conservation. When well-managed, international
conservation contributes much to human welfare in the developing
countries and globally. Recognizing the current fiscal situation
requires a measure of austerity, we support the President's fiscal year
2013 request for the FWS's Multinational Species Conservation Funds,
the international wildlife trade programs, and Wildlife Without
Borders. These programs have already been cut and are currently less
than the fiscal year 2010 enacted levels; further cuts would be very
damaging. We also support a line item and funding for USFS's
International Programs at its fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $8
million.
United States Geological Survey--Water Resources.--We support
increased funding levels for the National Streamflow Information
Program and the Cooperative Water Program, including work on water
availability studies and work to implement a national water use and
assessment program. As climate change, drought and population growth
increase the demands on water resources, it is critical to invest in
the integration of State and Federal water resource data and to better
understand water needs of human communities and the environment.
Environmental Protection Agency.--TNC acknowledges that reductions
in EPA's budget are necessary to support national deficit reduction. We
believe that the overall President's budget request of $8.34 billion
for EPA, which represents a $105 million decrease from the fiscal year
2012 enacted amount, is appropriate. However, the Congress should
remain mindful of the relatively small size of EPA's discretionary
budget as it considers where additional budget cuts should occur
Governmentwide. The Congress should avoid disproportionate cuts to
EPA's ecosystem-oriented water programs because those programs have
such wide-reaching and beneficial impacts throughout the country.
Unlike established point source pollutant control programs, these
landscape-scale programs support a more forward-looking conservation
approach that can enhance ecosystem value (and therefore economic
value) over time. Examples of such value-adding activities include
coastal restoration, watershed protection, wetland mitigation, climate
adaptation, protection from invasive plants and animals, and non-point
source nutrient management.
Furthermore, TNC recommends that the Congress require EPA to give
greater emphasis to innovative approaches that promote ecosystem
protection and restoration over after-the-fact remediation. We continue
to support the allocation of sufficient funds for innovative strategic
planning programs like the Healthy Watersheds Initiative, which
embraces a whole-system planning approach to water resource management.
This program should be endorsed as a means to enable Federal and State
programs to protect and restore freshwater habitats at large scale
through more bang-for-the-buck actions. The same holds true for major
grant programs such as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the
section 319 Non-Point Source grant program. These vital accounts should
be sufficiently funded to enable cash-strapped States and localities to
take actions to protect priority aquatic ecosystems. At the same time,
the Congress should require EPA to promote the allocation of SRF and
319 funds for projects that support the development of green
infrastructure and sustainable conservation practices, because of the
long-term environmental and economic value they provide.
Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
recommendations for the fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the Theatre Communications Group
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Theatre
Communications Group--the national service organization for the
American theatre--is grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony
on behalf of our 499 not-for-profit member theatres across the country
and the 31 million audience members that the theatre community serves.
We urge you to support funding at $155 million for the National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2013.
Indeed, the entire not-for-profit arts industry stimulates the
economy, creates jobs and attracts tourism dollars. The not-for-profit
arts generate $166.2 billion annually in economic activity, support 5.7
million jobs and return $12.6 billion in Federal income taxes. Art
museums, exhibits, and festivals combine with performances of theatre,
dance, opera and music to draw tourists and their consumer dollars to
communities nationwide. Federal funding for the arts creates a
significant return, generating many more dollars in matching funds for
each Federal dollar awarded, and is clearly an investment in the
economic health of America. In an uncertain economy where corporate
donations and foundation grants to the arts are diminished, and
increased ticket prices would undermine efforts to broaden and
diversify audiences, these Federal funds simply cannot be replaced.
Maintaining the strength of the not-for-profit sector, along with the
commercial sector, will be vital to supporting the economic health of
our Nation.
Our country's not-for-profit theatres develop innovative
educational activities and outreach programs, providing millions of
young people, including ``at-risk'' youth, with important skills for
the future by expanding their creativity and developing problem-
solving, reasoning, and communication abilities--preparing today's
students to become tomorrow's citizens. Our theatres present new works
and serve as catalysts for economic growth in their local communities.
These theatres also nurture--and provide artistic homes for the
development of--the current generation of acclaimed writers, actors,
directors and designers working in regional theatre, on Broadway and in
the film and television industries. At the same time, theatres have
become increasingly responsive to their communities, serving as healing
forces in difficult times, and producing work that reflects and
celebrates the strength of our Nation's diversity.
Here are some recent examples of NEA grants and their impact:
From the National Endowment for the Arts' Access to Artistic Excellence
Program
Located in southern Vermont, Weston Playhouse was the recipient of
an NEA grant in the category of Artistic Excellence in Musical Theatre
for $45,000. This grant supported the world premiere production of
Saint-Ex, a new musical by composer Jenny Giering and author Sean
Barry, directed by Kent Nicholson. Inspired by the life of author and
aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupery (The Little Prince), Saint-Ex provides
an impassioned and deeply moving portrait of a man whose work is
cherished by millions across the globe, but whose astonishing life
remains little known. Saint-Ex began performances on August 28 at the
Weston Playhouse. Interrupted just 3 days into the run when Tropical
Storm Irene ripped through Weston, flooding countless homes and
businesses, the lower level of the Weston Playhouse sustained extensive
damage after being submerged in 8 feet of water. Response to these
devastating events was overwhelming, with company and community members
coming out to help with the cleanup. Recovering from this natural
disaster, a restaged version of Saint-Ex opened just 5 days after the
flood and served as a platform for community catharsis with every
subsequent performance receiving an emotional standing ovation. Saint-
Ex ran for 2 weeks with 12 total performances, 2,013 adults and
students in attendance and 27 artists in addition to 39 Weston
Playhouse staff members participating in the project.
From the National Endowment for the Arts' Art Works Program
CENTERSTAGE in Baltimore, Maryland, received $55,000 to support the
presentation of Gleam, an adaptation by Bonnie Lee Moss Rattner of Zora
Neale Hurston's novel Their Eyes Were Watching God directed by Marion
McClinton. This novel is considered one of the jewels of the Harlem
Renaissance by one of America's literary giants.
Milwaukee Repertory Theater received $20,000 to support a musical
production of Next to Normal, composed by Tom Kitt, with libretto and
lyrics by Brian Yorkey, and directed by artistic director Mark Clements
with accompanying community and student educational programming. The
award-winning contemporary musical portrays a family grappling with
depression and mental illness.
Perseverance Theatre, in Douglas, Alaska, received $20,000 to
support a production of A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry. A
seminal work in the development of African American theatre, as well as
a study of the issues of race relations, the play portrays an African
American family living in Chicago's South Side during the 1940s and
examines the American dream of children striving to rise above their
parents' accomplishments.
From the National Endowment for the Arts' Challenge America Program
Tennessee Women's Theater Project in Nashville, Tennessee received
$10,000 to support the creation and tour of a new play by Regina Taylor
examining the experience of breast cancer from the African American
perspective. Partners will include the Tennessee Breast Cancer
Coalition.
These are only a few examples of the kinds of extraordinary
programs supported by the National Endowment for the Arts. Indeed, the
Endowment's Theatre Program is able to fund only 50 percent of the
applications it receives, so 50 percent of the theatres are turned away
because there aren't sufficient funds. Theatre Communications Group
urges you to support a funding level of $155 million for fiscal year
2013 for the NEA, to maintain citizen access to the cultural,
educational and economic benefits of the arts, and to advance
creativity and innovation in communities across the United States.
The arts infrastructure of the United States is critical to the
Nation's well-being and its economic vitality. It is supported by a
remarkable combination of Government, business, foundation, and
individual donors. It is a striking example of Federal/State/private
partnership. Federal support for the arts provides a measure of
stability for arts programs nationwide and is critical at a time when
other sources of funding are diminished. Further, the American public
favors spending Federal tax dollars in support of the arts. The NEA was
funded at $146 million in the fiscal year 2012 budget; however, it has
never recovered from a 40-percent budget cut in fiscal year 1996 and
its programs are still under-funded. We urge the subcommittee to fund
the NEA at a level of $155 million to preserve the important cultural
programs reaching Americans across the country.
______
Prepared Statement of the Town of Ophir, Colorado
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2013
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and protect
lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at
State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial public benefits
including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural, historical and recreation heritage. As LWCF is funded from
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these
funds should go to their intended and authorized use as a conservation
offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
As part of the LWCF request in fiscal year 2013, USFS included an
allocation of $1 million for the Ophir Valley project in the
Uncompahgre National Forest. I am pleased that this funding was
included in the request and urge the Congress to provide necessary
funds for LWCF for this important project.
Located in the heart of southwestern Colorado's San Juan Mountains,
the Ophir Valley project area in the Uncompahgre National Forest is one
of the San Juans' hidden gems. A short detour of only a mile off of
Highway 145--part of the nationally acclaimed 236-mile San Juan Skyway
Scenic Byway--brings visitors into a compact valley ringed by 13,000-
foot peaks and serrated ridge lines.
Against a backdrop of unsurpassed alpine scenery, the Ophir Valley
offers an abundance of recreational opportunities for residents and
visitors. Hiking, camping, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, four-
wheeling, and fishing are all popular pastimes. In addition, the valley
supports habitat for the Canada lynx, a federally listed threatened
species, and provides important habitat for the endangered Uncompahgre
fritillary butterfly and other sensitive species. It also contains the
headwaters of Howard Fork, a key tributary to the San Miguel River,
which The Nature Conservancy has called ``one of the last naturally
functioning rivers in the West.'' The San Miguel sustains a globally
rare narrowleaf cottonwood-Colorado blue spruce/black twinberry plant
community.
While much of the Ophir Valley is in public ownership, the region's
mining heritage also created hundreds of privately owned patented
mining claims scattered across the landscape like matchsticks. These
private inholdings once were vital to sustaining 19th century efforts
to find and extract mineral wealth. Now, however, at a time when hard
rock mining in southwestern Colorado appears increasingly less viable
economically, many former mining districts, such as Ophir, are seeing
these private inholdings develop into sites for second homes. As a
result, more and more of the Ophir Valley's subalpine and alpine
environments are at risk of being developed, potentially creating
significant management issues for the United States Forest service
(USFS), fragmenting wildlife habitat, and spoiling the scenic splendor
and recreational opportunities so important to residents and visitors.
Currently, USFS has the opportunity to acquire all of the remaining
acres out of a total 1,145 acres of patented mining claims that had
been under one ownership in the Ophir Valley. Prior to this acquisition
effort, these claims represented approximately 90 percent of the
valley's privately owned inholdings. Federal appropriations provided in
previous years have allowed USFS to begin acquiring these mining
claims. Funding in fiscal year 2012 will allow the agency to begin the
purchase of the final 101 acres. This project resolves many land use
and access conflicts that stem from the development of private
inholdings within public lands, while promoting effective land
management practices by USFS. In particular, the ongoing acquisition
protects critical habitat, maintains high-quality recreational
opportunities on public lands, protects water quality, and helps
maintain the quality of life of the region's residents.
This protection effort is a natural extension of the successful Red
Mountain project, located just to the north and east of the Ophir
Valley along a different portion of the San Juan Skyway. It will also
complement other land protection and recreation enhancement efforts
along and adjacent to the San Juan Skyway, 1 of only 27 All-American
Roads in the National Scenic Byway program. In recent years, for
example, Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund has pledged $5.7 million
for land protection in the area. In fiscal year 2013, an allocation of
$2.5 million from LWCF is needed to help the Forest Service to complete
the protection of these critical inholdings. It is my hope that USFS
will be able to identify funds in addition to the budgeted amount in
order to finish the Ophir Valley project this year.
In closing, I urge you to provide funding for LWCF of $450 million,
as proposed in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget, including
critical funding for Ophir Valley. I want to thank the Chairman and the
members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf
of this nationally important protection effort in Colorado, and I
appreciate your consideration of this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
Greetings from Alaska! My name is Edward K. Thomas. I am the
elected President of the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida
Indian Tribes of Alaska (Tlingit Haida), a federally recognized Indian
tribe of 28,000 tribal citizens. I am honored to provide this testimony
on the very important matter of the fiscal year 2013 Federal
appropriations legislation. I commend the Congress, and especially this
subcommittee, for holding this hearing and giving me, and other tribal
leaders, an opportunity to provide you our perspective on the fiscal
year 2013 Federal budgets on Native American programs. One of the most
important legal principles in defining the relationship between the
Federal Government and the Indian and Alaska Native Tribes is that of
the fiduciary responsibility the United States has to tribal
governments. This hearing is very important in strengthening the
Federal Government's Trust relationship to tribal governments.
FUNDING NOT BASED ON NEEDS, WHICH ARE MUCH GREATER IN RURAL AREAS
I have been involved in managing Federal programs since 1976 and
find that the method of formulating Federal budgets for the benefit of
needy Native Americans is deficient and ineffective. Each year Federal
budgets are put together mostly based upon the previous year's funding;
totally disregarding the level of unmet needs in Indian Country. This
becomes a much bigger problem when it becomes necessary to reduce total
Federal funding.
Our Nation's poverty level is at the highest level since 1993. 22
million or 1 in every 6 Americans lives in poverty; 22 percent of all
American children live in poverty. The poverty levels are much higher
in rural tribal communities. In rural Alaska, higher energy costs have
compounded an already depressed economy in rural Alaska. The cost of
living in certain parts of rural Alaska is nearly twice that of the
average cost of living elsewhere in the United States. Electricity
costs are often 4 to 5 times higher. Over the past decade, funding for
Native American programs has not even kept pace with national inflation
rates let alone the dramatic inflationary costs in rural Alaska.
NON-BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AGENCIES HAVE RECEIVED FUNDING PRIORITY IN
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT
Between fiscal year 2004 and 2012, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) budget grew 8 percent. Over that same period of time, funding for
non-BIA programs grew at a much greater rate:
--Fish and Wildlife by 30 percent;
--Park Services by 27 percent;
--Geodetic Surveys by 18 percent; and
--Bureau of Land Management by 13 percent.
It makes sense that funding to needy tribal communities could be
increased if these non-BIA agencies were reduced to the 2004 funding
levels plus 8 percent.
The single biggest factor that financially undermines Tribal Self-
Determination and Self-Governance is the Federal practice of
underfunding or putting caps on indirect costs or Contract Support Cost
(CSC). For the period between 2006 through 2009, the CSC shortfalls and
underfunding have cost my tribe a total of $2,651,088; or an average of
$662,772 per year. While our people are grateful for the programs
designed to help our needy tribal citizens, we simply cannot afford to
continue to pay this amount of money to manage these important
contracts. My tribal government provided $84,689,247 (an average of
$21,172,300 per year) in contractual services to our needy tribal
citizens over that period of time. Simply put, the difference between
the way indirect costs are calculated and the way they are paid by the
United States creates an ever-tightening chokehold on my tribe's
ability to administer programs. If we follow the law and spend the
administrative costs we are required to spend, Federal law provides us
less and less money to meet these federally required expenditures. The
more we spend, the less we get. The less we spend, the less we get.
Both the Congress and the Federal agencies have caused this crisis.
Together we can solve it.
tlingit haida tribal trust funds pay for federal responsibility
Federal law specifically states that a tribe who contracts for the
management of a Federal contract is entitled to the same administrative
support as the Federal Government itself would have were it to retain
the management of that contract. Appropriations legislation that
underfunds contract support costs violates this provision of Federal
law and severely undermines the concept of tribal self-determination.
Tlingit Haida diligently tries to abide by Federal laws that set
our indirect cost rates and to live within other Federal appropriations
laws that provide us much less than the Federal Government's own audits
say we should collect from each agency to manage contracts for them. We
were forced to pull the $2,651,088 shortfall in contract support costs
over the past 4 years out of our modest Trust Fund earnings in order to
meet the costs we were stuck with by the United States. We cannot
continue to afford to pay for these Federal responsibility costs going
into the future. There are no gaming tribes in Alaska; the economy in
rural Alaska is weak to nonexistent; and unemployment rates in some of
our villages often exceed 50 percent.
Our Tribal Trust Fund is what remains of a judgment fund provided
to us in exchange for land taken by the United States from our tribe.
Our Tlingit Haida tribal government has a fiduciary responsibility to
preserve the principal of this Tribal Trust Fund for future generations
and the earnings of this fund that are so critical to maintaining
essential governmental functions for our tribe. It is not the purpose
of our Tribal Trust Fund to use the interest earned to make up for
shortfall created by the United States. The choice we face each and
every year is to either shutdown all of the vital services we provide
our membership, shut our offices, layoff employees, and pay for early
termination of contracts, or dip deeper and deeper into our Tribal
Trust Fund earnings to maintain operations. We have chosen to continue
but we need your help in order for us to continue in providing
essential services to our needy tribal citizens.
In addition to the diversion and diminishment of our Tribal Trust
Fund earnings, the shortfall in BIA contract support funding has been
felt throughout Tlingit Haida. As an immediate result of this shortfall
which the CSC caps place on so many programs our tribe is eligible to
apply for, we have had to abstain from applying for some very important
federally funded programs that could be of tremendous help to mitigate
the serious economic challenges facing our tribal communities. While
businesses, other governments and government agencies saw benefit from
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Tlingit Haida had to
abstain from fully participating in available programs because of the
15-percent cap of administrative costs placed on those programs. We did
accept one $1.5 million award for childcare assistance to supplement
our ``welfare to work'' initiatives but this cost Tlingit Haida
$330,000 of our own money, again, depleting our meager Tribal Trust
Fund, to manage that federally funded program.
INDIRECT COSTS ARE FIXED-COST REQUIREMENTS
If indirect costs were not primarily ``fixed'' costs, the recurring
problem of a shortfall in BIA contract support cost funding would,
perhaps, be survivable. But most of our actual indirect costs are
``fixed''. For example, typically the most cost-effective way to
acquire facility space or equipment is through a long-term lease with
locked-in costs. Similarly, package deals for telephone and some forms
of transportation offer significant cost savings over time. And
obviously, the salary and benefit costs of accounting, administrative,
and management staff must be treated as ``fixed'' or else we cannot
hire or keep employees. When Federal agencies do not send us 100
percent of the funds required by our federally set indirect cost rate,
we have a shortfall associated with our operation of BIA programs and
something has to give.
We refer to tribal indirect cost funding as a ``requirement''--not
a ``need''. They are requirements because they are derived from audits
conducted by the National Business Center (NBC) on behalf of the
Federal Government who sets rates that are used uniformly by all
Federal agencies with whom Tlingit Haida manages a contract or grant.
The rates use actual expenditures from prior years to project costs in
the future year. Once our federally established indirect cost rate is
set, Federal law requires that our tribe apply that Federal rate
uniformly to all the programs we administer. In other words, Federal
law requires us to spend money on administrative costs, but will not
let us charge all of that spending to the Federal grants and contracts.
Another problem is that the Single Audit Act requires a tribal
contractor's cognizant agency (e.g., Department of the Interior) to
audit the indirect costs of the tribal contractor and establish an
indirect cost rate that must be applied to all programs the tribal
contractor administers. If that rate is 25 percent, and a program like
Head Start caps administrative cost recovery from its funding at 15
percent, the law requires the tribal contractor to pay the difference
from non-Federal funds or through a rate increase the following year
that will obtain a higher recovery from BIA's contract support cost
fund in future years.
Let me be clear. We would spiral into complete financial disaster
as a tribe if we chose to not spend at the budgeted amounts. Failing to
pay certain fixed costs would actually increase our costs (breaking
leases, terminating employees, breaching contracts). Deferring certain
costs to the following year aggravates the hardship of the shortfalls
that cripple that year. The Public Law 93-638 language which supposedly
protects tribal contractors against theoretical under-recovery does
work with respect to BIA funds, but historical underfunding of CSC has
caused our tribe very serious difficulties in dealing with shortfalls
in non-BIA programs for which we must, by law, use the same indirect
cost rate. If in year one we don't spend uniformly on all programs, BIA
and non-BIA alike, this will increase the approved rate for the
following year because the amounts not collected from the agencies are
available to add on to the CSC for the subsequent year. Higher indirect
cost rates are no answer, given the uncertainty of future funding
levels. Tlingit Haida, in our efforts to keep our CSC indirect cost
rates lower has chosen not to carry all of those costs forward and so
has had to pay the shortfalls out of non-Federal sources. But Tlingit
Haida, and many other tribes, have very few non-Federal sources of
funding. For these reasons, I ask your consideration of including the
following bill language in the fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies appropriations law. It would provide flexibility
to Tlingit Haida and other tribes caught by a crushing, unfunded
Federal mandate.
PROPOSED NEW FISCAL YEAR 2013 BILL LANGUAGE
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any
otherwise applicable administrative cost limitations, any Federal funds
made available under this or any other appropriations act for fiscal
year 2013 to an Indian tribe may, at the option of the Indian tribe, be
applied to pay for up to 100 percent of the approved indirect costs
associated with the administration by the Indian tribe of those funds,
provided that such costs are calculated in conformity with the
federally-determined indirect cost rate agreement of that Indian tribe
and the relevant OMB circulars.''
INTENT AND EFFECT OF BILL LANGUAGE
The proposed amendment is intended to apply a tribal contractor's
uniform indirect cost rate established under the Single Audit Act to
recover costs required by that uniform indirect cost rate from each
federally funded award or agreement without regard to any otherwise
applicable administrative cost cap limitations otherwise governing
those awards or agreements.
The proposed amendment would expand existing authority to permit a
tribal contractor an additional tribal option--it would provide tribal
authority to use any federally funded award to meet up to all of a
tribe's approved indirect costs that are calculated in conformity with
its federally established indirect cost rate agreement and the relevant
OMB circulars without regard to any otherwise applicable administrative
cost cap limitations. This would not require any increase in overall
Federal funding. The funding level of each award would not be affected.
It would simply extend flexibility to a tribal contractor to apply its
federally awarded funds to meet federally required administrative
costs. This would be a huge benefit to tribal contractors, like Tlingit
Haida, who are providing services in high-cost areas with few or no
financial resources other than Federal awards and grants.
CONCLUSION
I very much understand the serious financial challenges facing the
Federal Government. It is vitally important that there be a balanced
approach in addressing Federal budget deficits. Balancing our Nation's
budget on the backs of the programs serving the needy will not work. I
thank you for the opportunity to share my views with you. I wish you
well in your deliberations and I trust you will make the right
decisions on the issues of grave concern to our people.
Gunalcheesh! Howa! Thank you!
______
Prepared Statement of The Trust for Public Land
On behalf of The Trust for Public Land, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony in support of programs under your
jurisdiction for the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process. The Trust
for Public Land (TPL) is a national nonprofit land conservation
organization working to protect land for people in communities across
the Nation. We are extremely grateful for the support members of this
subcommittee and other conservation leaders in the Congress have shown
for Federal conservation programs during these challenging fiscal
times. We recognize that the subcommittee will again face enormous
challenges in meeting the broad range of priority needs in the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill this year. But we
believe the American people support continued investments in
conservation, even during a time of economic challenge. Most recently,
on ``Super Tuesday'' in March, voters in communities in Florida,
Georgia and Ohio approved conservation funding measures, putting 2012's
passage rate at 100 percent--4 for 4 so far.
These ballot initiatives reflect the very essence of conservation
in the 21st century:
--collaborative;
--leveraged;
--partnership-based; and
--locally supported.
Federal funding is an absolutely critical part of the conservation
toolbox and provides manifold benefits to the American people. Given
the limited public conservation funding at all levels of government,
TPL works to leverage Federal conservation dollars, bringing to bear
private philanthropic support as well as State and local funding to
forge workable solutions to complex conservation funding challenges.
We are especially grateful for your recognition during the fiscal
year 2012 process that funding for programs like the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a worthwhile investment. TPL respectfully
requests that you continue this commitment by supporting the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2013 for LWCF of $450
million. This amount includes $270 million for Federal land purchases,
$60 million for grants to States for parks and outdoor recreation,
including a new competitive grant component for city parks, $60 million
for the Forest Legacy Program and $60 million for the Cooperative
Endangered Species program. Continued investment in this suite of LWCF
programs is essential and TPL is ready to work with the subcommittee to
ensure that dollars invested are well spent on our most urgent needs.
We urge you to also support the President's budget requests for the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the Community Forest
Program.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
For almost 50 years LWCF has been the cornerstone that sustains our
Federal public lands heritage and remains today a compelling and
urgently needed program. When the Congress created LWCF in 1964, it
sought to ensure that land conservation would receive funds every year
by dedicating certain revenues. For most of its history, the major
source of LWCF funds has been revenues from offshore oil and gas
development in Federal waters. LWCF activities neither require nor are
designed to receive taxpayer dollars. This arrangement is built on the
principle that the revenues generated from energy development and
natural resource depletion should be used for the protection of other
natural resources such as parks, open space, and wildlife habitat for
the benefit of current and future generations of Americans. TPL
believes that this principle remains a sound one and that the American
public supports using this very small percentage of OCS receipts--which
annually average more than $6 billion--as a conservation offset.
Federal Land Acquisitions.--Every year tens of millions of
Americans, as well as international visitors to our country, visit our
public lands. Federal funding of land acquisition ensures that the
public can access lands for these recreational and educational
purposes. If accessible properties are instead sold for development or
subdivision, there is no guarantee that the public will be able to
enjoy the nearby public lands. Purchase can also enhance the quality of
recreational experiences, encouraging greater public participation and
use, and in some cases resolve public land management issues and
achieve cost savings. There is a clear economic impact from these
activities. A 2006 Federal interagency study determined that 87.5
million people annually spend $122.3 billion on fishing, hunting and
wildlife watching alone. These activities and others have significant
ripple effects. The Outdoor Industry Foundation estimates that active
outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion annually to the U.S.
economy, supports nearly 6.5 million jobs across the United States,
generates $49 billion in annual national tax revenue, and produces $289
billion annually in retail sales and services across the country.
Among the recreation destinations whose economic and natural
resource values might be significantly compromised without sufficient
LWCF funding in fiscal year 2013 are Virgin Islands National Park where
TPL is working to finally connect the two sections of the national park
along the shores of Maho Bay, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in
Idaho, where a conservation easement will protect the lands along the
river are scenic vista at the gateway to the NRA, the California
Coastal National Monument, where a property will connect visitors to 2
miles of the Pacific coast, and along the Pacific Crest Trail in
Washington State.
Incompatible development within established Federal units is a
continuing concern for the public and for public land managers, and we
have found that private landowners of inholdings and edgeholdings are
open to and quite often seek a conservation solution. Faced with
uncertainty about the availability of Federal land acquisition dollars,
however, many landowners find that they cannot afford to wait on a win-
win outcome. Adequate and timely acquisition of inholdings through the
LWCF is critical to efforts to protect the Nation's public lands
heritage when these time-sensitive acquisition opportunities arise.
Often the window for a conservation outcome is narrow, and the
availability of LWCF funds ensures that landowners can sell their
properties in a timely manner. For instance, important conservation
properties are available for a limited time at Kennesaw Mountain
National Battlefield Park in Georgia, at the new Middle Rio Grande
National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico and at Red Cliffs National
Conservation Area in Utah. Funding for Kennesaw Mountain--a national
battlefield that is under severe development threat--is particularly
important given the ongoing commemoration of the Sesquicentennial of
the Civil War. In addition, a number of partially completed projects at
Virgin Islands NP, Sawtooth NRA, and the Carson, Uncompahgre and
Superior National Forests await further funding to be completed and are
included in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget request. Recent
funding levels for LWCF have been insufficient to allow agencies to
complete these projects in a timely fashion and we urge your support
for funding levels in fiscal year 2013 that address these needs.
We also urge the subcommittee to consider fully the urgent need for
funding for Civil War Sesquicentennial units, national trails and
recreational/hunting/fishing access projects as proposed in the fiscal
year 2013 President's budget for the National Park Service, Bureau of
Land Management, and U.S. Forest Service, respectively. TPL has pending
projects eligible under each of these categories and stand ready to
provide information to the subcommittee to support these categorical
line item requests.
As the subcommittee evaluates the myriad programmatic needs and
measures for making programs more efficient for the fiscal year 2013
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill, we look forward to
working with you and your staff to ensure that funds are spent wisely
on strategic and urgent conservation priorities.
National Park Service Land and Water Conservation Fund Grants.--
Since 1965, the stateside program has provided 41,000 grants to States
and local communities for park protection and development of recreation
facilities. This program reaches deep into communities across our
Nation, supporting citizen-led efforts to conserve places of local
importance. Stateside funds were an essential part of land protection
in Maine's famed 100-Mile Wilderness, the northernmost and wildest
stretch of the Appalachian Trail. Most recently, TPL worked with the
State of Tennessee to add 1,388 acres to the popular Cumberland Trail,
extending it by 19 miles, using State LWCF grant funding. To meet needs
such as these as they continue to arise in all 50 States and in U.S.
territories, we urge you to fund this program at $60 million.
Competitive Grants.--Within the $60 million requested for State
LWCF grants in the President's budget for fiscal year 2013, the
administration has proposed a new competitive grant program to invest
in community parks and greenways, landscapes, and recreational
riverways. This effort will particularly help cities and urbanized
counties increase the availability of parks and green spaces for
residents of our more populated areas, many of whom lack access to
safe, close-to-home recreational sites. This proposed targeting of LWCF
funds to areas most in need of new parks will help address the health
threats many Americans--especially children--are now facing due to lack
of access to parks. TPL is the Nation's only national land conservation
organization working to create parks in cities across the Nation, and
we strongly support this competitive grant program as laid out in the
Department of the Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal. With our
extensive experience creating parks for people nationwide, we see this
type of program as meeting a critical need in the places where most
people live and recreate. There is currently no Federal program that
addresses park needs for cities, metropolitan areas and urbanized
counties. The NPS LWCF grants program--funded competitively rather than
by formula--could assist TPL's work in places like San Francisco and
Los Angeles in California; Portland, Maine; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and
New Orleans, Louisiana.
U.S. FOREST SERVICE FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM
The Forest Legacy Program provides extraordinary assistance to
States and localities seeking to preserve important working forests.
Since its inception in 1990, the Forest Legacy Program has protected
more than 2 million acres of forestland together with more than $630
million in non-Federal matching funds. For fiscal year 2013, the
President's budget recommends projects that provide multiple public
benefits that derive from forests--clean water, wildlife protection,
climate change adaptation and mitigation, public access to recreation,
economic development and sustainable forestry. The Forest Legacy
Program has been very effective over its short history, leveraging a
dollar for dollar match to Federal funds, well more than is required
under the program. TPL urges your continued support for sustained
investment in this strategic conservation program. Included in the
fiscal year 2013 budget are three projects where TPL is working in
partnership with the States of Idaho, Vermont and Wisconsin to protect
recreation access for snowmobilers and hikers, ensure jobs in the
woods, buffer important Federal and State conservation areas, and
provide strategic land conservation that fits a larger goal.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE--LAND CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAMS
We are grateful for the subcommittee's historic support for Fish
and Wildlife Service grant programs, including the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund--which leverages State and private
funds and has protected threatened and endangered species habitat
across the Nation. Through the most recent grant cycle, for example,
TPL, in partnership with the State of Washington, secured a $3.5
million grant that helped protect 2,700 acres of pristine habitat along
the Methow River in Okanogan County. This habitat is considered
critical spawning habitat for the endangered Pacific salmon, but
benefits many other protected species as well, like Canada lynx, gray
wolves, and bull trout. The Methow Watershed project leveraged $4.27
million in non-Federal funding, which is more than double the non-
Federal match required under the program. We also urge your support for
program funding at the President's budget level of $60 million in
fiscal year 2013. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA)
provides much-needed matching grants to carry out wetlands
conservation, restoration and enhancement projects. We urge the
subcommittee to provide the President's budget request of $39.4
million.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE COMMUNITY FOREST PROGRAM
Last but not least, we urge your continued support for the
Community Forest Program (CFP), which received appropriations in fiscal
years 2010, 2011, and 2012 and now has its first-ever grant
solicitation underway. This program will provide a complement to
existing conservation programs by helping local communities and tribes
identify, purchase, and manage important forestlands that are
threatened with development. These locally led efforts can be tailored
to the needs of each community, from timber revenue for local budgets
to recreation access and outdoor education. Every Federal dollar from
CFP will be evenly matched by funding from State, local, and private
sources. We believe the response to the first grant round will be
substantial and that this program will generate significant interest
from local entities concerned about the future of their close-to-home
forests. TPL is working right now to create new community forests in
California, Montana and Vermont, and we hope that the Community Forest
Program funds will contribute to these efforts. Given the strong
interest in community forests from coast to coast, we urge you to
include the President's budget level for CFP of $4 million in the
fiscal year 2013 bill.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit public testimony. The
programs highlighted in my testimony are critical to the future of
conservation at the local, State and Federal levels, reflect the
continued demand on the part of the American people for access to
outdoor recreation, help sustain our economy and reflect the true
partnership that exists in Federal conservation efforts. As ever, we
are deeply thankful for the subcommittee's recognition of the
importance of these programs and urge you to maintain robust funding
for them in the fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies bill. Thank you for help and support, and for your
consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society
The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide
testimony on the fiscal year 2013 budget for the Department of the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The Wildlife Society was
founded in 1937 and is a nonprofit scientific and educational
association representing more than 11,000 professional wildlife
biologists and managers, dedicated to excellence in wildlife
stewardship through science and education. Our mission is to represent
and serve the professional community of scientists, managers,
educators, technicians, planners, and others who work actively to
study, manage, and conserve wildlife and its habitats worldwide.
Fish and Wildlife Service
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program is the only Federal
program that supports States in preventing wildlife from becoming
endangered. It is also the primary program supporting implementation of
comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies, known as State Wildlife
Action Plans, which detail conservation actions needed on the ground in
every State to keep common species common. Funding assistance for these
State wildlife agencies is one of the highest-priority needs for
wildlife in order to prevent further declines in at-risk wildlife
populations in every State. These grants also provide key funding to
federally recognized tribal governments for wildlife management and
conservation. We recommend the Congress appropriate $70 million for
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants in fiscal year 2013. We also ask that
the Congress support continuation of a reduction in the non-Federal
match requirement from 50 to 35 percent, relieving some of the onus of
providing adequate matching funding from severely cashed-strapped
States.
The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) is a diverse
coalition of 22 wildlife, sporting, conservation, and scientific
organizations representing more than 14 million members and supporters.
A comprehensive analysis by CARE determined the National Wildlife
Refuge System (NWRS) needs $900 million in annual operations funding to
properly administer its nearly 150 million acres, educational programs,
habitat restoration projects, and much more. Many years of stagnant
budgets have increased the Operations and Maintenance backlog; refuge
visitors often show up to find visitor centers closed, hiking trails in
disrepair, and habitat restoration programs eliminated. Invasive plant
species are taking over on refuges, requiring $25 million per year to
treat just one-third of its acreage, and illegal activities such as
poaching are on the rise, requiring an additional 209 officers ($31.4
million) to meet law enforcement needs. We recommend that the Congress
provide $495 million in fiscal year 2013 for the operations and
maintenance of the NWRS. Additionally, The Wildlife Society supports
the increase of $3 million for NWRS's Inventory and Monitoring program,
which is needed to provide the Service with the necessary information
to guide effective use of funds.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a cooperative,
nonregulatory, incentive-based program that has shown unprecedented
success in restoring wetlands, waterfowl, and other migratory bird
populations. This program has remained drastically underfunded despite
its demonstrated effectiveness. We recommend a small increase more than
the fiscal year 2012 funding level of $35.5 million, to bring the
funding to $40 million in fiscal year 2013.
The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program
supports partnership programs to conserve birds in the United States,
Latin America and the Caribbean, where approximately 5 billion birds
representing 341 species spend their winters, including some of the
most endangered birds in North America. The Wildlife Society recommends
the Congress fund the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act at
$6.5 million in fiscal year 2013.
The Wildlife Society supports adequate funding levels for all
subactivities within the Endangered Species Program. Endangered species
recovery efforts can ultimately lead to delisting, resulting in
significant benefits to species through State management efforts.
Currently, all subactivities within the program are understaffed while
the costs for management of listed species continue to rapidly
escalate. We recommend the Congress match the President's request for
the Endangered Species Program and provide $179.7 million in funding in
fiscal year 2013.
The voluntary Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program provides
financial and technical assistance to landowners to restore degraded
habitat on their property. With more than two-thirds of our Nation's
lands held as private property, and up to 90 percent of some habitats
lost, private lands play a key role in preserving our ecosystem. We
urge the Congress to provide $60 million in support of the Partners for
Fish and Wildlife Program in order to allow landowners to help
contribute to land and wildlife preservation.
Through its International Affairs office, FWS works with many
partners and countries in the implementation of international treaties,
conventions, and projects for the conservation of wildlife species and
their habitats. International trade, import, and transportation of
wildlife species can have a huge impact on America's security, economy,
and environment. Careful regulation of imports and implementation of
international policies is an important task. We ask the Congress to
support FWS in protecting our economy, our environment, and our
national security by providing a necessary $13.054 million in support
of FWS International Affairs.
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands support more than 3,000
species of wildlife, more than 300 federally proposed or listed
species, and more than 1,300 sensitive plant species. Historically, the
Wildlife and Fisheries Management (WFM) and the Threatened and
Endangered Species Management (TESM) programs have been forced to pay
for the compliance activities of BLM's energy, grazing, and other
nonwildlife related programs, eroding both their ability to conduct
proactive conservation activities and their efforts to recover listed
species. Given the significant underfunding of the BLM's wildlife
programs, combined with the tremendous expansion of energy development
across the BLM landscape, we recommend the Congress appropriate $55
million for BLM Wildlife Management. This will allow BLM to maintain
and restore wildlife and habitat by monitoring habitat conditions,
conducting inventories of wildlife resources, and developing
cooperative management plans. We support the proposed increase of $15
million for sage grouse conservation efforts; this kind of broad-scale,
landscape-based conservation is exactly what is needed to manage and
conserve sage grouse across their range.
Increased funding is also needed for the Threatened and Endangered
Species Management Program, to allow BLM to meet its responsibilities
in endangered species recovery plans. BLM's March 2001 report to the
Congress called for a doubling of the Threatened and Endangered Species
budget to $48 million and an additional 70 staff positions over 5
years. This goal has yet to be met. In light of this, we strongly
encourage the Congress to increase overall funding for BLM's endangered
species program to $33 million in fiscal year 2013.
The Wildlife Society appreciates the commitment of BLM to
addressing the problems associated with Wild Horse and Burro
Management. The President has requested an increase of $2 million for
research and development on contraception and population control. The
Wildlife Society is concerned about BLM's emphasis on fertility
control. Given that horses and burros have been maintained above the
Appropriate Management Level for many years, we believe that additional
funding should be requested to correct the habitat damage that has
occurred due to overpopulation of these animals. The requested $77.068
million should be provided to BLM if they continue removing excess
horses from the range at a reasonable rate and focus additional
resources on habitat restoration.
U.S. Geological Survey
The basic, objective, and interdisciplinary scientific research
that is supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is necessary for
understanding the complex environmental issues facing our Nation today.
This science will play an essential role in the decisionmaking
processes of natural resource managers as we adapt to climate change,
and it will help protect our water supply and conserve endangered
species. More investment is needed to strengthen USGS partnerships,
improve monitoring, produce high-quality geospatial data, and deliver
the best science to address critical environmental and societal
challenges. The Wildlife Society supports funding of at least $1.2
billion for USGS in fiscal year 2013.
The Ecosystems Program of USGS contains programmatic resources for
fisheries, wildlife, environments, invasive species and the Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The Ecosystems unit is a new
department within USGS resulting from the recent reorganization that
strives to maximize research and support for comprehensive biological
and ecosystem based needs. The Wildlife Society supports the
President's request of $177.85 million for USGS's Ecosystems Department
in fiscal year 2013. Within Ecosystems, we support the request of $49.4
million for the Wildlife Program. Additionally, we appreciate the
requested addition of $1 million to support research and surveillance
of White Nose Syndrome and of $2.2 million for research on hydraulic
fracturing and its effects on land use, terrestrial wildlife, and
habitats.
The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CFWRUs) are
managed under the Ecosystems Department and conduct research on
renewable natural resource questions, participate in the education of
graduate students, provide technical assistance and consultation on
natural resource issues, and provide continuing education for natural
resource professionals. In fiscal year 2001, the Congress fully funded
the CFWRUs, allowing unit productivity to rise to record levels. Since
then, budgetary shortfalls have caused an erosion of available funds,
resulting in a current staffing vacancy of nearly one-quarter of the
professional workforce. In order to fill current vacancies, restore
seriously eroded operational funds for each CFWRU, and enhance national
program coordination, the fiscal year 2013 budget for the CFWRUs should
be increased to $22 million. This would restore necessary capacity in
the CFWRU program and allow it to meet the nation's research and
training needs.
The Wildlife Society appreciates the fiscal year 2011 funding of
$25.5 million for the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science
Center. This center plays a pivotal role in addressing the impacts of
climate change on fish and wildlife by providing essential scientific
support. In order for this role to be fully realized, The Wildlife
Society recommends that the Congress fund the National Climate Change
and Wildlife Science Center at the requested $26.2 million in fiscal
year 2013.
United States Forest Service
Our national forests and grasslands are essential to the
conservation of our Nation's wildlife and habitat, and are home to
about 425 threatened and endangered, and another 3,250 at-risk species.
In fiscal year 2011, the USFS combined several programs and budgets,
including Vegetation and Watershed Management, Wildlife and Fisheries
Habitat Management, and Forest Products into a single Integrated
Resource Restoration activity budget. We are concerned with this merger
because it makes accountability to stakeholders and the Congress more
difficult. However, with these reservations noted, we urge the Congress
to support the request of $793 million for the Integrated Resource
Restoration program in fiscal year 2013.
Integral to management of our natural resources is a deep
understanding of the biological and geological forces that shape the
land and its wildlife and plant communities. The research being done by
the USFS is at the forefront of science, and essential to improving the
health of our Nation's forests and grasslands. Furthermore, it will
play a key role in developing strategies for mitigating the effects of
climate change. We urge the Congress to provide $300 million in fiscal
year 2013 for Forest and Rangelands to support this high-quality
research.
Thank you for considering the recommendations of wildlife
professionals.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR), a consortium of 77 research universities that manages the
National Center for Atmospheric Research, I submit this written
testimony regarding the fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the
Department of the Interior's (DOI) climate science programs, for the
record of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The U.S. Geological
Survey's (USGS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) climate
science, adaptation, and education programs contribute a distinct and
important component to the country's efforts to better understand,
predict, and respond to the impacts of climate variability on human and
natural systems. These programs are perhaps the most important in the
entire Federal Government for helping scientists understand the
relationship between climate variability and our Nation's abundant
natural resources and treasures. I urge the subcommittee to fully fund
the fiscal year 2013 budget request of $1.102 billion for USGS,
including $67.7 million for Climate Variability, which funds the
Nation's eight regional Climate Science Centers. I similarly urge the
subcommittee to fully fund the $1.5 billion budget request for FWS,
including $33.1 million for Cooperative Landscape Conservation and
Adaptive Science, which funds the Nation's network of Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives.
The Federal leaders in natural resources science, USGS and FWS are
making major contributions to science and data integration on the
impacts that climate variability is having and may have in the future
on natural resources, including wildlife, ecosystems, and landscapes.
These agencies are building the knowledge, capacity, and networks to
work with and guide hunters, farmers, natural resource managers, Indian
tribes, and resource-dependent businesses toward more sustainable,
productive, and resilient management practices. In particular, the
establishment of eight regional Climate Science Centers over the last
few years to directly support a national network of Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives will provide the scientific basis for future
adaptive land and water management decisions. By building on the body
of basic research conducted by the atmospheric research community and
linking it to managed environments and social systems, the DOI's
climate science and adaptation programs have been set up to maximize
and leverage the value of the entire national scientific enterprise.
The USGS's efforts in this field were stepped up with the
establishment of a National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center
in 2008 and came to fruition with the recent completion of a national
network of 8 Climate Science Centers and 22 Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives. Through these regionally integrated research and
stakeholder hubs, the DOI is now engaged in first-tier research
focusing on impacts such as wildlife migration patterns, wildfire risk,
precipitation levels and drought, coastal erosion, and invasive
species, spearheading how environmental and climate science can be more
effective and practical, and thus useful, on the ground. These programs
will bring critical regional information to local and regional resource
managers and decision makers in order to help them manage cities and
towns, tribes, farms, waterways, and public lands.
The eight Climate Science Centers, managed by the USGS, are carried
by university consortia within the region to better serve the specific
needs of their area as well as the country. They will advance
interdisciplinary science in an end-to-end environment by coordinating
research among themselves and optimizing investments across the
regional network, and they will collaborate with national laboratories
to conduct research and develop computer models that can better predict
large regional impacts of climate variability on natural resources. The
nationwide network serves the Alaska, Pacific Islands, Northwest,
Southwest, North Central, South Central, Northeast, and Southeast
regions. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, managed by the FWS,
engage with other Federal agencies, States, tribes, and local partners,
to develop timely products and craft strategies that are based on the
science and can be easily translated into adaptive, practical
management solutions.
In order to ensure the strength and sustainability of these
programs, I hope you will support the fiscal year 2013 budget request
of $1.102 billion for USGS, including $67.7 million for Climate
Variability, and $1.5 billion for FWS, including $33.1 million for
Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science. Thank you in
advance for your support of the DOI's efforts to contribute to and
disseminate knowledge that will enable stakeholders to protect and more
efficiently manage their land and our Nation's natural resources and
treasures.
______
Prepared Statement of the USGS Coalition
SUMMARY
The USGS Coalition appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony
about the President's budget request for the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) for fiscal year 2013. The USGS Coalition urges the
Congress to appropriate at least $1.2 billion for the USGS in fiscal
year 2013.
The USGS is uniquely positioned to address many of the Nation's
greatest challenges. The USGS plays a crucial role in assessing water
quality and quantity; reducing risks from earthquakes, tsunamis,
floods, landslides, wildfires, and other natural hazards; providing
emergency responders with geospatial data to improve homeland security;
assessing mineral and energy resources (including rare earth elements
and unconventional natural gas resources); and providing the science
needed to manage our natural resources and combat invasive species that
can threaten natural and managed environmental systems and public
health.
The USGS Coalition is an alliance of more than 70 organizations
united by a commitment to the continued vitality of the United States
Geological Survey to provide critical data and services. The Coalition
supports increased Federal investment in USGS programs that underpin
responsible natural resource stewardship, improve resilience to natural
and human-induced hazards, and contribute to the long-term health,
security, and prosperity of the Nation.
ESSENTIAL SERVICES FOR THE NATION
Established by the Congress as a branch of the Department of the
Interior in 1879, the U.S. Geological Survey has a truly national
mission that extends beyond the boundaries of the Nation's public lands
to positively impact the lives of all Americans. USGS plays a crucial
role in protecting the public from natural hazards, assessing water
quality and quantity, providing geospatial data, and conducting the
science necessary to manage our Nation's living, mineral, and energy
resources. Through its offices across the country, USGS works with
partners to provide high-quality research and data to policymakers,
emergency responders, natural resource managers, civil and
environmental engineers, educators, and the public. A few examples of
USGS's valuable work are provided below.
The Survey collects scientific information on water availability
and quality to inform the public and decision makers about the status
of freshwater resources and how they are changing over time. During the
past 130 years, USGS has collected streamflow data at more than 21,000
sites, water-level data at more than 1 million wells, and chemical data
at more than 338,000 surface-water and groundwater sites. This
information is needed to effectively manage freshwaters--both above and
below the land surface--for domestic, public, agricultural, commercial,
industrial, recreational, and ecological purposes.
The USGS plays a pivotal role in reducing risks from floods,
wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and
other natural hazards that jeopardize human lives and cost billions of
dollars in damages every year. Seismic networks and hazard analyses are
used to formulate earthquake probabilities and to establish building
codes. USGS monitors volcanoes and provides warnings about impending
eruptions. Data from the USGS network of stream gages enable the
National Weather Service to issue flood warnings. The bureau and its
Federal partners monitor seasonal wildfires and provide maps of current
fire locations and the potential spread of fires. USGS research on
ecosystem structure informs fire risk forecasts.
USGS assessments of mineral and energy resources--including rare
earth elements, coal, oil, unconventional natural gas, and geothermal--
are essential for making decisions about the Nation's future. The
Survey identifies the location and quantity of domestic mineral and
energy resources, and assesses the economic and environmental effects
of resource extraction and use. The agency is mapping domestic supplies
of rare earth elements necessary for widespread deployment of new
energy technologies, which can reduce dependence on foreign oil and
mitigate climate change. The USGS is the sole Federal source of
information on mineral potential, production, and consumption.
USGS science plays a critical role in informing sound management of
natural resources on Federal and State lands. The USGS conducts
research and monitoring of fish, wildlife, and vegetation--data that
informs management decisions by other Interior bureaus regarding
protected species and land use. USGS science is also used to control
invasive species and wildlife diseases that can cause billions of
dollars in economic losses. The Survey also provides critical
information for resource managers as they develop adaptive management
strategies for restoration and long-term use of the Nation's natural
resources in the face of environmental change.
Research conducted by the USGS is vital to predicting the impacts
of land use and climate change on water resources, wildfires, and
ecosystems. The Landsat satellites have collected the largest archive
of remotely sensed land data in the world, allowing for access to
current and historical images that are used to assess the impact of
natural disasters and monitor global agriculture production. The USGS
also assesses the Nation's potential for carbon sequestration. Other
Interior bureaus use USGS research on how climate variability affects
fish, wildlife, and ecological processes to inform natural resource
management decisions.
FUNDING SHORTFALL
Over the years, the Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to
restore damaging budget cuts proposed by administrations from both
parties. These efforts have paid dividends and helped the USGS continue
to provide answers to the challenging questions facing decision-makers
across the country.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for the USGS is
$1.1 billion. The budget request contains $49.5 million in program
reductions in valuable, longstanding programs that offset increases in
other areas. The proposed budget cuts would have significant negative
impacts on core scientific capabilities of the USGS.
Proposed budget cuts in the fiscal year 2013 USGS budget request
include:
--$6.5 million for Water Resources Research Act Program;
--$6 million for National Water Quality Assessment Methods
Development and Monitoring;
--$5 million for Cooperative Water Program Interpretive Studies;
--$5 million for Mineral Resources;
--$3.3 million for Hydrologic Networks and Analysis Information
Management and Delivery; and
--$2 million for Toxic Substances Hydrology Methods Development and
Assessments.
We urge the Congress to support the budget request plus work to
restore these and other detrimental cuts. An appropriation of $1.2
billion would provide the USGS with approximately $50 million that
could shore up critical research programs, enhance new research
efforts, and fully fund ``fixed costs'' and ``operational
efficiencies.''
Notably, the proposed budget requests $10.8 million for fixed
costs. Although we applaud the agency for including these expenses in
the budget request, we are not certain that this request will fully
cover these expenses. Moreover, we are concerned about $4.4 million in
proposed operations and maintenance ``efficiencies.'' According to USGS
budget documents: ``The proposed reduction will degrade the condition
and performance of the USGS real property portfolio . . . . In turn,
the USGS expects to see an increase in the frequency with which
equipment and facility components will need more costly emergency
repairs and replacements, as well as a shortening of the overall
lifecycle of our real property assets.''
The budget request does not propose transferring responsibilities
for Landsat satellites from NASA to USGS. We appreciate congressional
efforts last year to ensure that the USGS would not assume budget
authority for the Landsat satellites. Such a move would have likely
compromised core USGS science programs as the costs of the satellites
rose significantly in future years.
CONCLUSION
We recognize the financial challenges facing the Nation, but losing
irreplaceable data can increase costs to society today and in the
future. The USGS Coalition requests that the Congress appropriate at
least $1.2 billion for the USGS in fiscal year 2013, a level that will
support critical USGS programs that improve the Nation's environment,
health, safety, quality of life, and future economic growth.
The USGS Coalition appreciates the subcommittee's past leadership
in strengthening the United States Geological Survey. Thank you for
your thoughtful consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Washington County Commission, Utah
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2013
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial public benefits
including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural, historical and recreation heritage. As LWCF is funded from
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these
funds should go to their intended and authorized use as a conservation
offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
As part of the LWCF request in fiscal year 2013, the Bureau of Land
Management included an allocation of $4 million for Red Cliffs NCA. I
am pleased that this funding was included in the request and urge the
Congress to provide necessary funds for LWCF for this important
project.
The Washington County Commission approved a resolution on February
7, 2012 expressing its strong support of acquisitions by BLM of private
in-holdings in the Red Cliffs NCA and the appropriation of Federal LWCF
funds for these acquisitions. This resolution was passed by unanimous
approval of the County Commissioners, and states:
``WHEREAS, the Washington County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
was implemented in 1995 to reconcile conflicts between desert tortoise
conservation and economic development; and
``WHEREAS, the HCP established the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve
(Reserve) to maintain the long-term viability of desert tortoises
within the Upper Virgin River Recovery Unit; and
``WHEREAS, in return, Washington County (County) was granted an
incidental take permit under Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species
Act to allow development of tortoise habitat outside the Reserve,
thereby providing for the ability for the County to meet demands for
anticipated population growth and economic growth through land
development; and
``WHEREAS, HCP signatories and cooperators include Washington
County, the Utah Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and local
municipalities; and
``WHEREAS, an objective of the HCP is to acquire remaining private
in-holdings within the boundaries of the Reserve for protection of
desert tortoise habitat; and
``WHEREAS, the United States Congress passed the Omnibus Public
Land Management Act of 2009 which established the Red Cliffs National
Conservation Area (NCA) to be managed by BLM and which had boundaries
corresponding to the Reserve boundaries; and
``WHEREAS, several of the landowners who own private lands within
the NCA are willing sellers of their land to the BLM and the Federal
acquisition of these specific lands is an important objective of the
HCP; and
``WHEREAS, the BLM is seeking Federal funds through the Land and
Water Conservation Fund to acquire these private lands starting with
the fiscal year 2013 and future years.
``NOW, THEREFORE, at a regular meeting of the legislative body of
Washington County, Utah, duly called, noticed, and held on the 7th day
of February 2012, upon motion duly made and seconded, it is
unanimously:
``RESOLVED that the Washington County Commission strongly supports
the acquisitions of private in-holdings in the Red Cliffs National
Conservation Area from willing sellers by the Bureau of Land Management
and the appropriation of Federal funds for such acquisitions.''
In fiscal year 2013, an allocation of $4 million from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, as requested in the President's budget for the
Bureau of Land Management, is needed to begin these key acquisitions at
Red Cliffs NCA.
In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund of $450 million, as proposed in the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget, including critical funding for the Red Cliffs
National Conservation Area. I want to thank the Chairman and the
members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf
of this nationally important protection effort in Utah, and I
appreciate your consideration of this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Washington Wildlife Recreation Coalition
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2013
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition is a nonprofit citizens
group founded in a historic bipartisan effort by former Governors Dan
Evans and Mike Lowry. Our members consist of a diverse group of more
than 250 organizations representing conservation, business, recreation,
hunting, fishing, farming, and community interests.
Our members come together for the same reason people and businesses
chose to locate in Washington State:
--our close-to-home parks;
--outdoor recreation opportunities; and
--wildlife habitat.
Mount Rainier is one of our State's great symbols and has been
protected as a national park since 1899. Across Puget Sound, a major
water and economic resource of its own, lie the jagged outlines of the
Olympic Mountains, and beyond them the only temperate rainforest in the
world and the rich seashore of the Olympic Peninsula. The Cascades
stretch from the Canadian border to the Columbia River Gorge, protected
in four national forests and accessible via the Pacific Crest National
Scenic Trail. From the Methow Valley to Turnbull Wildlife Refuge,
eastern Washington holds exceptional habitats protected for a diversity
of species and accessible for hunters and anglers. The LWCF has helped
to protect these iconic places since 1965.
Consequently, I join conservation leaders, hunters, anglers,
business owners, and communities across the Nation in urging you to
support funding for LWCF. This year, the administration's budget
request includes funding for four high-priority, ready-to-go, willing-
seller projects across Washington State's national parks, wildlife
refuges, forests and other public land. It also makes investments in
stateside LWCF grants for local parks and trails, ball fields and boat
launches, and for protecting our working timber and range lands.
Our parks, forests, refuges, and trails are generators for
Washington's economy. The Outdoor Industry Foundation (OIF) estimates
that outdoor recreation throughout the State contributes $11.7 billion
annually to Washington's economy. This activity supports 115,000 jobs
and produces $8.5 billion annually in retail sales and services--3.5
percent of the gross State product. OIF found that 44 percent of
Washingtonians view wildlife, 39 percent use trails, 36 percent camp,
and 32 percent ride bicycles for recreational purposes.
In addition to fueling these economic engines for Washington's
communities, LWCF improves the management of the public lands in our
State. These measures make for better recreational experiences on the
land, sustain habitats for wildlife, and ensure quality water supplies.
They also reduce costs in fighting fires, controlling invasive species,
and maintaining property boundaries. LWCF accomplishes these management
improvements largely because most of the funds go toward the
acquisition of inholdings, private lands bordered on two, three, or
four sides by existing public lands.
Washington has two excellent examples of LWCF purchases reducing
costs and improving public land experiences. First, in 2004, the
Congress passed a law to expand the boundaries at the northwestern
entrance of Mount Rainier National Park. For many years flooding would
wipe away parts of the Carbon River Road and make the trailheads,
campsites, and other visitor facilities inaccessible. The expansion and
subsequent purchase of land via LWCF funding has allowed the National
Park Service to begin the process of moving facilities to higher
ground, removing the future costs and burdens from frequent floods.
Second, in the central Cascades, much of the land ownership pattern
resembles a checkerboard. Public lands are interspersed with private
lands. For many years LWCF funds have been used by USFS to acquire
priority checkerboard properties that increase recreational access,
improve segments of the Pacific Crest Trail, and safeguard consolidated
blocks of prime mountain and forest wildlife habitat and river
watersheds that supply population centers like Seattle and Tacoma.
I understand this subcommittee and the Congress face severe
constraints in this tight fiscal climate. However, forward-looking
investment in LWCF will permanently pay dividends to the American
people and to our great natural and historical heritage. LWCF is paid
for using a very small percentage of offshore oil and gas drilling
receipts, not taxpayer dollars. The Congress made a commitment to the
American public that a small portion of revenues from offshore drilling
paid by oil companies should go to conservation and outdoor recreation
programs. Yet nearly every year, the majority of LWCF funds are
diverted to other unintended purposes--more than $17 billion over the
history of the program.
I therefore respectfully ask that you support the administration's
fiscal year 2013 recommendation of $450 million for the LWCF program.
At one-half the authorized funding level for the program, this
represents a measured proposal that spreads limited resources wisely
across urgent and diverse LWCF priorities and programmatic goals. At
this level, LWCF would fund four projects at a Fish and Wildlife
Service refuge, National Park Service unit, a USFS site and working
forest lands in Washington State:
Fish and Wildlife Service
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge: $1 Million
These funds would be used to acquire lands at the Black River Unit
and along the Nisqually River delta into Puget Sound in order to
consolidate holdings, preserve wintering habitat for migratory birds,
and protect wetlands habitat for fisheries.
National Park Service
Mount Rainier National Park: $1 Million
These funds would be used to complete acquisition of smaller
properties in the Carbon River expansion area, protecting old growth
forests along the Carbon River and important habitat for populations of
anadromous fish, including salmon.
United States Forest Service
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail: $618,000
The multistate request for the trail includes checkerboard parcels
in the central Cascades that would improve trail stewardship and access
and protect the trail corridor and view shed. Available for acquisition
in fiscal year 2013 are two parcels along the PCT:
--Pyramid Peak and Missing Link within the Wenatchee; and
--Mount Baker-Snoqualmie national forests.
Pysht Coastal Forest: $3 Million
This Forest Legacy Program request would be used to fund a
conservation easement on working forestland along the Strait of Juan de
Fuca.
We support these requests for LWCF funds to acquire critical tracts
in the parks, refuges, and forests of Washington.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for your
dedication and service, on behalf of our organization's members and
also on behalf of my family. I can think of no greater legacy for my
two sons than the protection of our recreation lands, clean waters and
wildlife heritage. I appreciate your consideration of these funding
requests.
______
Prepared Statement of Whitetails Unlimited, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Forest Legacy Program (FLP) in the fiscal year 2013 Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The President's
budget for this year recommended $60 million for FLP. The FLP works
with landowners, the States, and other partners to protect critical
forestlands with important economic, recreation, water quality, and
habitat resources through conservation easement and fee acquisitions.
The program has protected more than 2 million acres in 43 States and
territories, consistently with a 50-percent non-Federal cost share,
double the required 25-percent cost share. For several years this
important conservation program has been funded under the umbrella of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which as a whole received
$450 million in the budget request.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial public benefits
including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in the Forest
Legacy Program will permanently pay dividends to the American people
and to our great natural, historical and recreation heritage. As LWCF
is funded from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, not taxpayer
dollars, these funds should go to their intended and authorized use as
a conservation offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and
gas resources.
As part of the FLP request in fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Forest
Service included an allocation of $3 million for the Central Sands
Pines project in Wisconsin. I am pleased that this funding was included
in the request and urge the Congress to provide necessary funds for FLP
for this important project.
Wisconsin's Central Sands region was the setting for world-renowned
naturalist Aldo Leopold's ``A Sand County Almanac'', published in 1949.
This classic work stands with Thoreau's Walden and Rachel Carson's
Silent Spring as the inspiration for generations of conservationists to
protect our Nation's treasured places. Today, there is an opportunity
to heed Leopold's call for a ``land ethic'' by preserving this historic
landscape.
The Central Sands region was shaped tens of thousands of years ago
during the last great ice age, known as the Wisconsin Glaciation.
Today, this 2-million-acre region is located in the bed of the extinct
Glacial Lake Wisconsin, which left behind a legacy of sandy soils,
extensive wetlands, and oak and pine forests. The sandy soils cover
bedrock, and serve as an aquifer for 80 lakes and hundreds of miles of
headwater streams and wetlands. The area's remarkable hydrological
system largely occurs underground. The aquifer collects precipitation
as groundwater, and filters it before conveying it to the Wisconsin
River and other surface waters. Watershed protection is a major concern
in the Central Sands region due to relatively high levels of
groundwater pollution.
In fiscal year 2013, there is an opportunity to preserve key
parcels in the Central Sands region that will protect the groundwater
supply, secure critical endangered species habitat, maintain working
forests, and preserve public recreational access. The Central Sands
Pines Forest Legacy project in Adams County is the critical component
of a larger 9,000-acre plan to fund a conservation easement over
privately owned timberland. The project will ensure that the acreage
remains in productive use under private ownership. While much of
northern Wisconsin remains forested, more than 70 percent of the
southern part of the State has been cut over and converted to other
uses. The Central Sands Pines Forest Legacy tract is among the few
remaining large blocs available for timbering. It currently provides
pulp for paper production as well as construction lumber and telephone
poles. This project will support the State's $22 billion forestry
products industry, which employs more than 50,000 people.
The Central Sands Pines Forest Legacy project will also protect the
groundwater recharge zone from pollution. Approximately 700 acres of
the property consist of wetlands which are important for water
filtration. A fresh groundwater supply is crucial for crop irrigation
in the Wisconsin River basin. Irrigated land has increased rapidly over
the past 50 years, covering 175,000 acres in the Central Sands region.
Protecting this acreage will allow farmers to continue to pump clean,
fresh groundwater for irrigating crops.
Whitetails Unlimited believes the acquisition of this perpetual
easement is in line with the spirit of our mission statement. Beyond
protecting critical wildlife habitat, this perpetual easement will
offer the general public numerous outdoor recreational opportunities.
In particular, the property offers sportsmen and women prime hunting
opportunities for white-tailed deer, turkey, and grouse. As Aldo
Leopold once wrote, ``There are two kinds of hunting: ordinary hunting
and ruffed-grouse hunting. There are two places to hunt grouse:
ordinary places and Adams County.'' Whitetails Unlimited commends the
Forest Legacy Program for promoting the environmental sustainability of
this property for future generations.
Forest Legacy funding will also benefit threatened and endangered
species. The area's mixed oak-pine forests, barrens and peatlands
provide the habitat needed by the endangered Kirtland's warbler, Karner
blue butterfly, and whooping crane. The federally listed endangered
Kirtland's warbler was discovered on this property in 2007. Wisconsin,
Michigan, and Ontario, Canada have the only documented nesting pairs of
Kirtland's warbler in the world, and this property contains the highest
concentration of the species in the entire State.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2013 requests $3 million
from the Forest Legacy Program for 5,722 acres of the Wisconsin Central
Sands Pines project. The State of Wisconsin will provide a match of at
least $1 million to complete the easement purchase. Securing these
funds will ensure that the property remains in productive use under
private ownership. Residents will continue to enjoy recreational
opportunities, endangered species habitat will be preserved, and local
groundwater will be protected from pollution.
In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund of $450 million, as proposed in the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget, including critical funding for the Forest
Legacy Program and the Central Sands Pines project. I want to thank the
Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to
testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in
Wisconsin, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Background
One of the most significant threats to biodiversity in the Nation's
coastal and estuarine habitats as well as Wisconsin's inland navigable
waters is the introduction of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species
(ANS) into the ecosystem. The introduction of ANS through intentional
or accidental means establishes a stress on ecosystems that can result
in the decline of native species population, serve as an impediment to
species recovery and pose a long-term economic and ecological threat to
the health of the area. The control and management of these ANS in such
areas as the Mississippi River Basin Drainage, Great Lakes, Everglades,
and San Francisco Bay/Inland Delta costs the economy and taxpayers
billions of dollars annually.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) commends the
Congress and the Federal Government's recognition of this problem and
efforts to address it through enactment of the Non-indigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA) of 1990 (Public Law 101-
646) and the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996 (Public Law
104-332). The establishment of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
(ANSTF) makes use of a coordinating body to improve efforts to
administer the Government's responsibilities as carried out by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other Federal agencies.
In 2003, Wisconsin developed an Aquatic Nuisance Species Strategic
Plan to combat aquatic nuisance species and to prevent their
introduction into State waters. Wisconsin's actions supplement the
national activity and are indicative of an ongoing need for resources
and action to reduce the threat and minimize the impacts of ANS on U.S.
waters.
State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan
The NANPCA (as amended by NISA) recognized that States are integral
partners in the battle against ANS by authorizing the State/Interstate
Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan (SIANSMP) grant program.
Managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the program provides
annual funding to States, Tribes, and Regional organizations to support
the implementation of State and interstate ANS management plans that
have been approved by the ANSTF. The SIANSMPs identify feasible, cost-
effective measures to be undertaken by the States and cooperating
entities to manage ANS infestations in an environmentally sound manner.
This funding has helped Wisconsin establish an ANS program with
mechanisms for prevention, early detection and rapid response,
containment, and control. Wisconsin's efforts link together with other
State's ANS Plans and Federal efforts to form an effective national ANS
partnerships to eliminate or reduce the environmental, economic, public
health, and human safety risks associated with ANS.
Section 1301(c) of NANPCA authorized a total of $4 million for the
SIANSMP grant program; however, that amount has never been fully
appropriated. Funding was gradually increased from $68,000 for the
first approved State Management Plan in 1994, to its current level of
$1,075,000 beginning in 2004. Over the years, the number of plans
approved far outpaced the capacity of the SIANSMP funding. In fiscal
year 2011, Wisconsin received $29,800 to implement its statewide plan
from the Service.
President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget
Wisconsin developed an ANSTF approved management plan and ANS
programs in accordance with congressional authorizations in NANPCA and
NISA. The SIANSMP grant program remains a high priority to Wisconsin
and is critical for our implementation of a successful ANS prevention
and control program. Funding for the SIANSMPs has remained stable since
2004 at only 25 percent of the authorized level; however total requests
to support the 36 approved State/Interstate ANS Management Plans that
applied for funding in fiscal year 2011 exceeded $9 million. The States
have consistently demonstrated a need for increased appropriations to
implement ANS prevention and control priorities, yet the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget eliminates the SIANSMP grant program for
implementation of ANSTF-approved plans. The WDNR urges the Congress to
restore fiscal year 2013 appropriations of $1,075,000, and to provide
additional fiscal year 2013 appropriations to fully fund that SIANSMP
grant program at $4 million as authorized by NANPCA and NISA.
Wisconsin appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on such a
critical national issue and looks forward to our continued partnership
with the Federal agencies that are as committed to preventing,
containing and controlling ANS as we are.
Note.--Information provided in this document was pulled from
existing documents including:
--2011-2012 Policy Positions for the Jurisdiction of the Environment
Committee, National Conference of State Legislatures, http://
www.ncsl.org/state-Federal-committees.aspx?tabs=855,23,667.
--State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans 2010
(1st in a Series of 3). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April
2012.
--Accomplishments of the State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species
Management Plans A Summary of State Efforts in the Battle
Against ANS (2nd in a Series of 3). U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. February 2012. The Evolution of the State/Interstate
Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Grant Program (third
in a series of three). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April
2012.
______
Prepared Statement of the Zuni Tribe
Background
Pre Public Law 93-638, Indian Self Determination and Education
Assistance Act, the Zuni Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, acting on a commitment
for success, contracted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to
perform functions previously carried out by the Federal Government.
Namely these functions/programs are:
--Housing improvement;
--Law enforcement;
--Tribal courts;
--Higher education scholarship; and
--Road maintenance and social services/welfare assistance.
Performance of these functions by the Tribe was authorized under
the authorities of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act with the promise
of self-determination to operate programs fitting tribal needs.
However, since the 1970's the Zuni Tribe has experienced drastic fund
reductions in these contracted and other programs still administered/
operated by the BIA.
The Zuni Tribe understands the United States' fiscal difficulties
and challenges at this time and acknowledges the administration is
focused in reducing the deficit, however, the Zuni Tribe is requesting
the administration keeps its promise to the Indian country by
protecting and increasing funding provided under the BIA Tribal
Priority Allocations (TPA) process in fiscal year 2013. Protecting and
increasing TPA for the Zuni Tribe will assist in effectively
administering programs which would otherwise be performed by the
Federal Government. Not only will the tribe carry out programs
effectively which affects their respective community, it will also
continue to be partners in a mutual commitment to strengthen not only
the tribal and national economy, however, it will have a major impact
on the health and social well-being of the community as a whole. This
effort has a ripple effect on generation of jobs, and improvement of
economies.
The Zuni Tribes request under the Department of the Interior (DOI),
BIA fiscal year 2013 President's budget request a total of $9,474,000
to administer core programs under the TPA categories operated by the
BIA and under the authorities of Public Law 93-635. The following are
the amounts specifically identifying programs and their respective
amounts.
Tribal Government-Road Maintenance Bureau of Indian Affairs
Operated.--This program requires a minimum level of $992,000 to carry
out the program responsibilities. This funding level will get closer to
the 2009-2010 target units under a Level of Services rating of 2 or
better for the Zuni Indian Reservation. The Road Maintenance program
supports 411.2 miles of Indian Reservation Roads in a remote
reservation, approximately 150 miles from a metropolitan area of
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
A 2009 assessment of paved routes in the Zuni community shows that
at a minimum 4 miles of pavement overlay, and 20 miles of pavement
surface treatment of major traveled routes with high average daily
traveled counts. Providing funds for improvement of the Zuni
Reservation roads will reduce the potential liability of tort claims
from the traveling public in Zuni. Improvements to the above identified
miles of roads do not include maintenance of unpaved roads, including
school bus routes, ingress and egress to homes for medical service
vehicles such as ambulances, transportation services for patients who
are on dialysis and need medical care, etc.
If funds are not provided at a bare minimal level the Zuni Tribal
Road Maintenance program will continue to incur annual increases of at
least 4 percent of deferred maintenance backlog on reservation roads
and bridges. Since fiscal year 2007, this program has been grossly
underfunded and range in funding for the past several years in the
amount of $246,642 to a high of $274,116 in fiscal year 2007.
Human Services--Social Services and Indian Child Welfare Act--
Tribal Priority Allocations Public Law 93-638 Tribal Contract.--A
minimum level funding for the Tribal Social Services program in the
amount of $260,000 is needed to maintain programs at a current level. A
minimum level of $95,000 is needed for the Indian Child Welfare Act
program. These two programs are critical to assist the social-economic
programs of the community. Program personnel works with various
agencies in and outside the community which includes child care places,
foster home placements and domestic violence with the tribal and
outside courts-judicial systems, the Zuni Tribal Police Department,
etc. Once again this program has not been adequately funded for a
number of years.
Human Services--Welfare Assistance--Tribal Priority Allocations
Public Law 93-638 Tribal Contract.--A minimum level of $75,000 is
required to operate this program at a ``bare minimum'' level. With the
isolation of the Zuni Reservation and lack of employment and other full
service programs, these funds are needed to deal with socio-economic
issues/problems of the community.
Public Safety and Justice--Community Fire Protection--Tribal
Priority Allocations Public Law 93-638 Tribal Contract.--A minimum of
$150,000 is required to operate this program. Minimum funds requested
will allowed the program to maintain three tribal employees on staff
and provide operation expenses that services the community which
includes a hospital operation, high school, junior high school, two
elementary schools, a community college, BIA agency and tribal
infrastructure, two parochial schools and other community facilities.
Public Safety and Justice Tribal Courts--Tribal Priority
Allocations Public Law 93-638 Tribal Contract.--A minimum of $580,000
is needed to operate the Zuni Tribal Court. This level of funding will
allow the tribal court of access training needs and filling positions
that will assist in handling an increasing number of criminal, civil,
juvenile, and child welfare cases which are referred to the tribal
court for resolution. The number of cases the tribal court handles
range from a low of 4,144 adult cases to a high of 7,000 cases. The
children's court also ranges in a low of 455 to a high of 566 cases.
Natural Resources--Bureau of Indian Affairs Operated.--Minimum
level of funds required is $392,000 to fulfill the BIA trust
responsibilities as it relates to natural resources. Funding for this
critical program continues to increase which the need increases.
Critical functions need to be continually addressed. These functions at
least include:
--Range and agriculture management;
--Safety of dam;
--National Environmental Protection Act compliance requirements; and
--Public Law 93-638 contract administration and administration of the
Zuni Tribal grazing permits and leases by encoding, updating,
and maintaining range permits and grazing lease data into
TAAMS.
Natural Resources--Fish and Wildlife Management--Tribal Priority
Allocations Public Law 93-638 Tribal Contract.--A minimum of $111,000
is required to operate the Zuni Fish and Wildlife program. This program
manages activities associated with cultural and academic biological
wildlife management. It also works with the other Federal and State
agencies including the States of New Mexico, Arizona, and other
customer base clientele from the private sector.
Natural Resources--Forestry and Fire Management--Bureau of Indian
Affairs Operated.--This program requires a minimum funding level of
$189,000 to maintain program operations and maintain a one FTE.
Trust Services--Real Estate Services--Tribal Priority Allocations
Public Law 93-638 Tribal Contract.--This program requires a minimum
level of funding in the amount of $198,000 to carry out program
responsibilities associated with trial trust and individual allotments,
tribal fee lands and tribal land assignments for the purpose of:
--Leasing and permitting;
--acquiring and disposal of lands and promotion of development of
mineral resources and renewable energy resources;
--maintenance of existing contractual agreement and assurance in
recording of all encumbrances in the Tribal Trust Assets
Accounting Management System and Land Titles and Records
Office.
The Program is responsible for land base protection of 537,055.55
acres of land. (Included in the level of fund request is Probate and
Rights Protection along with the Real Estate Services.)
The program also promotes and encourages consolidation of
fractionate interests of trust allotments by providing estate planning
holding outreach efforts to provide information on the American Indian
Probate Reform Act.
Executive Direction and Administration--Bureau of Indian Affairs
Operated.--A minimum of $192,000 is required for the Executive
Direction and $160,000 is needed for the Administrative Services
operations at the Zuni Agency. These two program operations provide
critical functions which assist the Zuni Tribe in maintaining and
managing oversight of BIA operated and tribal contract programs. These
crucial program operations have been grossly underfunded for a number
of years to adequately fulfill trust responsibilities to the Zuni
Tribe.
Law Enforcement--Zuni Police Department--Public Law 93-638 Tribal
Contract.--A minimum funding level of $2.9 million is required to
maintain law and order on the Zuni Reservation, which include the
immediate community and the surrounding reservation lands. Over several
years the tribal law enforcement program has not received adequate
funding for the size of reservation lands and the growing population
they are responsible for serving and protecting There has been an
increase in violent crime, gang activities, methamphetamine and other
drug uses, not to mention violence in the schools.
Other unfunded mandates such as the Adam Walsh Act and the
enactment of the Federal Tribal Law and Order Act, Sex Offender
registry and other like requirement compliances requirements also
requires that funds be provided to meet these mandates.
The Zuni tribal wage scale grossly lags behind other agencies' wage
scales to maintain law enforcement officers in Zuni. Additional funds
are also required to maintain a stable trained staff with proper
equitable compensation. It is critical the Department and BIA consider
full funding for this critical program.
Detention Center Public Law 93-638 Contract Program.--A minimum of
$1.5 million is required to operate the Zuni Tribal detention center.
Additional personnel with equitable funding are required to maintain
the detention center operations. The Zuni Detention center is a 24-hour
7-days a week operation. Like other organizational programs, the Zuni
Tribe needs to bring the wage scale to a comparable level with other
agencies to maintain/retain qualified trained personnel. This is a
crucial operations that is not only associated with stress-related
duties, but requires commitment and dedication of a workforce.
Detention Facilities Operations and Maintenance--Public Law 93-638
Contract Programs.--These two programs have traditionally been funding
on a formula, square foot basis which does not provide adequate funds
to operate and maintain infrastructure. Serious considerations need to
be made to adequately fund operation and maintenance programs of
facilities. A minimum of $150,000 is needed for the operations portion
of the facility and a minimum of $30,000 is needed for the maintenance
of the facility.
Education and Adult Vocational Training Program.--$1 million is
requested for the Education Tribal Scholarship program and $500,000 is
requested for the Adult Vocational Training Program. These two programs
have been part of the ``477'' program which is not part of the TPA
program considerations. However, these two programs are critical and
are abridge to ensuring viable future for the Zuni Community. These two
programs will provide scholarship funding assistance to students
pursuing college degrees and vocational type training to acquire
marketable skills should they seek employment off the Zuni Reservation.
The Zuni Tribe also requests that funds for be maintained/increased
for the Indian Guaranteed Loan program to assist the Zuni Tribe in
pursing economic development ventures.
In addition, funds should be provided to fully support contract
support cost for tribes administering programs under the authorities of
Public Law 93-638. These programs have been traditionally administered
by the Federal Government; however, when tribal governments take on
responsibilities for program administration/operations, their
budgetary/financial needs are not adequately addressed.
As stated the Zuni Tribe is aware of the national economic
conditions, however, in order for the Zuni Tribe to foster self-
determination, including, self-governance, we request you seriously
consider the Zuni Tribe's funding request.
The Zuni Tribe extends our appreciation for the opportunity to
present our funding needs.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Abbey, Hon. Robert V., Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior..................................... 77
Prepared Statement of........................................ 82
Questions Submitted to....................................... 116
Summary Statement of......................................... 81
African Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the........... 240
Ala Kahakai Trail Association, Prepared Statement of the......... 243
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Prepared Statement of the 244
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Prepared Statement of the. 245
Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 68
Statement of................................................. 7
American:
Association of Museums, Prepared Statement of the............ 248
Bird Conservancy, Prepared Statements of the...............250, 252
Fisheries Society, Prepared Statement of the................. 254
Forest:
And Paper Association, Prepared Statement of............. 252
Foundation, Prepared Statement of the.................... 255
Forests, Prepared Statement of............................... 237
Geosciences Institute, Prepared Statement of the............. 257
Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the 260
Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the.. 263
Lung Association, Prepared Statement of the.................. 265
Society:
For Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the.............. 268
Of:
Agronomy, Prepared Statement of the.................. 271
Landscape Architects, Prepared Statement of the...... 272
Veterinary Medical Association, Prepared Statement of........ 240
Americans for the Arts, Prepared Statement of.................... 235
Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 273
Arctic Slope Native Association, Prepared Statement of the....... 276
Limited, Prepared Statement of the........................... 275
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 277
Association of:
American State Geologists, Prepared Statement of the......... 280
Art Museum Directors, Prepared Statement of the.............. 282
Fish & Wildlife Agencies, Prepared Statements of...........252, 254
Public and Land-Grant Universities, Prepared Statement of the 284
State Drinking Water Administrators, Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 286
Zoos & Aquariums, Prepared Statements of...................240, 254
Audubon, Prepared Statement of................................... 252
Bat Conservation International, Prepared Statements of.........252, 289
Beaudreau, Hon. Tommy P., Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Department of the Interior......................... 86
Prepared Statement of........................................ 87
Questions Submitted to....................................... 119
Bennett, Barbara J., Chief Financial Officer, Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 175
Bernalillo Board of County Commissioners, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 292
Blunt, Senator Roy, U.S. Senator From Missouri, Prepared
Statements of................................................128, 193
Bonobo Conservation Initiative, Prepared Statement of............ 240
Born Free USA, Prepared Statement of............................. 240
Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, Prepared Statement of....... 245
Cherokee Nation, Prepared Statement of the....................... 295
Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, Prepared Statement of the.......... 276
Children's Environmental Health Network, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 298
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Prepared Statements of the........276, 305
Chugach Regional Resources Commission, Prepared Statement of..... 294
Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Prepared Statement of the............. 276
City Parks Alliance, Prepared Statement of....................... 272
Civil War Trust, Prepared Statement of the....................... 308
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 74
Collins, Senator Susan, U.S. Senator From Maine, Statement of.... 5
Colorado River:
Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of the...... 310
Board of California, Prepared Statement of the............... 311
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 313
Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Prepared Statement of the............. 301
Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 304
Crop Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of........... 271
Dance/USA, Prepared Statement of................................. 316
Defenders of Wildlife, Prepared Statement of..................... 318
Doris Day Animal League, Prepared Statement of................... 559
Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School, Navajo Nation,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 321
Environmental Investigation Agency, Prepared Statement of........ 252
Fauna & Flora International, Prepared Statement of............... 240
Federal Forest Resource Coalition, Prepared Statement of the..... 323
Federation of State Humanities Councils, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 326
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
Questions Submitted by..............................55, 116, 170, 216
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 329
Friends of:
Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared
Statement of............................................... 331
Rachel Carson NWR, Prepared Statement of..................... 333
The:
Florida Panther Refuge, Inc., Prepared Statement of the.. 334
National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island, Prepared
Statement of the....................................... 334
Potomac River Refuges, Prepared Statement of the......... 335
Refuge Headwaters, Prepared Statement of................. 338
Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges, Inc., Prepared
Statement of the....................................... 341
Virgin Islands National Park, Prepared Statement of.......... 342
Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of..... 344
Fuller Park Community Development Corporation, Prepared Statement
of............................................................. 252
Geological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the......... 345
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 347
Green Mountain Club, Prepared Statement of the................... 350
Hardwood Federation, Prepared Statement of....................... 252
Hayes, David J., Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of the Interior..................................... 1
Haze, Pamela K., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Finance,
Performance, and Acquisition, Office of the Secretary,
Department of the Interior..................................... 1
Hoeven, Senator John, U.S. Senator From North Dakota, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 233
Humane Society:
International, Prepared Statement of......................... 240
Legislative Fund............................................. 559
Illinois Lake Management Association, Prepared Statement of the.. 352
Independent Tribal Courts Review Team, Prepared Statement of the. 353
International:
Crane Foundation, Prepared Statement of...................... 240
Elephant Foundation, Prepared Statement of................... 240
Fund for Animal Welfare, Prepared Statement of............... 240
Mountain Bicycling Association, Prepared Statement of........ 272
Rhino Foundation, Prepared Statement of...................... 240
Interstate Mining Compact Commission, Prepared Statement of the.. 355
Izaak Walton League of America, Prepared Statement of the........ 364
Jackson, Lisa P., Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. 175
Prepared Statement of........................................ 181
Summary Statement of......................................... 179
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Washington State, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 367
Jane Goodall Institute, Prepared Statement of the................ 240
Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 64
Statement of................................................. 129
Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan Industry and
Government Coalition, Prepared Statement of the................ 369
Klamath Bird Observatory, Prepared Statement of.................. 252
Kodiak Area Native Association, Prepared Statements of the.....276, 371
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 372
Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 374
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Questions
Submitted by...................................66, 118, 119, 121, 222
League of American:
Bicyclists, Prepared Statement of............................ 272
Orchestras, Prepared Statement of the........................ 377
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont, Questions
Submitted by........................................62, 171, 173, 216
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Prepared Statement of the... 379
Lummi Nation, Prepared Statement of the.......................... 381
Maine's Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 387
Malheur Wildlife Associates, Prepared Statement of............... 385
Maniilaq Association, Prepared Statement of...................... 245
Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Prepared Statement of the. 390
Merritt Island Wildlife Association, Prepared Statement of the... 391
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 394
Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Association, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 395
Moat Creek Managing Agency, Prepared Statement of the............ 397
Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
Questions Submitted by.....................................172, 223
Statements of.......................................3, 79, 127, 177
National:
Association of:
Abandoned Mine Land Programs, Prepared Statement of the.. 398
Clean Air Agencies, Prepared Statement of the............ 405
Forest Service Retirees, Prepared Statement of the....... 408
State:
Energy Officials, Prepared Statement of the.......... 411
Foresters, Prepared Statement of the................. 412
Audubon Society, Prepared Statement of....................... 254
Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 420
Congress of American Indians, Prepared Statement of the...... 415
Cooperators' Coalition, Prepared Statement of the............ 418
Federation of Federal Employees Local 1957, Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 422
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the...... 426
Ground Water Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 428
Humanities Alliance, Prepared Statement of the............... 430
Institutes for Water Resources, Prepared Statement of the.... 432
Parks Conservation Association, Prepared Statement of the.... 434
Recreation and Park Association, Prepared Statement of the... 437
Tribal:
Contract Support Cost Coalition, Prepared Statement of
the.................................................... 440
Environmental Council, Prepared Statement of the......... 446
Trust for Historic Preservation, Prepared Statement of the... 449
Wildlife:
Federation, Prepared Statement of the.................... 452
Refuge Association, Prepared Statement of the............ 455
Natural Science Collections Alliance, Prepared Statement of the.. 458
Nelson, Senator Ben, U.S. Senator From Nebraska, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 65
Nevada Department of Wildlife, Prepared Statement of the......... 459
Nez Perce:
Tribal Executive Committee, Prepared Statement of the........ 460
Tribe, Prepared Statement of the............................. 276
North American Banding Council, Prepared Statement of............ 252
Northwest:
Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the....... 463
Portland Area Indian Health Board:
Letter From.............................................. 468
Prepared Statement of the................................ 465
Norton Sound Health Corporation, Prepared Statements of the....245, 472
Nuclear Energy Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 474
Office of the State Engineer, State of New Mexico, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 476
1,237 Forest Owners, et al., Prepared Statement of............... 477
OPERA America, Prepared Statement of............................. 488
Oregon Water Resources Congress, Prepared Statements of the....491, 493
Outdoor Alliance, Prepared Statement of the...................... 495
Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared Statement of the............. 498
Partnership for the National Trails System, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 500
Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission, Prepared Statement of the... 506
Performing Arts Alliance, Prepared Statement of the.............. 503
PGA of America, Prepared Statement of............................ 272
PNM Resources, Inc., Prepared Statement of....................... 508
Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Prepared Statement of.............. 252
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, Prepared Statement of the........... 276
Preservation Action, Prepared Statement of....................... 508
Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Prepared Statement of the............. 511
Quinault Indian Nation, Prepared Statement of the................ 514
Rare Species Fund, Prepared Statement of......................... 240
Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island:
Opening Statements of...............................1, 77, 125, 175
Questions Submitted by.................................54, 164, 213
Restore America's Estuaries, Prepared Statement of............... 516
Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Center for Elephant
Conservation, Prepared Statement of............................ 240
Sac and Fox Nation, Prepared Statement of the.................... 518
Safari Club International, Prepared Statement of................. 240
Salazar, Hon. Ken, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department
of the Interior................................................ 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 10
Summary Statement of......................................... 8
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.... 521
Sawtooth Society, Prepared Statement of the...................... 522
Sea Turtle Conservancy, Prepared Statement of.................... 240
Sierra Club, Prepared Statement of............................... 252
Skokomish Tribe of Washington State, Prepared Statement of the... 524
Society of American Foresters, Prepared Statement of the......... 526
Soil Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of........... 271
South Eastern Wildlife & Environment Education Association, Inc.,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 540
Southcentral Foundation, Prepared Statements of the............276, 543
SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium, Prepared Statements
of the.......................................................276, 542
Spear, Susan, Acting Director, Strategic Planning Budget and
Accountability, United States Forest Service, United States
Department of Agriculture...................................... 125
Questions Submitted to....................................... 173
Squaxin Island Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.................. 545
St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 276
Sustainable Northwest, Prepared Statement of..................... 548
Tanana Chiefs Conference, Prepared Statements of the...........276, 550
Taos, New Mexico, Prepared Statement of.......................... 552
Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Prepared Statement of.. 254
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Prepared Statement of the... 554
Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 218
Statements of............................................6, 80, 129
The:
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
Prepared Statement of...................................... 555
Conservation Fund, Prepared Statement of..................... 556
Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International, Prepared Statement of 240
Equal Access to Justice Act and U.S. Forest Service Land
Management: Incentives to Litigate?........................ 529
Humane Society of the United States, Prepared Statements of240, 559
Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statements of.......240, 252, 254, 562
Trust for Public Land, Prepared Statements of..............272, 571
University of Montana, Prepared Statement of................. 252
Wildlife Society, Prepared Statements of...................254, 574
Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Prepared
Statement of............................................... 252
Theatre Communications Group, Prepared Statement of the.......... 566
Tidwell, Tom, Chief, United States Forest Service, United States
Department of Agriculture...................................... 125
Prepared Statement of........................................ 132
Questions Submitted to....................................... 164
Summary Statement of......................................... 130
Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 568
Town of Ophir, Colorado, Prepared Statement of the............... 567
Union of Concerned Scientists, Prepared Statement of............. 252
United Steelworkers, Prepared Statement of....................... 252
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared
Statement of
the............................................................ 577
USGS Coalition, Prepared Statement of the........................ 578
Washington:
County Commission, Utah, Prepared Statement of the........... 580
Wildlife Recreation Coalition, Prepared Statement of the..... 581
Watson, Hon. James, Director, Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement, Department of the Interior........................ 91
Prepared Statement of........................................ 92
Questions Submitted to....................................... 121
Whitetails Unlimited, Inc., Prepared Statement of................ 582
Wild Salmon Center, Prepared Statement of........................ 252
Wildlife:
Conservation Society, Prepared Statements of...............240, 252
Management Institute, Prepared Statement of.................. 254
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 584
World Wildlife Fund, Prepared Statements of....................240, 252
Zuni Tribe, Prepared Statement of the............................ 585
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
United States Forest Service
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 163
Airtanker:
Contracting.................................................. 146
Delivery Studies............................................. 146
Long-Term Strategy........................................... 141
Modernization.........................................128, 131, 140
America's Great Outdoors Initiative.............................. 131
Budget Context................................................... 132
Categorical Exclusion Impacts.................................... 127
Collaborative Forest Landscape Forest Restoration Projects....... 157
Communities Theme................................................ 135
Economic Impacts................................................. 144
Facilities and Roads Maintenance Priorities...................... 137
Fire:
Season 2012.................................................. 140
Theme........................................................ 137
Firefighting:
Asset Confidence............................................. 147
Capacity..................................................... 152
Helicopters................................................146, 152
With Helicopters............................................. 154
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request.................................. 126
And Priorities............................................... 133
Forest:
Health Management:
Co-op.................................................... 165
Federal.................................................. 165
Resources Information and Analysis........................... 165
Roads........................................................ 158
Fuels Reduction Priorities....................................... 138
Gaining Efficiencies and Cost Control Measures................... 139
Hazardous Fuels.................................................. 156
Helicopter Positioning........................................... 153
H.R. 1581.................................................129, 147, 163
Impacted Projects................................................ 143
Increasing Efficiencies.......................................... 131
Integrated Resource Restoration...........................128, 130, 142
Direction.................................................... 142
Land:
Acquisition.................................................. 169
Rehabilitation............................................... 155
Landscape Scale:
Conservation Prioritites..................................... 135
Restoration.................................................. 157
Priorities............................................... 133
Modular Airborne Firefighting System............................. 141
National Forest System........................................... 126
Planning:
Monitoring, and Analysis Priorities.......................... 134
Rule......................................................... 160
Predecisional Objection Process.................................. 144
Preparedness Priorities.......................................... 138
Program Consolidation............................................ 157
Recreation and Trails Priorities................................. 136
Region 1......................................................... 148
Research Priorities.............................................. 134
Restoration Theme................................................ 133
Secure Rural Schools Program..................................... 159
Sequoia ForestKeeper vs. Tidwell...............................127, 143
State:
And Private Forestry.......................................126, 164
Fire Assistance.............................................. 165
Station Fire..................................................... 154
Stewardship Contracting.......................................... 161
Suppression Priorities........................................... 138
Urban and Community Forestry..................................... 157
Volunteer Fire Assistance........................................ 165
Wildland Fire:
Management............................................126, 130, 166
Policy....................................................... 154
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
Abandoned Mine Lands and Hardrock Mining Reform Proposals........ 85
Additional Committee Questions................................... 116
Bureau of Land Management:
Office of Surface Management Merger.......................... 112
Solar Supplemental Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement.................................................. 118
Department of Defense Land....................................... 117
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Overview................................. 83
Geothermal Development........................................... 115
Hydraulic Fracturing......................................103, 106, 110
Legacy Wells..................................................... 99
Meeting Our Nation's Needs....................................... 82
National Environmental Policy Act Reviews........................ 116
Oil and Gas Production..........................................97, 100
Onshore:
Inspection Fees............................................102, 111
Oil and Gas:
Leasing.................................................. 101
Production............................................... 104
Renewable Energy Leases...................................... 114
Royalty Rates................................................ 104
Priority Permitting.............................................. 117
Promoting American Energy Production at Home..................... 83
Reductions and Efficiencies...................................... 85
Royalty Rates.................................................... 103
Well:
Closure...................................................... 108
Integrity Inspections........................................ 101
West Mojave Solar Energy Zone.................................... 116
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Additional Committee Questions................................... 119
Key Priorities and Accomplishments............................... 88
Offshore:
Lease Auctions............................................... 108
Leasing...................................................... 102
Wind:
Energy................................................... 95
Inspection............................................... 109
The Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request.............................. 90
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Additional Committee Questions................................... 121
Environmental Enforcement........................................ 94
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request Specifics........................ 94
Inspection:
And Compliance Program....................................... 94
Fees......................................................... 96
Outer Continental Shelf Inspection Personnel..................... 105
Permitting....................................................... 93
Recruitment of Key Positions..................................... 93
Regulatory Change................................................ 93
Office of the Secretary
Additional Committee Questions................................... 54
America's Great Outdoors Initiative.............................. 29
Automated Standard Application for Payments Program.............. 33
Blackstone River Valley.......................................... 26
Bureau of Land Management Solar Supplemental Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement................................. 58
Cadiz............................................................ 55
Central Valley Project........................................... 58
Coastal Impact Assistance Program................................ 40
Contract Support Costs........................................... 27
Cuts and Efficiencies............................................ 9
Delivering Sustainable Growth Through Water...................... 15
Encouraging Economic Development in Indian Country and Honoring
Trust Responsibilities......................................... 15
Energy........................................................... 9, 37
Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation--Background.... 73
Fee to Trust Process and Applications............................ 61
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget.......................................... 8
Fish Hatcheries.................................................. 36
477 Program...................................................... 27
Gaming........................................................... 56
Geological Surveying of Afghanistan.............................. 52
Government Reorganization........................................ 53
Grazing Administrative Fee....................................... 50
Growing the Economy Outdoors..................................... 12
Gulf States Funding.............................................. 44
Hunting and Fishing Access....................................... 34
Hydraulic Fracturing.........................................28, 34, 46
Indian:
Country...................................................... 10
School Equalization Program.................................. 30
Interior's Budget in Context..................................... 16
Joint Curatorial Collection Facility............................. 36
Land and Water Conservation Fund.............................29, 38, 49
Major Changes in the Fiscal Year 2013 Request.................... 18
Mandatory Proposals.............................................. 21
National:
Park Service--Maintenance Backlog--Background................ 72
Wildlife Refuge Fund......................................... 51
North Woods National Park Proposal............................... 32
Offsetting Collections and Fees.................................. 24
Offshore:
Development.................................................. 35
Inspection Fees..............................................48, 50
Wind.....................................................25, 31, 54
Oil and Gas...................................................... 44
Lease Revenues--Background................................... 71
Production................................................... 9
Revenues.....................................................41, 48
Onshore:
Inspection Fees.............................................. 48
Royalty Rate................................................. 51
Powering America's Economy....................................... 12
Private Lands Permitting......................................... 55
Renewable Energy................................................. 9
Rural Water...................................................... 30
San Luis Rey Water Settlement.................................... 60
School Construction.............................................. 33
Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge Land Acquisition........ 39
Spurring Growth and Innovation Through Science................... 14
Stream Buffer Zone Rule.......................................... 45
Streamgages...................................................... 40
Tourism.......................................................... 10
U.S.:
Fish and Wildlife Service--Background........................68, 69
Geological Survey--Disaster Preparedness--Background......... 70
White Nose Syndrome--Background.................................. 71
Wild Horses...................................................... 67
Yurok Funding.................................................... 59
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Additional Committee Questions................................... 212
Ambient Testing.................................................. 205
Aviation Fuel.................................................... 212
Beaches Protection Categorical Grants............................ 213
Bristol Bay Watershed............................................ 185
Camelina Biodiesel and the Renewable Fuels Standard.............. 218
Changing the Formula for Allocating Section 105 Funds............ 213
Chemical Safety.................................................. 217
Clark Fork Clean Up Site......................................... 221
Clean Water Act.................................................. 196
CO2 Emissions......................................... 210
Design for the Environment Program............................... 222
DeSoto County.................................................... 201
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act................................... 214
Emission Control Area............................................ 204
Enhanced Oil Recovery............................................ 219
Environmental Education Program.................................. 201
Farm Fuel Tanks.................................................. 192
Fort Berthold Reservation........................................ 233
Fuel Harmonization............................................... 194
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative............................... 215
Healy Clean Coal Plant........................................... 211
Hydraulic Fracturing......................................191, 197, 206
Study......................................................199, 203
Information Technology Equipment--Executive Order 13514.......... 232
Integrated Risk Information System............................... 223
Libby, Montana Superfund Site.................................... 221
Mercury in Ambient Air........................................... 216
Narragansett Bay................................................. 183
New Rules and Regulations........................................ 190
Oil Spill Response and Tribes.................................... 220
Perchlorate...................................................... 216
Permitting Guidance--Diesel Fuel And Hydraulic Fracturing........ 234
PM2.5................................................. 211
Portland Cement Association...................................... 196
Regional Haze Regulations........................................ 227
State:
And Local Air Quality:
Grants................................................... 184
Management Grants........................................ 213
Revolving Funds.............................................. 182
Transitioning Particulate Monitoring Funding From Section 103 to
Section 105 Authority.......................................... 213
Wastewater Operations--Underground Pipe Infrastructure........... 223
-