[Senate Hearing 115-230]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and
letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
Prepared Statement of the 1854 Treaty Authority
1854 treaty authority
The 1854 Treaty Authority (Authority) is a Tribal organization
funded by a Public Law 93-638 contract with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) under its Trust-Natural Resources Management-Rights
Protection Implementation (RPI) budget.
--The Authority supports funding of the BIA Rights Protection
Implementation Program at the approved fiscal year 2017 level
and a proportionate share for the Authority. We believe that
the funding (as well as any increase in funding) should be
allocated in the same proportions as it has historically been
distributed.
--The Authority supports the full finding of contract support for its
Public Law 93-638, Self-Determination contract.
--The Authority supports maintaining funding for the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative budget at least at its current level.
The Authority is a Tribal organization responsible for protecting,
preserving, and regulating the Treaty-reserved hunting, fishing and
gathering rights in the territory ceded to the United States by the
Chippewa in the Treaty of September 30, 1854, 10 Stat. 1109. The Bois
Forte Band and the Grand Portage Band created the authority following
Federal court affirmation of the rights in 1988. As part of a court-
approved agreement with the State of Minnesota, the Bands have
obligations to preserve the natural resources in the five (5) million
acre ceded territory and to regulate the activities of Band members
through a conservation code, enforcement officers, and a court. The
Authority has been involved with a variety of inter-agency efforts to
study the effect of invasive species, climate change, and other
activities that impact treaty resources.
Although it has significant responsibilities in a geographic area
the size of Massachusetts, the Authority has only fourteen (14) full-
time employees. With those limited resources, the Authority has been
able to collaborate with State, Tribal and Federal agencies to become a
prominent presence in the conservation of resources critical to the
subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering activities of the Chippewa.
The challenges facing all natural resource management agencies mean
that we need to continue cooperative research and restoration at the
present level or risk setbacks that have a negative impact on future
generations.
The successes of the Authority are overshadowed by the challenges
facing the trust resources that are at the heart of the Treaty rights.
For reasons unknown, the Minnesota moose population has declined
significantly in just a few years and both terrestrial and aquatic
invasive species and climate change threaten the Treaty fishing and
wild rice production areas across the ceded territory. In addition,
human activities continue to deplete or displace wildlife populations.
The Authority urges the Committee and the Congress to acknowledge
that the resources we seek to protect are trust resources, reserved in
treaties that the United States has a legal obligation to protect and
preserve.
[This statement was submitted by Millard J. Myers, Executive
Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc.
The requests of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA)
for the fiscal year 2019 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as
follows:
--Fund a health facility replacement project in Atka, Alaska.
--Fund leases for healthcare facilities under Section 105(l) of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
--Continue mandatory funding of the Special Diabetes Program for
Indians and fund health education and Community Health
Representatives.
--Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis.
--Continue to fully fund contract support costs.
--Support ending the cap on telecommunications connectivity
subsidies.
The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc. (APIA) is a
regional non-profit Tribal organization of the Aleut people of Alaska,
with members consisting of federally recognized Tribes of the Aleutian
Chain and Pribilof Islands Region. APIA is a co-signer to the Alaska
Tribal Health Compact with the IHS under Title V of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), under which APIA
provides a comprehensive range of healthcare services to the Alaska
Natives in the Tribal communities of our Region. APIA also receives
funding through various non-IHS grants and agreements. Our mission in
this remote area of the United States is to promote self-sufficiency
and independence of the Unangan/Unangas; to assist in meeting the
health, safety and well-being needs of each Unangan/Unangas community;
to promote, strengthen and ensure the unity of the Unangan; and to
strengthen and preserve Unangax cultural heritage.
atka clinic replacement
We are requesting funding for a health facility replacement in
Atka, Alaska.
--The Atka health clinic is a Community Health Center operated by
APIA. The clinic serves the entire community of Atka regardless
of race, Tribal affiliation or ability to pay.
--During World War II, Atka Health Clinic was destroyed along with
the entire community by the United States Navy to keep our
enemies from using the area.
--The replacement of the Atka Health Clinic was identified by
community members as high priority during a community planning
session held in 1994 and again during public meetings held
during comprehensive planning sessions held in 2014.
--The City of Atka initially started planning for replacement of the
clinic in 2003. A concept plan that included site selection was
done using a First Alaskans Institute grant and City funds.
--A business plan was approved by the Denali Commission in 2005. The
project was ready for the design phase in 2005.
--Design work was finally started in 2012 and then temporarily halted
in 2013 at 65 percent design complete.
--The City became partners with the Aleutian Pribilof Islands
Association on the project in 2014. Through this partnership it
was determined that the best approach would be to get design
work completed using the funds available.
--In 2015 design work was restarted. Between the concept plan and
design phases the needs of the project changed.
--The City of Atka, APIA, and Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community
Development Association (APICDA) contributed a total of
$128,765 to do design work.
--The total cost of the 3,850 sq. ft. replacement Clinic is
$2,734,926. More than 30 funding request letters have been sent
to potential funders along with a funder's packet detailing the
need for the project.
--The current Atka health clinic is inadequate to provide the care
the community deserves, it is beyond repair and even a simple
window replacement cannot be supported with the existing
structure. It is vulnerable to weather and the life safety
code.
--We are ready to take this project to the next level to finish the
design and begin the construction phase.
--In Unalaska a Joint Venture Construction Project with the IHS was
approved, in which Atka is included in the scope.
--We are specifically requesting support for construction funding in
the amount of $2,734,926
funding for health facilities leases--section 105(l) agreements
Section 105(l) of the ISDEAA provides for fully funded leases used
by Tribes and Tribal organizations for carrying out services under an
ISDEAA agreement. This funding is critical to being able to operate and
maintain health clinics, which have typically been severely
underfunded, to the point that many clinics without having a Section
105(l) lease in place with the IHS are dangerous or unfit for provision
of health services. Many clinics have had to be closed. The Federal
court's decision in Maniilaq Association v. Burwell, 170 F. Supp. 3d
243 (D.D.C. 2016), has thus identified a key source of funding to
remedy these problems. Rather than support this funding, the
administration has again this year asked Congress to amend the ISDEAA
so that it can avoid providing full compensation for Section 105(l)
leases. The proposed bill language seeks to overrule the Maniilaq
decision, in which the court determined that Section 105(l) of the
ISDEAA provides an entitlement to full compensation for leases of
Tribal facilities being used to carry out ISDEAA agreements. We ask the
subcommittees to again treat this year's proposal the same way--decline
to include the administration's proposed language in the fiscal year
2019 IHS appropriations bill.
continue mandatory funding for the special diabetes program for indians
(sdpi)
APIA wishes to extend our appreciation to Congress for
reauthorizing the SDPI through fiscal years 2018 and 2019 at the
mandatory funding level of $150 million each year. Diabetes continues
to be a major epidemic in our Region, but we have made great strides
through SDPI funding toward increased access to prevention and
treatment services.
We understand that despite these and other victories toward
combating diabetes, the President's proposed budget for fiscal year
2019 would change SDPI funding from mandatory appropriations to
discretionary funding. We join with others in Indian Country to ask
that the subcommittees reject that proposal and continue to fund the
SDPI in multi-year authorizations on a mandatory basis. Switching SDPI
funding to a year-to-year discretionary basis could have disastrous
outcomes for our ability to hire professionals and staff, and to plan
for and carry out our diabetes programs. We see no reason to make that
change, and we look forward to continued improved outcomes in our
communities. We also request that the SDPI be made permanent at an
increased funding level of $200 million per year, or higher.
We also ask that the subcommittees continue to fund other programs
under the Department of Health and Human Services that have a direct
impact on the quality of health in our and other Tribal communities
across the country, including health education, Community Health
Representatives, Community Services Block Grants, the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program.
ihs advance appropriations
As in our previous years' testimony, we continue to ask for your
support for placing the IHS budget on an advance appropriation basis,
as Congress has done for the Veterans Administration (VA) health
accounts. This continues to be important to the predictable and timely
funding of healthcare for our Alaska Native and American Indian
patients, particularly in this budget climate of continuing
resolutions. Under advance appropriations, we would know a year in
advance what the budget would be. Without having our full year's
funding secured, and receiving it in bits and pieces over the fiscal
year, it is making it incredibly difficult for us to effectively use
our resources, maintain healthcare professionals and plan for the
future.
full funding of contract support costs (csc)
APIA is very thankful to the subcommittee for its support for full
funding of CSC over the past several fiscal years. We appreciate that
the current and past administrations have supported that CSC be
maintained as a separate appropriations account in IHS and that funding
be indefinite (``such sums are may be necessary''). However, the IHS
has in the past two appropriations cycles requested limiting language
from the fiscal year 2016 Appropriations Act that would deny the CSC
carry-over authority granted by the ISDEAA and would deny CSC for IHS's
grant programs, including the Domestic Violence Prevention grants and
the Substance Abuse and Suicide Prevention grants. We believe this is
contrary to the ISDEAA and ask that Congress again reject the IHS's
proposals in fiscal year 2019.
support usac subsidies for telecommunications connectivity
APIA is very concerned about a development relating to the
subsidies being provided to APIA and other Tribal health providers in
rural Alaska for telecommunications connectivity, including Internet
service, through the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC).
The USAC has recently imposed a pro-rata reduction in Rural Health Care
funding due to a funding cap. This reduction is hitting Alaska very
hard--it has resulted in what we understand is a $50 million cut to
subsidies nationwide, of which $18.1 million is an unplanned shortfall
for connectivity specifically in Alaska for Tribal health programs.
This cut is impacting us right now, and is expected to double next
year. We, like other Alaska Tribal health programs, fear that the
shortage could be more than $35 million next year, all of which has to
be made up out of our healthcare funding and other limited resources.
We need Internet connectivity in order to provide health services,
including telecommunications services and care coordination. We should
not have to cannibalize our healthcare funding for this critical
service, but that is in fact what we are now having to do. We thus
request the subcommittees' support while we advocate with the Federal
Communications Commission for ending these caps and restoring the USAC
subsidies.
We appreciate your consideration of our requests outlined in this
testimony. On behalf of APIA and all of the people we serve, I would be
happy to provide any other additional information as desired by the
subcommittees.
[This statement was submitted by Dimitri Philemonof, President and
CEO.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Alliance to Save Energy
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today in support
of fiscal year 2019 appropriations for ENERGY STAR and other voluntary
programs administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
The Alliance to Save Energy is a non-profit, bipartisan coalition
of business, government, environmental, and consumer-interest leaders
that advocates for enhanced U.S. energy productivity to achieve
economic growth; a cleaner environment; and greater energy security,
affordability, and reliability. The Alliance enjoys the participation
of nearly 130 businesses and organizations that collectively represent
more than $870 billion in market capital. The Alliance was founded in
1977 by Sens. Charles Percy (R-Illinois) and Hubert Humphrey (D-
Minnesota), and today has 15 Members of Congress serving on an Honorary
Board of Advisors, including Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee).
Energy efficiency is our country's greatest energy resource--
creating jobs, stimulating economic activity, enhancing energy
security, lowering harmful emissions, and improving U.S.
competitiveness in global markets. Energy efficiency gains made since
1973 have cut energy waste dramatically to fuel the U.S. economy more
productively. Thanks in part to Federal energy efficiency programs,
including ENERGY STAR and other voluntary programs managed by EPA, the
U.S. today extracts twice as much gross domestic product (GDP) from
each unit of energy we consume when compared to 1980.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 1980, the U.S. consumed 78 quads (quadrillion British
thermal units (BTUs)) while GDP was $6.4 trillion, which produces an
energy productivity ratio of 82.6. This compares to energy productivity
of 176.4 in 2017 (i.e., 96.8 quads and GDP of $17 trillion). Energy
consumption data is from the Energy Information Administration. GDP
(real dollars, 2009) is provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As energy efficiency has increased, so have stable, good-paying
jobs. More than 2.2 million American workers design, manufacture,
install, and repair the devices, appliances, equipment and buildings
that deliver cost-effective savings, representing one-third of the
entire energy-related workforce. Most of these are construction and
manufacturing jobs. In fact, members of the Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies represent about 677,000 Americans
employed in whole or in part in the energy efficiency sector (see Table
1).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) and E4TheFuture, ``Energy
Efficiency Jobs in America,'' December 2016, https://www.e2.org/
energyefficiencyjobs/. Last accessed March 27, 2018.
TABLE 1. ENERGY EFFICIENCY SECTOR JOBS IN STATES REPRESENTED BY SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member State Jobs Member State Jobs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Lisa Murkowski, Alaska............ 8,194 Senator Tom Udall, New Mexico........ 13,554
Chairwoman. Ranking Member.
Senator Lamar Alexander......... Tennessee......... 27,529 Senator Dianne California........ 321,177
Feinstein.
Senator Roy Blunt............... Missouri.......... 38,146 Senator Patrick J. Vermont........... 8,585
Leahy.
Senator Mitch McConnell......... Kentucky.......... 27,278 Senator Jack Reed. Rhode Island...... 8,112
Senator Steve Daines............ Montana........... 6,101 Senator Jon Tester Montana........... 6,101
Senator Shelley Moore Capito.... West Virginia..... 20,506 Senator Jeff Oregon............ 26,755
Merkley.
Senator Marco Rubio............. Florida........... 106,491 Senator Chris Van Maryland.......... 46,724
Hollen.
Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith........ Mississippi....... 8,455
Total Energy Efficiency Sector Jobs: 676,708
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contributions of Federal energy efficiency programs to the long
history of economic, environmental and security benefits to our country
are difficult to overstate. And, notwithstanding the tremendous gains
already made, the opportunities to continue to drive cost-effective
energy efficiency improvements are even greater. Therefore, the
Alliance respectfully urges your support for fiscal year 2019
appropriations at or above current levels for ENERGY STAR and the
following voluntary programs:
energy star
--The Alliance recommends at least $46 million for ENERGY STAR in
fiscal year 2019.
--The Alliance opposes the implementation of a fee-based funding
model for ENERGY STAR, which is unnecessary, and which would
erode the program's integrity.
--ENERGY STAR enjoys brand awareness of more than 90 percent, which
makes it the most widely recognized symbol for energy
efficiency, and is extremely cost-effective. For every extra
dollar Americans invested in energy efficiency under ENERGY
STAR, they reduced their energy bills by an average of $4.50.
Since 1992, managed jointly by EPA and the U.S. Department of
Energy, ENERGY STAR has helped families and businesses save
$430 billion on utility bills, while reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by 2.7 billion metric tons.
--ENERGY STAR serves broad constituencies across every State in the
country, working with over 16,000 partners. ENERGY STAR
includes over 1,800 manufacturing partners of over 70 different
product categories, who sold more than 300 million qualified
products in the U.S. in 2015. About 45 percent of the
commercial building floor space in the U.S. has been
benchmarked for tracking and analyzing energy consumption using
ENERGY STAR's Portfolio Manager. ENERGY STAR also counts more
than 3,100 home builder partners who constructed almost 1.8
million certified new homes since 1995. In 2015, families
living in ENERGY STAR certified homes saved over $625 million
on utility bills, while 89,000 households hired 1,600
contractors to implement improvements and whole-house retrofit
projects with Home Performance with ENERGY STAR. States and 700
utilities across the country--including 45 local sponsors of
Home Performance programs--use ENERGY STAR in their own energy
efficiency programs and rely on it to reliably and affordably
meet their energy needs.
other voluntary programs that promote energy efficiency
--The Alliance recommends at least level funding for Environmental
Programs and Management--Clean Air and--Water Quality
Protection in fiscal year 2019 accompanied by clear direction
to EPA to continue administering its portfolio of voluntary and
partnership programs that encourage energy efficiency practices
in industry and deliver savings across the energy sector.
--The Combined Heat and Power Partnership aims to reduce pollution
from electricity and thermal power generation by working with
industry and other stakeholders to develop new projects.
--The SmartWay Transport Partnership with the freight transportation
industry supports efforts to improve the fuel efficiency of
vehicles. This program has worked with more than 3,500 shippers
and logistics companies to save almost $28 billion in fuel.
--Natural Gas STAR is a partnership with industry that supports the
identification and implementation of technologies that reduce
methane pollution and provides public recognition of high
achievements.
--AgStar promotes the use of biogas recovery systems to reduce
methane emissions from livestock waste.
--WaterSense offers homeowners, consumers, and businesses information
about water-efficient products marked by a recognizable and
trusted label.
--Other programs, such as the State and Local Energy and Environment
Program and the State and Local Energy Efficiency Action
Network, are important collaborations between the public and
private sectors that provide specific and tailored technical
assistance and platforms for sharing information and best-
practices.
national vehicle and fuel emissions laboratory
--The Alliance recommend at least $117 million in Science and
Technology--Clean Air, including at least level funding in
vehicle and fuel standards and in greenhouse gas reporting.
--This laboratory is a global leader that oversees vehicle fuel
economy and emissions testing, which are closely related. The
laboratory manages programs that also address fuel economy
labels, the Green Vehicle Guide, fuel standards, and nonroad
engines.
The Alliance also urges the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies to oppose the inclusion of any bill amendments or
report language that could undermine or prevent EPA from continuing to
successfully manage ENERGY STAR and other voluntary programs.
Furthermore, in light of the recent Government Accountability Office
impoundment finding concerning the Advanced Research Projects Agency-
Energy program, the Alliance recommends clear and direct instructions
to EPA in report language to obligate and expend appropriated funds
consistent with Congressional intent and in a timely manner.\3\ With
respect to ENERGY STAR, the Alliance encourages the subcommittee to
reject the administration's proposal to implement a fee-based mechanism
to fund the program. Similar proposals have been suggested by previous
administrations and repeatedly denied by Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Government Accountability Office, ``Impoundment of the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy Appropriation Resulting from
Legislative Proposals in the President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year
2018,'' B-329092, December 12, 2007, https://www.gao.gov/products/
D18212. Last accessed March 27, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unpredictable energy costs and growing consumer and business demand
make today's investments in energy efficiency ever more vital to
America's economic health and energy security. It is important to
emphasize that ENERGY STAR and these other EPA programs are voluntary
initiatives that work with private-sector partners and support their
efforts to increase business opportunities while reducing energy waste.
The wide-ranging benefits of ENERGY STAR and these other voluntary
programs, realized across the entire U.S. economy and accrued to even
those who do not choose to participate, are worthy of your support in
fiscal year 2019.
Thank you for your consideration.
[This statement was submitted by Daniel Bresette, Vice President
for Policy and Research.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Alliance of Museums
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to submit this testimony. My
name is Laura Lott and I serve as President and CEO of the American
Alliance of Museums (AAM). We urge your support for at least $155
million each in fiscal year 2019 for the National Endowment for the
Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), as well
as sufficient funding for the Smithsonian Institution. We also request
your support for the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), including at
least $55 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), $15
million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) and $25
million to preserve the sites and stories of the Civil Rights Movement.
We request restored funding of $30 million and $4.6 million
respectively for the Save America's Treasures (SAT) and Preserve
America programs.
Before detailing these funding priorities for the museum field, I
want to express my deepest appreciation for the increases enacted in
fiscal year 2018. The additional funds for the NEH, NEA, Smithsonian
Institution and historic preservation activities will enhance museums'
work to enrich their communities and preserve our many heritages. The
subcommittee's choice to make these investments in fiscal year 2018
speaks volumes about its commitment to our Nation's cultural
institutions. AAM remains deeply troubled by continuous proposals from
the Trump administration to slash many of these priorities, and we look
forward to working with you--our bipartisan allies--to reject them.
Representing more than 35,000 individual museum professionals and
volunteers, institutions--including aquariums, art museums, botanic
gardens, children's museums, cultural museums, historic sites, history
museums, maritime museums, military museums, natural history museums,
planetariums, presidential libraries, science and technology centers,
and zoos--and corporate partners serving the museum field, the Alliance
stands for the broad scope of the museum community.
Museums are essential in their communities for many reasons:
--Museums are economic engines and job creators.--According to
Museums as Economic Engines: A National Report, U.S. museums
support more than 726,000 jobs and contribute $50 billion to
the U.S. economy per year. The economic activity of museums
generates more than $12 billion in tax revenue, one-third of it
going to State and local governments. For example, the total
financial impact that museums have on the economy in the State
of Alaska is $280 million, including supporting 3,240 jobs. For
New Mexico it is a $298 million impact supporting 4,934 jobs.
This impact is not limited to cities: more than 25 percent of
museums are in rural areas.
--Museums are key education providers.--Museums spend more than $2
billion yearly on education activities; the typical museum
devotes 75 percent of its education budget to K-12 students,
and museums receive approximately 55 million visits each year
from students in school groups. Children who visited a museum
during kindergarten had higher achievement scores in reading,
math and science in third grade than children who did not,
including children most at risk for delays in achievement.
Also, students who attended a half-day field trip to an art
museum experienced an increase in critical thinking skills,
historical empathy and tolerance. For students from rural or
high-poverty regions, the increase was even more significant.
Museums help teach the State and local curriculum in subjects
ranging from art and science to history, civics, and
government. Museums have long served as a vital resource to
homeschool learners. For the approximately 1.8 million students
who are homeschooled--a population that has increased by 60
percent in the past decade--museums are quite literally the
classroom. It is not surprising that in a 2017 public opinion
survey, 97 percent of respondents agreed that museums were
educational assets in their communities. The results were
statistically identical regardless of political persuasion or
community size.
The National Endowment for the Humanities is an independent Federal
agency created by Congress in 1965. Grants are awarded to nonprofit
educational institutions--including museums, colleges, universities,
archives, and libraries--for educational programming and the care of
collections. NEH supports museums as institutions of learning and
exploration, and as keepers of our cultural, historical, and scientific
heritages that can foster critical dialogues on challenging issues of
our time.
In fiscal year 2017, as a whole, the National Endowment for the
Humanities awarded 743 grants to institutions across the U.S.,
including museums. These grants total $70,644,137.88. NEH also
continued its support for the activities of 56 State humanities
councils in each State and U.S. territory. Many of NEH's divisions and
offices support museums, including:
--NEH's Division of Public Programs offers grants that bring the
ideas and insights of the humanities to life in museums and
other spaces by supporting exhibitions, community
conversations, and place-based history. Additionally, Positions
in the Public Humanities supplements provide professional
development opportunities for new museum professionals.
--NEH's Division of Preservation and Access provides funding to
museums for a variety of efforts--such as audiovisual
preservation, digital preservation and preventive
conservation--to preserve and provide access to our nation's
rich cultural heritage.
--NEH's Division of Education Programs support efforts to bring
educators into museums for intensive summer training programs
on humanities topics.
--NEH's Office of Digital Humanities offers grants to support
innovations in technology at museums, universities, and other
institutions.
--Beginning again in 2018, Challenge Grants will offer matching
grants to support critical capacity building and infrastructure
projects at museums.
In calendar year 2017, 232 NEH-funded permanent and traveling
exhibitions were open around the Nation, providing life-long learning
opportunities to a wide public audience. Humanities councils in every
state and U.S. territory sponsor family literacy programs, speakers'
bureaus, cultural heritage tourism, exhibitions, and live performances.
In 2017, 55 State councils supported 2,222 exhibitions, 185
preservation projects, and 1,585 local history programs, attracting a
total audience of close to 7 million people.
NEH funding has supported museums' work in your communities,
including:
--$360,000 for reinstallation of the Gallery of Alaska in the
University of Alaska's Museum of the North. The funding will
allow the museum to hire an anthropologist, who will visit
Native communities to solicit their input into the gallery
project, as well as consult with a team of humanities scholars.
This funding helped leverage a lead gift of $1 million by
longtime museum supporters and $500,000 from smaller individual
donations.
--$150,000 for the Museum of New Mexico's initiative of cultural and
educational activities designed to increase knowledge and
understanding around the nineteenth-century forced relocation
of Navajo and Mescalero Apache peoples from their homelands to
Fort Sumner, New Mexico.
The National Endowment for the Arts makes art accessible to all and
provides leadership in arts education. Established in 1965, NEA
supports great art in every congressional district. Its grants to
museums help them exhibit, preserve, and interpret visual material
through exhibitions, residencies, publications, commissions, public art
works, conservation, documentation, services to the field, and public
programs.
Since 2010, the National Endowment for the Arts has collaborated
with Blue Star Families and the U.S. Department of Defense on Blue Star
Museums, a program which provides free museum admission to active duty
military and their families all summer long. Each year, more than 2,000
museums participate, reaching on average more than 856,000 military
members and their families.
In 2017, the NEA provided more than 167 awards directly to museums,
totaling more than $5.1 million. Communities' demands on museums
continue to climb, increasing pressure to serve more people with
limited financial and human resources. Receiving a grant from the NEA
confers prestige on supported projects, strengthening museums' ability
to attract matching funds from other public and private funders. On
average, each dollar awarded by the NEA leverages nine dollars from
other sources, resulting in $500 million in matching support in 2016.
The Federal role of the National Endowment for the Arts is uniquely
valuable. No other funder--public or private--funds the arts in every
State and the U.S. territories. Forty percent of NEA's grant funds are
distributed to State arts agencies for re-granting.
NEA funding has supported museums' work in your communities,
including:
--The Anchorage Museum received a $60,000 Creativity Connects grant
to support a series of programs exploring the ecology of the
Artic, in partnership with the University of Alaska Anchorage.
The organizations will work with artists and scientists on
exhibitions, events, and online presentations to engage the
public, conveying the complexity of the northern landscape
through curated experiences.
--The International Folk Art Foundation in Santa Fe, New Mexico
received a $60,000 Art Works grant this year to support an
exhibit featuring folk art from the United States and
international artists. The artists' work may reflect responses
to societal crises, such as war, political instability,
dislocation, and ecological challenges. The exhibit will be
accompanied by artist residencies, lecture, and demonstrations.
In addition to these direct grants, NEA's Arts and Artifacts
Indemnity program also allows museums to apply for Federal indemnity on
major exhibitions, saving them roughly $30 million in insurance costs
every year and making many more exhibitions available to the public--
all at virtually no cost to the American taxpayer.
The Smithsonian Institution comprises some of the most visited
museums in the world. The National Museum of African American History
and Culture has captivated audiences from around the world,
underscoring the power of our national museums to educate and inspire.
We applaud the fiscal year 2018 funding increase and support further
funding increases that would allow these world-class museums to
undertake critical collections care, make needed technology upgrades,
conduct cutting edge research of every type, and increase access for
all.
The Historic Preservation Fund is the funding source of
preservation awards to States, Tribes, local governments, and
nonprofits. State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices carry out
the historic preservation work of the Federal Government on State and
Tribal lands. These duties include making nominations to the National
Register of Historic Places, reviewing impacts of Federal projects,
providing assistance to developers seeking a rehabilitation tax credit,
working with local preservation commissions, and conducting
preservation education and planning. This Federal-State-local
foundation of America's historic preservation program was established
by the National Historic Preservation Act. Historic preservation
programs are not only essential to protecting our many heritages; they
also serve as economic development engines and job creators. We urge
you to provide $55 million for SHPOs and $15 million for THPOs through
the Historic Preservation Fund.
We applaud the fiscal year 2018 restoration of funding for the Save
America's Treasures program, and urge you to fully restore it to $30
million in fiscal year 2019. From 1999 to 2010, total Federal funding
of $315 million for 1,287 Save America's Treasures projects leveraged
an additional $400 million in non-Federal funds, and created more than
16,000 jobs nationwide. These projects protected some of America's most
iconic and endangered artifacts, including Ansel Adams' prints and
negatives, Frank Lloyd Wright structures including Fallingwater, and
the American flag that inspired the Star Spangled Banner. We request
$4.6 million for the Preserve America program, which has not been
funded in recent years.
We also applaud the fiscal year 2018 investment in competitive
grants to preserve the sites and stories of the Civil Rights Movement.
The initial round of grants for this initiative is currently helping
museums and historic sites around the country conserve endangered
structures, document stories, and share resources with the public. We
support fiscal year 2019 funding of $25 million for these Civil Rights
Movement grants.
I want to acknowledge the difficult choices that the subcommittee
faces. I hope that my testimony has made it clear why these priorities
are of critical importance to the nation and will provide a worthwhile
return on investment to the American taxpayer. Thank you again for the
opportunity to submit this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Bird Conservancy
On behalf of American Bird Conservancy and our supporters, please
support effective bird conservation programs, and oppose harmful policy
riders and proposed funding cuts in the fiscal year 2019 Interior
Appropriations bill that would erode the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
and undermine the recovery of listed U.S. birds. We are particularly
concerned about the declining conservation status of one-third of all
U.S. migratory bird species, and the ESA listing exemption, proposed
budget cuts, and renewed threats to the Greater Sage-Grouse. We greatly
appreciate that proposed funding cuts for the conservation of
critically endangered birds in Hawaii were not agreed to in the fiscal
year 2018 agreement, and that State of the Birds Activities was
increased to $3 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------
--LPlease Increase the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act to
$6.5 million.
--LPlease Increase Migratory Bird Joint Ventures to $19.9 million.
--LPlease Continue State of the Birds Activities for Critically
Endangered Hawaiian Birds.
--LPlease Oppose Cuts to Endangered Species and Sage Grouse
Conservation.
--LPlease Oppose Harmful Environmental Policy Changes.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE INCREASE FUNDING FOR THE NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION
ACT
Since 2002, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA)
has functioned as a matching grant program to fund projects that
conserve neotropical migratory birds--those that breed in or migrate
through the United States and Canada and spend the non-breeding season
in Latin America and the Caribbean. NMBCA has helped conserve 400
species, representing more than 4 billion birds, including some of the
most endangered birds in North America. All NMBCA grant requests must
be matched with non-Federal funds at least 3 to 1, and to date, the
match has been 4 to 1. Please support increasing NMBCA to $6.5 million.
PLEASE INCREASE FUNDING FOR MIGRATORY BIRD JOINT VENTURES
Migratory Bird Joint Ventures are regional partnerships managed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that identify conservation
priorities and carry out projects to reverse population declines of at-
risk bird species. The Joint Ventures (JVs) are essential to address
the conservation needs of migratory birds, and they leverage
significant matching contributions from partner organizations and
foundations. Since the program's inception in 1986, Joint Ventures have
conserved over 22 million acres of critical habitat for wildlife and
people and leveraged 34 dollars of support for every Federal dollar
spent. We urge that the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures be fully funded
at $19.9 million.
PLEASE INCREASE ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY FUNDING
The administration's fiscal year 2019 budget request would
significantly set back the protection and recovery of endangered
species. The budget proposes to cut the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's Ecological Services program by $26.6 million. Among the
conservation cuts include -$2.975 million for Gulf Coast Restoration,
-$1.48 million for the Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystem, and -$2.88 million
for Candidate Conservation. While some funds have been added to
Recovery, new rules to downgrade or delist are not a high conservation
priority given the restoration and recovery needs of other listed
species.
The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund is proposed
for elimination, and State and Tribal Wildlife Grants are severely cut.
A $53 million dollar reduction to Cooperative Endangered Species and a
$30 million cut to State Wildlife Grants would greatly reduce the
proactive conservation and restoration work being undertaken by States
and private landowners.
Seventy-eight percent of mainland birds listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA have populations that are now stable,
increasing, or have recovered enough to be delisted, according to a
2016 report published by ABC. The Endangered Species Act: A Record of
Success analyzed population trends and recovery success for all U.S.
listed birds, including those in the Hawaiian Islands and U.S.
territories. Added ESA funding can help continue the upward trend of 41
listed U.S. bird populations and make possible their eventual recovery.
Please reverse these proposed cuts to ESA Recovery and other
programs that support habitat restoration and the recovery of
endangered species. Given the large number of listed birds with
recovery population numbers, it makes sense to continue that trend by
bolstering ESA Recovery.
PLEASE CONTINUE STATE OF THE BIRDS ACTIVITIES FOR CRITICALLY ENDANGERED
HAWAIIAN BIRDS
We are particularly concerned about the proposed -$2.483 million
cut to State of the Birds Activities which have been dedicated to
arresting the bird extinction crisis in Hawaii. Please support
continuing these funds which were increased to $3 million in the fiscal
year 2018 agreement.
More than 90 Hawaiian bird species have become extinct, and nine
listed Hawaiian bird species are currently in decline. This prompted
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide $2.5 million in annual
State of the Birds Activities funding since 2009, but that funding is
now at risk. $5 million per year is needed to fully fund ESA recovery
funding for Hawaiian birds.
GREATER SAGE-GROUSE CONSERVATION AT RISK
Greater Sage-Grouse conservation was also supported in the fiscal
year 2018 budget agreement and proposed cuts to the Bureau of Land
Management's conservation efforts were not approved. However, a rider
since 2014 prevents the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from taking any
steps to list the sage-grouse under the ESA. In September 2015, listing
the Greater Sage-Grouse was found to be not warranted for listing due
to Federal management plans that have reduced threats to sage-grouse.
Those plans are now at risk of being weakened under a new process
initiated by the Department of the Interior, yet this ESA rider would
prevent a listing for sage grouse, even if this species slips even
closer to extinction. Please restore the ESA safety net for Greater
Sage-Grouse.
PLEASE OPPOSE HARMFUL POLICY CHANGES
Please oppose species-specific exemptions or the inclusion of any
amendments or following bills that would weaken the Endangered Species
Act. H.R. 717 would undermine the ESA listing process by factoring in
economic considerations now only considered during the designation of
critical habitat. It would also remove deadlines necessary to ensure
petitions are ruled on in a timely fashion. H.R. 1274 would direct the
Federal Government to utilize State and local data in its listing
decisions, regardless of whether the data is based in science, and H.R.
3131 would undercut citizen enforcement of the ESA by impeding
citizens' ability to obtain counsel and challenge government actions.
We are also concerned about forestry riders that would limit or
eliminate opportunities for public involvement and scientific analysis
in Federal forest management decisions. Use of categorical exclusions
for large-scale logging projects is inappropriate due to impacts to
wildlife habitat, water quality, recreational access, and carbon
storage.
We urge you to support conserving birds by increasing funding for
the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Migratory Bird Joint
Ventures, and ESA Recovery, and opposing all harmful anti-wildlife
measures and cuts to ESA recovery efforts on spending legislation for
fiscal year 2019. Thank you for considering these requests. Please
contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Steve Holmer
Vice President of Policy
American Bird Conservancy
[email protected]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Forest Foundation
The American Forest Foundation (AFF), a non-profit conservation
organization, works with the over 21 million family forest owners who
own more than 282 million acres nationally, to help them sustainably
manage their land and provide countless public benefits to rural
communities across America. In fiscal year 2019, AFF urges the
subcommittee to support funding levels for the Forest Service's State
and Private Forestry programs at levels sufficient to support robust
action. Understanding that these partnership programs are essential to
helping family woodland owners, whose lands cover one-third of
America's forests, conserve and manage their lands to provide the
numerous public benefits forests produce. Maintenance of these programs
will help family forest owners adequately prepare for increasing
threats and save landowners, communities, and industries from expensive
restoration in the future.
Because America's forests are both public and privately owned in a
patchwork across the rural landscape, strategies to grow jobs,
strengthen rural economies, and protect forests from threats like
wildfire must take a ``shared stewardship'' approach where both public
and private landowners are working to manage our national forest
resources. Family forest owners want to manage their land well,
contribute to this shared stewardship and continue to provide these
benefits and address important threats, but they need partners who are
also willing to act to ensure the landscape remains well cared for.
While there are many programs in the Forest Service that co-invest
in stewardship with family forest owners, because of their effects on
forest conservation, we especially call on the Subcommittee to support:
--$83 million for the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program
--$27 million for the Forest Products Laboratory
--$29 million for the Forest Stewardship Program
--$23 million for the Landscape Scale Restoration Program
--$5 million for the Community Wood Energy Program
forest inventory and analysis program (fia)
Known as ``America's Forest Census'', the Forest Inventory and
Analysis Program (FIA) provides State forestry and resource
professionals with detailed information on the conditions of their
State's forest land across all ownerships. Conducted since the 1930s,
FIA is crucially important in understanding and planning for the unique
needs and challenges of forests nationwide. Adequate funding in this
program is critical to addressing future resource and forest health
management challenges. We urge your support of $83 million in fiscal
year 2019 appropriations to fund this vital resource for forest
managers.
forest products laboratory
One of the largest challenges to private forestland management is a
lack of markets for wood products, especially markets for low-value
timber. The Forest Products Laboratory, through research partnerships
in nearly all States, conducts groundbreaking research into innovative
uses for wood and wood products. This research into innovative wood and
fiber utilization directly supports the conservation of forestlands by
spurring private-sector markets for wood and driving down the cost of
management on all lands--private, State, Federal, and Tribal. In past
years, funding for the Forest Products Laboratory has been repeatedly
decreased, and we urge the subcommittee to support a restoration of
full funding at the $27 million level in fiscal year 2019.
forest stewardship program (fsp)
A cooperative project with State forestry agencies, the Forest
Stewardship Program assists private landowners with the management of
non-Federal forests to increase buffer zones and overall resilience of
Federal forests in combating cross-boundary challenges like insects,
disease, and wildfire. Not only does this program save the taxpayer
millions of dollars by mitigating these impacts on Federal lands, but
the program is a crucial component of an overall strategy of keeping
forests as forests by encouraging private forest landowners to develop
comprehensive management plans and assisting them along the way. We
request the subcommittee support an appropriation of $29 million to
support the Forest Stewardship Program in fiscal year 2019.
landscape scale restoration program
The Landscape Scale Restoration program (LSR) is a shining example
of a shared stewardship approach to management that works across
ownership boundaries to ensure targeted action on forest challenges.
Underpinned by State Forest Action Plans, and built on the
collaboration of State and local agencies, LSR targets limited State
and Federal resources on the same landscapes, ensuring the maximum
effectiveness on landscape-scale challenges. The LSR program has
already demonstrated powerful State-wide, regional, and national
effectiveness, and we strongly encourage the subcommittee to support a
fiscal year 2019 funding level of $23 million.
community wood energy program (cwep)
The Community Wood Energy Program addresses critical needs for
forest landowners and State and local governments. Designed to provide
matching grants to State and local governments to acquire community
wood energy systems for public buildings, the program encourages the
use of carbon-neutral forest biomass in heating and energy production
in areas without affordable access to fuels. It also encourages the
development of markets for otherwise low-value timber cleared from
responsibly managed lands. Created in the 2008 Farm Bill, the Community
Wood Energy Program was authorized at $5 million per year, an amount we
encourage the committee to support in fiscal year 2019.
Thank you for considering these requests. We recognize that the
subcommittee must find areas to reduce spending, but we hope that the
subcommittee will consider the impact these reductions have on millions
of family forest owners, along with all other Americans who benefit
from well-managed, working forests. The American Forest Foundation
would also like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to
provide insight into the value of these programs and appreciate
consideration of our testimony. If you have any questions, please
contact Tristan Daedalus at [email protected] or Rita Hite
at [email protected].
[This statement was submitted by Tom Martin, President and CEO.]
______
Prepared Statement of American Forests
Dear Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Honorable
Committee Members:
American Forests appreciates the opportunity to submit public
testimony regarding our fiscal year 2019 appropriation recommendations.
We sincerely thank the subommittee for the fiscal year 2018
appropriation levels and for the comprehensive wildfire suppression
funding fix. These combined actions have put our Nation's forests in a
strong position for restoration, resiliency and recovery. American
Forests' funding recommendations are modestly above the fiscal year
2018 enacted levels.
Founded in 1875, American Forests is the oldest national nonprofit
conservation organization in the United States. Its mission is to
inspire and advance the conservation of forests, which are essential
for life. We do this by protecting and restoring threatened forest
ecosystems, promoting and expanding urban forests, and increased the
understanding of the importance of forests. American Forests has
planted more than 50 million trees in thousands of forest restoration
projects and works in cities across the country helping to increase
urban forest canopy, demonstrating innovative greenspace creation.
The Nation's forests yield a significant return on investment,
whether those forests are public or private, in urban areas or in
wildlands. The economic, social, and environmental benefits healthy
forests provide are clear incentives for continued Federal investment.
Forests and forest products currently sequester and store 13 percent of
annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The trend, for now, is up--U.S.
EPA reports that land-based sequestration has increased 13.5 percent in
the past decade. It is important to maintain this important resource by
addressing rising threats to forest health and slowing forest
conversion to non-forest uses. We can take steps to protect and
increase this carbon benefit, and accelerate the ability of U.S.
forests to provide a sustained level of climate mitigation service to
the Nation. Many of these same investments are leveraged to strengthen
the resiliency of the Nation's forests and thus protect additional
public services beyond carbon such as watersheds, wildlife habitat,
recreational resources and economic prosperity for rural and urban
communities.
Respectfully, we ask you to reject the drastic cuts proposed in the
President's fiscal year 2019 budget. We are deeply concerned by the
zeroing out of important and effective programs like Urban and
Community Forestry, Landscape Scale Restoration, Community Forests and
Open Space Conservation, and Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration. Defunding or severely cutting these programs will have
profound and lasting repercussions on people and communities across the
country--particularly those in rural areas where these funds are
essential.
usda forest service (usfs)
State and Private Forestry
Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF): U&CF plays an integral part in
promoting sound stewardship of our Nation's urban and community forests
and trees. By providing important technical and financial support, U&CF
helps cities and towns across the Nation enhance tree and forest cover,
prepare for storms and other disturbance events, contain threats from
native and invasive pests, and maximize the economic, social, and
ecological benefits of their tree resources. U&CF is a smart investment
as Federal support is often leveraged 2:1 (or in many cases
significantly more) by States and partner organizations. As a model
Federal program, U&CF consistently increases communities served, brings
together diverse partners and resources, and shows that Federal
investment can have lasting impacts on communities of all sizes.
American Forests recommends U&CF be funded at $31.3 million.
Landscape-Scale Restoration: The Landscape Scale Restoration
program strategically prioritizes resources by competitively allocating
the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act funds. It focuses on targeting
Federal investments --leveraged by State funding resources-- to areas
of greatest need, highest value, or strongest innovation potential as
stipulated in each State Forest Action Plan. American Forests
recommends funding the Landscape Scale Restoration program at $23
million.
Community Forests and Open Space Conservation Program (CFP): CFP
has made substantial progress in preserving forests by increasing
opportunities for Americans to connect with forests in their own
communities and fostering new public-private partnerships. It provides
financial assistance grants to local governments, Tribes, and qualified
nonprofit organizations to acquire and establish working community
forests that provide public benefits. Projects are selected through a
competitive process that evaluates community benefits, contribution to
landscape conservation initiatives, and likelihood of land conversion.
American Forests recommends an increase in funds to $5 million in
fiscal year 2019.
Forest Health Management: The Forest Health Management programs
provide essential expertise and assistance to State and municipal
agencies and private landowners in countering non-native pests.
Municipal governments across the country are spending more than $3
billion each year to remove trees on city property killed by these non-
native pests. Homeowners are spending an additional $1 billion to
remove and replace trees on their properties and are absorbing an
additional $1.5 billion in reduced property values. American Forests
asks that the Subcommittee appropriate $59 million for Federal lands
and $48 million for cooperative lands.
Forest Legacy Program: Since authorization in 1990, the Forest
Legacy Program has protected 2.8 million acres of private forests
through voluntary conservation easements. It is imperative to continue
protecting our Nation's forests for future generations. Although still
in private ownership, these lands provide a myriad of ecosystem
services to Americans today. American Forests supports $70 million
allocated through the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
National Forest System
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP): CFLRP
was created to promote job stability, a reliable wood supply, and
forest health while reducing emergency wildfire costs and risks. Given
the program's well-documented success improving forest health and
safety, a permanent extension of CFLRP is essential. Continued and
increased funding levels would allow for additional projects to be
selected across the country while capitalizing on the growing energy
and successes of collaborative management and shared stewardship. By
extending CFLRP to new forests and communities, we can affect
meaningful economic and environmental change that addresses the
critical needs of our Federal forests and sustains the values and
resources we all depend upon. We urge Congress to act today to
permanently extend the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Program. CFLRP was funded at $40 million in fiscal year 2018; to expand
the demonstrated success and buying power of this program we recommend
an increase to at least $60 million per year.
Vegetation Management & Watershed Management: Reforestation of our
national forests, especially after destructive wildfires, should be a
priority not just for the U.S. Forest Service, but for the country.
Nearly 9 million acres of national forests have burned since 2010.
Estimated costs for reforesting just 1 million acres is $371.4 million.
Putting trees back in the ground needs to be on par with the level of
funding for forest products, as you cannot have one without the other.
American Forests recommends $366 million for vegetation management,
equal to the fiscal year 2018 enacted level for forest products.
Forest and Rangeland Research
The USFS's Forest and Rangeland Research program is essential in
providing support for urban and wildland forestry research activities.
These focus on understanding conditions and trends in our Nation's
urban and community forests and in providing tools and best management
practices. Agency researchers help policymakers and practitioners to
understand the environmental, economic, and social services that trees
and forests provide. We urge the subcommittee to continue including
language in Interior Appropriations reports encouraging the Forest
Service to maintain a strong and vibrant urban forest research program.
American Forests requests funding for the Forest and Rangeland Research
line item at $303 million with $83 million allocated to the Forest
Inventory Analysis.
bureau of land management (blm)
Public Domain Forest Management: The BLM is entrusted with the
management of 58 million acres of forests and woodlands across 12
western States, including Alaska. 14 million acres--or 24 percent--of
BLM forests are overstocked, increasing insect and disease attacks and
catastrophic wildfire. Increased funding to address these serious risks
is necessary across all land management agencies. American Forests
supports $10.08 million for the forests managed by the Bureau.
fish and wildlife service (fws)
Ecological Services: Ecological Services achieves conservation of
FWS trust resources, focusing on imperiled species, and works closely
with external partners and agencies for the conservation of natural
resources across the landscape. The Ecological Services Program
facilitates implementation of the Endangered Species Act. American
Forests supports $252.29 million for Ecological Services.
National Wildlife Refuge System: The National Wildlife Refuge
System, with 566 refuges covering more than 150 million acres across
the country, is vital to protecting America's wildlife and ensuring
that their habitats are a priority. Refuges are visited by more than 53
million people each year, contribute more than $4.5 billion to the
economy, and support at least 35,000 jobs. Investment in the Refuge
system is an investment in our communities. With over 100 refuges
within 25 miles of major population centers, the Refuge System is a
vital component of our urban forests, as well. American Forests
supports $508.20 million.
environmental protection agency (epa)
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF): Green infrastructure is a
cost-effective and resilient approach to stormwater infrastructure
needs that also provide many other community benefits. American Forests
supports EPA's goal of strengthening green infrastructure activities to
further its sustainability goals. American Forests requests that not
less than 20 percent the CWSRF funding be made available for green
infrastructure or environmentally innovative projects that promote
watershed protection, restoration and build community resilience.
legislative language requests
Land and Water Conservation Fund
American Forests supports the permanent authorization of full and
dedicated funding, without further appropriation or fiscal year
limitation, for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). LWCF
programs protect natural resource lands, outdoor recreation
opportunities, and working forests at the local, State and Federal
levels. This program ensures that these important lands are protected
for current and future generations. American Forests supports permanent
authorization of $900 million in mandatory funding for LWCF programs in
the Departments of Interior and Agriculture.
[This statement was submitted by Rebecca Turner, Senior Director of
Programs and Policy.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a non-profit, non-partisan
scientific society, appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony
regarding the fiscal year 2019 budget request for the United States
Geological Survey (USGS). The AGU, on behalf of its 60,000 Earth and
space scientist members, respectfully requests Congress to appropriate
$1.2 billion for the USGS. Restoring strong funding to USGS will allow
the agency to sustain current programs and invest in geologic,
environmental, and ecological data needed by decision makers across the
country.
USGS is uniquely positioned to provide informed responses to many
of our Nation's greatest challenges and has a mission that positively
impacts the lives of all Americans. The Survey plays a crucial role in
assessing water quality and quantity; reducing risks from natural
hazards; providing emergency responders with live-saving data;
assessing mineral and energy resources; and managing our Nation's
ecosystems. Through its offices across the country, the USGS provides
high-quality research and data to policymakers, emergency responders,
natural resource managers, civil and environmental engineers,
educators, and the public. A few examples of the USGS' valuable work
are provided below.
monitoring and evaluating water quality
The Survey collects information on water availability and quality
to inform the public and decision makers about the status and history
of freshwater resources. During the past 130 years, the USGS has
collected streamflow data at over 21,000 sites, water-level data at
over 1,000,000 wells, and chemical data at over 338,000 surface-water
and groundwater sites. This information is needed to effectively manage
freshwaters--both above and below the land surface--for public,
agricultural, commercial, recreational, and ecological purposes.
predicting and observing natural hazards
The USGS works to reduce risks from floods, wildfires, earthquakes,
tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and other natural hazards
that jeopardize human lives and cost billions of dollars in damages
every year. Seismic networks and hazard analysis are used to formulate
earthquake probabilities and to establish building codes. The USGS
monitors volcanoes and provides warnings about impending eruptions that
are used by aviation officials to prevent planes from flying into
volcanic ash clouds. Data from the USGS network of streamgages enable
the National Weather Service to issue flood and drought warnings. The
bureau and its Federal partners monitor seasonal wildfires and provide
maps of current fire locations and the potential spread of fires. In
domestic and global events, emergency managers and public officials
rely on the USGS to inform them of risks and hazards posed to human and
natural systems.
mapping and assessing mineral and energy resources
The 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 USGS also
maps domestic supplies of rare earth elements to be used in new energy
technologies, which can reduce dependence on foreign oil. The USGS is
the sole Federal source of information on mineral potential,
production, and consumption.
supporting and informing land management
The USGS plays a critical role in informing sound management of
natural resources on Federal and State lands. The Survey conducts
research and monitoring of fish, wildlife, and vegetation--data that
informs management decisions by other Interior bureaus regarding
protected species and land use. Ecosystems research is also used to
control invasive species and wildlife diseases that would otherwise
cause billions of dollars in economic losses. The Survey provides
information for resource managers as they develop strategies for
restoration and long-term use of the Nation's natural resources in the
face of environmental change.
collecting and assessing data
Research and data collected by the USGS is vital to predicting the
impacts of land use and climate change on water resources, wildfires,
and ecosystems. For 44 straight years, 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 on communities and the
environment and monitor global agriculture production. A 2013 National
Research Council study found that the economic benefit of Landsat data
was estimated to be $2 billion for 2011 alone. The consistency of data
sets like those provided by Landsat is vital for advances in science,
more efficient natural resource management, and profitable applications
of data in commerce and industry.
developing and providing mapping for the nation
The USGS utilizes unique technologies that enable the nationwide
collection of accurate terrain information. This information improves
our knowledge of water supply and quality issues; better prepares
emergency responders for natural disasters; and provides businesses
with more accurate data. Modernized, high-resolution topographic maps
are provided by the USGS through their 3D Elevation Program (3DEP).
3DEP leverages funds from the private sector and other Federal Agencies
throughout the U.S. The initiative provides open-access elevation data
for a wide variety of users. From better flood-inundation maps, to
cost-effective precision farming, to the development of renewable
energy projects, 3DEP data supports cutting edge resource management
and energy projects.
maintaining and evaluating public health
The USGS helps to maintain public health at the local, State, and
national level. By monitoring changes in ecosystem and environmental
health, the Survey can evaluate human susceptibility to contaminants,
pathogens, and environmental disease. This unique perspective into the
intersection between the physical environment, living environment, and
human allows the USGS to provide valuable insight regarding public
health concerns. For example, the agency assesses negative health
effects caused by the dispersion of contaminants after natural and man-
made disasters, such as hurricanes and oil spills. In one such
instance, after Hurricane Sandy, the USGS provided soil, water, and
sediment information to public health agencies to help them protect
citizens from toxic contaminants.
engaging the next generation of scientists
The USGS meets monthly with other Department of Interior (DOI)
divisions to collaborate on projects that will engage the next
generation of scientists. Collectively, the DOI is actively working to
provide at least 10 million students with educational, work, and
training opportunities. In 2015, the USGS offered learning
opportunities to 113,375 students and teachers in activities such as
science fairs, mentoring opportunities, camps, and hands-on learning
experiences. Programs such as the USGS' Cooperative Research Units
(CRU) provide under-represented undergraduate students with mentoring
and hands-on experience designed as a pathway to DOI recruitment.
conclusion
While AGU was very pleased to see that USGS received a 6 percent
funding increase in the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus, USGS has been
historically strained by a large workload and too few resources. As we
face unprecedented challenges, such as demand for limited energy,
vulnerability to natural hazards, and the need for clean water,
continued substantial funding increases are needed for USGS to maximize
support for the Nation's economic, environmental, and national
security.
AGU respectfully requests that Congress appropriate $1.2 billion
for USGS in fiscal year 2019. We appreciate the opportunity to submit
this testimony to the subcommittee and thank you for your thoughtful
consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geosciences Institute
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the perspective of the
American Geosciences Institute (AGI) on fiscal year 2019 appropriations
for geoscience-related programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
AGI applauds Congress for successfully negotiating and passing the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2018. We are grateful to the Members of Congress and congressional
staff who crafted this significant legislation. The fiscal year 2018
appropriations bill creates a robust baseline for future budgets, and
we encourage the administration to obligate all appropriated funds.
To strengthen the Nation's economy, public safety, and national
security, AGI requests sustained funding increases for geoscience
agencies. Specifically, we ask the subcommittee to support $1.2 billion
for the United States Geological Survey (USGS), $1.2 billion for
Management of Lands and Resources at the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), $190 million for the Bureau of Offshore Energy Management
(BOEM), $190 million for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE), $8.1 billion for the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), $1.1 billion for the Smithsonian Institution, and $3.2
billion for the National Park Service (NPS).
The next frontier lies under our feet. We know relatively little
about the 2 miles of the Earth's crust immediately below the surface,
even though we rely heavily on it for many of our energy, mineral, and
water supplies; we use it as a disposal site for waste products; and it
is the source of damaging earthquake and volcanic hazards. Scientific
and technological innovations now equip us to characterize the
subsurface, identify the wealth that may lie in the shallow subsurface,
and better prepare for and mitigate natural hazards. AGI suggests a
coordinated national effort to examine and characterize the shallow
subsurface of the country to support wise development of the Earth and
its resources.
AGI is a nonprofit federation of 52 scientific and professional
associations representing approximately 260,000 geoscientists across
the Nation who work in industry, academia, and government. Founded in
1948 under a directive of the National Academy of Sciences, AGI
provides information services to geoscientists, serves as a voice of
shared interests in our profession, plays a major role in strengthening
geoscience education, and strives to increase public awareness of the
vital role the geosciences play in society's use of resources,
resilience to natural hazards, and the health of the environment.
u.s. geological survey
AGI supports $1.2 billion for the USGS to support the agency's
scientific mission. We recommend a balanced portfolio of research,
monitoring, and assessment, including geologic mapping, geophysics,
geochemistry, and minerals information functions to support responsible
decisions about the Nation's earth, land, and water resources.
Strengthen core geoscience functions at USGS: The need for
geological information has not diminished since USGS was established in
1879. On the contrary, as we place increasing demands on Earth's
system, many critical decisions rely on accurate and publicly
available, geoscience information. While there is merit to USGS's broad
remit, its unique geological mission should be paramount. The proposed
Three Dimensional mapping and Economic Empowerment Program (3DEEP),
would improve the topographic, geological, and geophysical mapping of
the country. This fundamental step in characterizing the Nation's
surface and subsurface would create new jobs at State geological
surveys and in the private sector. AGI supports the President's request
for $10.6 million in new funds for 3DEEP, in addition to maintaining
current investment in key USGS programs.
Invest in long-term data collection and analysis: USGS is renowned
for the quality and consistency of its long-term data collection and
analysis. The financial, intelligence, emergency response,
agricultural, policy, and commercial sectors depend on this impartial,
reliable flow of information to identify short-term and long-term
trends in key indicators. Landsat, a series of Earth-observing
satellites, represents the world's largest archive of continuously
collected land remote sensing data. The USGS collects a vital range of
information: from stream gages monitoring water flow across the U.S. to
the National Minerals Information Center tracking the global supply and
flow of mineral materials. The Nation cannot afford any disruption in
the continuity and quality of these programs and we urge Congress to
invest in the infrastructure and staffing needed to maintain long-term
data collection and analysis programs at USGS.
Optimize USGS facilities: Aging infrastructure is a significant
factor affecting the sustainability of the USGS. We are grateful to the
Committees for recognizing these much needed facility improvements and
providing increased funding for deferred maintenance in fiscal year
2018. AGI supports additional fiscal year 2019 funding for USGS
Facilities to maintain essential monitoring, observation, and
analytical instrumentation to best serve the agency's mission.
Investing in USGS infrastructure now will increase efficiency and yield
considerable savings in the future.
Core Science Systems:
The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP) is an
important, decades-long partnership between the USGS, State geological
surveys, and universities that has a proven track record of delivering
cost-effective geological maps. AGI asks that Congress increase funding
for NCGMP to $30 million in fiscal year 2019 to meet growing demand
from many sectors.
AGI also requests sustained funding at $67.9 million for the
National Geospatial Program. Topographic mapping has been a core
activity at USGS since its inception, and we strongly support the 3D
Elevation Program (3DEP) interagency partnership to build a modern
elevation map of the Nation's territories using LIDAR and IFSAR
technologies.
We urge Congress to reject the President's request to cut funding
for the USGS Libraries by almost 50 percent, which would drastically
curtail access to this key resource and driver of economic development.
Please protect the USGS Libraries from becoming a dark archive and
maintain funding at $6 million for these vital collections.
Natural Hazards:
Natural disasters and hazards can cause substantial damage
throughout the Nation, but, with the right information, communities can
take preventative action to avoid and mitigate potential impacts. The
USGS earthquake and volcano hazards programs, plus the agency's work on
geomagnetism and coastal and marine geology, provide vital information
and tools that strengthen resilience to hazards and ensure the security
and prosperity of the Nation. AGI echoes the Committee's concern about
landslide risk to local communities, and recommends increased
investment in the USGS landslide program. AGI supports robust funding
of at least $179 million for the Natural Hazards mission area for its
research and efforts that help protect our communities and citizens and
reduce the human and financial toll of hazards.
Energy, Minerals, & Environmental Health:
USGS minerals and mapping programs provide the baseline geologic
information needed to stimulate and target renewed interest in domestic
mineral resources. Funding these programs will support national defense
and economic priorities. In addition, we believe the President's
proposal to eliminate the Environmental Health mission area,
transferring only a small fraction of its work to other programs, is
regrettable; therefore, we encourage Congress to continue funding this
program which conducts important research on the effects of
contaminants and toxic substances on our water and environment. AGI
supports the President's request for $85 million for Mineral and Energy
Resources, in addition to the proposed new funding for the 3DEEP
initiative, plus continued investment of $21 million for Environmental
Health.
Land Resources:
One of the most fundamental concepts of the geosciences is that the
Earth changes through time. The importance of long-term, consistent
monitoring of the Earth to provide a sound basis for decisionmaking
cannot be overstated. AGI supports increased funding in fiscal year
2019 for Land Resources, which includes Landsat and other Earth
observing systems, and we commend Congress for its decision to continue
funding climate research and monitoring programs at fiscal year 2017
enacted levels in the fiscal year 2018 appropriations bill.
Water Resources:
Drought and challenges in water supply and water quality highlight
the importance of understanding the quality, quantity, and distribution
of our groundwater and surface water resources. AGI urges Congress to
ensure the continuity and expansion of nationwide, long-term data
collection and research programs that support water planning and
decisionmaking across all States, and to fund Water Resources at $218
million in fiscal year 2019.
bureau of land management
The fiscal year 2019 budget includes $137.2 million to strengthen
overall program capacity, improve management, and expedite permitting
to facilitate increased environmentally responsible energy development.
AGI supports efforts by the Energy and Minerals Management program to
modernize its data systems and administrative processes. The BLM needs
staff with appropriate skills to carry out energy and minerals
inspections, data collection and analysis, and administration. AGI
supports funding BLM's Management of Lands and Resources at $1.2
billion, including Energy and Minerals activities at $175 million, and
we urge investment in BLM's workforce to ensure efficient technical and
administrative service.
bureaus of ocean energy management & safety and environmental
enforcement
AGI requests $175 million for BOEM, and $190 million for BSEE. AGI
supports the efforts of these bureaus to ensure responsible, science-
informed management and sustainable, safe production of the Nation's
energy and mineral resources. In order to administer and oversee
offshore energy development effectively and efficiently, BOEM and BSEE
need sufficient, appropriately-skilled staff. AGI recommends continued
investment in workforce development to avoid delays in the functioning
of both bureaus.
environmental protection agency
We request that Congress consider the value of the EPA science
programs, especially their value to States, Tribes, partners, and grant
recipients, when making budget decisions. EPA provides many benefits to
the Nation, and we support funding of $8.1 billion for the agency.
smithsonian institution
The Smithsonian Institution not only cultivates world-class
artifacts, but also conducts notable research at its facilities, which
support thousands of employees and STEM (science, technology,
engineering and mathematics) training opportunities. The National
Museum of Natural History (NMNH) plays a multifaceted role in
communicating the excitement of the geosciences to the public, and
enhancing knowledge through research, education, and the sharing of
geoscience collections. We thank Congress for their commitment to
protecting the Nation's scientific, historic, and cultural treasures
with increased investment in the Smithsonian Institution in fiscal year
2018, and gratefully ask for continued support in fiscal year 2019. AGI
supports $1.1 billion for the Smithsonian Institution, with $49.8
million for the NMNH.
national park service
National parks showcase and protect the unique geologic heritage of
our country and offer unparalleled opportunities for scientific
research, education, and outdoor recreation activities. AGI supports
$3.2 billion for the NPS, and we note its significant role in educating
students and the general public about all aspects of Earth and human
history. We also applaud the subcommittee's investment in fiscal year
2018 to address the construction backlog, maintenance, and funding for
new park units.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to the
subcommittee. If you have questions or would like additional
information for the record, please contact Anna Normand at
[email protected], or 4220 King Street, Alexandria, VA
22302-1502.
[This statement was submitted by Allyson K. Anderson Book,
Executive Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
request summary
On behalf of the Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs),
which collectively are the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
(AIHEC), thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2019
appropriations recommendations for the 29 colleges funded under Titles
I and II of the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities
Assistance Act (Tribal College Act); the two tribally chartered career
and technical postsecondary institutions (Tribal College Act, Title V);
the two Bureau of Indian Education postsecondary institutions; and the
Institute of American Indian Arts (IAIA). The Bureau of Indian
Education administers each of these programs, with the exception of
IAIA, which is congressionally chartered and funded in its own account.
The following is a list of recommended funding levels:
department of the interior
--$86,354,000 to fund institutional operations under Titles I
($68,544,000) and II ($17,009,000), TCU Endowments ($109,000)
and technical assistance ($701,000) authorized in the Tribally
Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978, or
Tribal College Act, which would fund 29 TCUs at the authorized
level for the first time in 40 years and provide an additional
$100,000, for increasingly needed technical assistance. The
technical assistance program has been level funded for 13 years
despite growing demands for assistance for developing TCUs.
--$10,000,000 for Title V of the Tribal College Act, which provides
partial institutional operations funding for two tribally
chartered postsecondary career and technical institutions.
--$9,960,000 for the Institute of American Indian Arts.
--$25,000,000 for Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern
Indian Polytechnic Institute, the Bureau of Indian Education's
two postsecondary institutions.
--$31,000,000 for TCU Infrastructure Improvement, authorized under
section 113 of the Tribal College Act.
opportunity and innovation in indian country
Tribal Colleges and Universities are essential to success in
American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) education. Currently, 38 TCUs
operate more than 75 campuses and sites in 17 States, within whose
geographic boundaries 80 percent of all American Indian reservations
and Federal Indian trust land lie. TCUs serve students from well over
250 federally recognized Tribes and 30 States. More than 85 percent of
our students receive Federal financial aid--primarily Pell grants. In
total, the TCUs annually serve 160,000 AI/ANs and other community
members through a wide variety of academic and community-based
programs. TCUs are public institutions accredited by independent
regional accreditation agencies, and like all U.S. institutions of
higher education, must regularly undergo stringent performance reviews
to retain their accreditation status. Each TCU is committed to
improving the lives of its students through higher education and to
moving AI/ANs toward self-sufficiency. To do this, TCUs serve many
roles in their reservation communities, functioning as workforce and
job creation engines, community centers, public libraries, Tribal
archives, entrepreneurial, small business, and career centers, computer
labs, summer camps, community farms and gardens, economic development
centers, applied research hubs, child care centers, and more.
The Federal Government, despite its direct trust responsibility and
binding treaty obligations, has never fully funded TCU institutional
operations as authorized under the Tribal College Act. Despite funding
challenges, TCUs are leading the Nation in preparing an AI/AN
workforce, including nurses, land managers, and teachers for our Native
schools. For example, half of all AI/AN special education teachers in
Montana are graduates of one college: Salish Kootenai College. TCUs
prepare other professionals in high-demand fields, including
agriculture and natural resources management, human services, IT, and
building tradesmen. By teaching the job skills most in demand on our
reservations, TCUs are laying a solid foundation for Tribal economic
growth, which is the only way to move Tribes and Tribal members to
self-sufficiency. But workforce development is not enough. TCU
leadership understands that we must do more to accelerate the move to
self-sufficiency--we must move beyond simple workforce training. Today,
TCUs are tackling the tougher--but much more significant--issue of job
creation, because we know that to break the cycle of generational
poverty and end the culture of dependency that grips so much of Indian
Country, simply filling jobs that would be filled anyway is not enough.
We must create new industries, new businesses, and build a new culture
of innovation. Our job creation initiative is focusing initially on
advanced manufacturing, through a partnership with the U.S. Department
of Energy, National Laboratories, TCUs, and industry. Already, we are
seeing results, with new TCU-Tribal-industry partnerships, new
contracting opportunities, and new jobs for our students and graduates.
Tribal Colleges continually seek to instill a sense of hope and
identity within Native youth, who one day will lead our Tribal nations.
Unacceptably, the high school drop-out rate for Native students remains
around 50 percent. TCUs are reaching back to create a bridge for Indian
students as early as the elementary school, encouraging them to stay
focused on achievable goals and believe that the natural course is to
finish high school and go on to the local TCU. TCUs offer dual credit
courses for high school students, provide math teachers for local high
schools as a strategy for improving course delivery, host weekend
academies, after school programs and summer camps for middle and high
school students, and at the other end of the spectrum, offer GED or
HiSET training and testing, and 2+2 partnerships to bridge programs
with regional universities. All are solid steps to bolster the
prospects for future of Native youth and breaking the cycle of
generational poverty.
tribal colleges and universities: a sound investment for the federal
government and rural government
Aaron Sansosie of Flatrock, Arizona, is a U.S. Army veteran, father
of four, and Navajo Technical University (NTU) student. He is one of
thousands of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) students gaining
valuable education and technical skills to enter the workforce at
Tribal Colleges. Aaron is enrolled in NTU's Carpentry certificate
program and Building Information Modeling Applied Science associate's
degree program. To achieve his goals, Aaron has been taking 17-19
credits each semester, which keeps his days busy. While the schedule
may seem grueling for any student, it is important to note that Aaron
does this all while sleeping out of his truck. ``The cost of living
here is pretty high, especially in the dorms and having three meals a
day. Sometimes Pell won't cover it all, which leaves me in debt. Even
with my veteran benefits, which help me out a lot, [I need to save],''
explained Aaron, whose desire to help his family and community is
powerful.
Stories like Aaron's can be found across Indian Country as TCUs
attempt to stretch Federal dollars to meet the unique needs of AI/AN
students. In fact, a 2015 economic impact study on the TCUs, conducted
by Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI), revealed that
for every Federal dollar invested in the TCUs, the taxpayers receive a
cumulative value of $2.40. The average annual rate of return is 6.2
percent, a solid rate of return that compares favorably with other
long-term investments. On an individual basis, TCU students see an
annual return of investment of 16.6 percent, and the vast majority of
TCU-trained workers remain in Indian Country and contribute to the
local economy. TCUs benefit taxpayers through increased tax receipts
and reduced demand for Federal social services--a win all-round.
fund tcu infrastructure improvement authority for first time ever
($31 million/year)
We urge Congress to finally fund section 113 (25 U.S.C. 1813) of
the Tribal College Act, established 40 years ago, and create a TCU
Infrastructure Improvement program for Tribal Colleges. A key mission
of TCUs is to prepare AI/ANs and other rural community members to be
self-sufficient members of the Nation's workforce. For TCUs to realize
this goal, they need facilities to educate and train their students in
a safe environment for 21st century jobs. Facilities construction and
maintenance are needed at the Tribal Colleges, many of which have
hazards such as leaking roofs, asbestos insulation, exposed and
substandard wiring, crumbling foundations, and outdated computer labs.
One TCU needs-assessment revealed a need of $120 million to address
current shovel-ready projects and rehabilitation needs at our Nation's
38 Tribal Colleges. We urge the subcommittee to allocate a tiny portion
of its increased funding allocation, resulting from the 2 year budget
deal, to help meet the dire facilities and infrastructure needs of the
TCUs.
challenges: indian student count, tax base & gaming misconceptions
ISC Formula and Non Beneficences
As noted earlier, the TCUs' operations funding remains
insufficient, and their budgets are further disadvantaged because
unlike other institutions of higher education, most TCUs receive
operations funding based on the number of Indian students served, with
``Indian student'' defined as a member of a federally recognized Tribe
or a biological child of enrolled Tribal members. Yet, approximately 15
percent of the TCUs' collective enrollments are non-Indian students.
While many TCUs do seek operating funds from their respective State
legislatures for their non-Indian State-resident students (also
referred to as ``non-beneficiary'' students) successes have been, at
best, inconsistent. Given their locations, often hundreds of miles from
another postsecondary institution, TCUs are open to all students,
Indian and non-Indian, believing that education in general, and
postsecondary education in particular, is a catalyst to a better
economic future in remote areas.
Local Tax and Revenue Base
TCUs cannot rely on a local tax base for revenue. Although tribes
have the sovereign authority to tax, high reservation poverty rates,
the trust status of reservation lands, and the lack of strong
reservation economies hinder the creation of a reservation tax base. As
noted earlier, on Indian reservations that are home to TCUs, the
unemployment rate can well exceed 70 percent. By contrast, the national
unemployment rate is currently 4.5 percent.
Gaming and the TCUs
Although several of the reservations served by TCUs have gaming
operations, they are not the mega-casinos located in urban areas and
featured in the broad-based media. Only a handful of TCUs receive
regular income from the chartering Tribe's gaming revenue, and the
amounts received can vary greatly from year to year. Most reservation
casinos are small businesses that use their gaming revenue to improve
the local standard of living and potentially diversify into other, more
sustainable areas of economic development. In the interim, where
relevant, local TCUs offer courses in casino management and hospitality
services to formally train tribal members to work in their local
tribally run casinos.
Some form of gaming is legalized in 48 States, but the Federal
Government has not used the revenues generated from State gaming as a
justification to decrease Federal funding to other public colleges or
universities in those States. Some have suggested that those Tribes
that operate the handful of extremely successful and widely publicized
casinos located in or near urban areas, should be financing higher
education for all American Indians. And yet, no State is expected to
share its gaming revenue with a less successful or non-gaming State.
appropriations request for fiscal year 2019
As noted earlier, the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities
Assistance Act will be 40 years old this year. As we approach this
significant milestone, it is disheartening to note that in 40 years,
the TCUs have yet to receive the Congressionally authorized per Indian
student funding level. A significant step toward adequate funding for
the TCUs' institutional operating grants and technical assistance under
Titles I and II in fiscal year 2019 would require an increase of
$16,562,630 over the fiscal year 2018 appropriated level. These TCUs,
which serve some of the largest Indian Tribes in the Nation, have been
level-funded since fiscal year 2014. Since that time, the College of
the Muscogee Nation (Okmulgee, Oklahoma) and Red Lake Nation College
(Red Lake, Minnesota) have become eligible for funding under Title I of
the Tribal College Act, and several more could potentially gain
eligibility in the next few years.
conclusion
AIHEC Member institutions/Tribal Colleges and Universities provide
quality higher education to thousands of American Indians and other
reservation residents, as well as essential community programs and
services to those who might otherwise not have access to such
opportunities. The modest Federal investment that has been made in TCUs
has paid great dividends in terms of employment, education, economic
development and has significantly reduced social, healthcare, and law
enforcement costs. Continuation of this investment makes sound moral
and fiscal sense.
We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past and continued support
of the Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities and your thoughtful
consideration of our fiscal year 2019 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), Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and
Smithsonian Institution for fiscal year 2019. We encourage Congress to
provide the USGS with $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2019 and $174 million
for the Ecosystems mission area. We ask that Congress restore support
for the Biological Survey Unit to the fiscal year 2018 level of $1.6
million and direct USGS to sustain the program. We further request that
Congress provide EPA Science and Technology with at least $760 million,
equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. We also request the
restoration of funding for Science Support in USFWS to the fiscal year
2017 enacted level of $17.0 million. Lastly, we urge Congress to
provide new funding to the Smithsonian Institution and the National
Museum of Natural History.
AIBS is a nonprofit scientific association dedicated to promoting
informed decisionmaking that advances biological research and education
for the benefit of science and 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
individual members and more than 130 member organizations with a
combined individual membership and staff of more than 200,000.
u.s. geological survey
The USGS provides unbiased, independent research, data, and
assessments that are needed by public and private sector decision-
makers. Data generated by the USGS save taxpayers money by enabling
more effective management of water and biological 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.
The Ecosystems activity within USGS is integral to the agency's
other science mission areas. It conducts research required to
understand the impacts of such things as water use and natural hazards
on environmental systems. The USGS conducts research on and monitoring
of fish, wildlife, and vegetation--data that informs management
decisions by other Interior bureaus regarding protected species and
land use.
Biological science programs, housed within the Ecosystems line,
collect and analyze long-term data not available from other sources.
The knowledge generated by USGS is used by Federal and State natural
resource managers to maintain healthy and diverse ecosystems while
balancing the needs of public use.
Examples of successful USGS Ecosystem initiatives include:
--Development of comprehensive geospatial data products that
characterize the risk of wildfires on all lands in the United
States. These products are used to allocate firefighting
resources and to plan wildfire fuel reduction projects. These
tools require the input of information about plant species
distribution, plant production, and how different animals
within the landscape may influence the distribution of this
vegetation.
--Identification and evaluation of control measures for Asian carp,
sea lamprey, Burmese pythons, and other invasive species that
cause billions of dollars in economic losses annually.
--New insights on the spread of avian flu, white-nose syndrome,
chronic wasting disease, and other diseases spread by wildlife
in North America.
The President's fiscal year 2019 budget request cuts the Ecosystems
mission by 40 percent relative to the fiscal year 2017 enacted level.
Simply put, there is no way the agency can absorb these cuts without
negatively affecting scientific research and jeopardizing data quality.
As a science agency, much of the USGS budget is dedicated to staff as
well as equipment and facilities that must be maintained and updated to
ensure the continuity of data acquisition and that data gathered are
reliable and available for future scientific investigations.
Among the proposed reductions are:
--Elimination of curation of and research on fish, amphibians,
reptiles, and mammals that is conducted by the Biological
Survey Unit at the Smithsonian Institution. USGS has more than
a million specimens of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles
that are housed at the Smithsonian. These curatorial and
research positions are required to maintain and use these
specimens and the data associated with them. This management
arrangement has been in place since 1889.
--Elimination of the Cooperative Research Units (CRUs). CRUs are
located on 40 universities in 38 States and conduct actionable
research, provide technical assistance, and develop scientific
workforces through graduate education and mentoring programs.
--Elimination of research on the ecological effects of fracking.
Research by the USGS on this topic compliments research
conducted by the EPA on water quality issues associated with
fracking. This information is vital to Federal and State
management of energy development.
--Reduced wildlife and fisheries research. USGS conducts this
research for the benefit of Federal and State stakeholders.
Without these research programs, USFWS, the National Park
Service, and other Interior bureaus will not have the
scientific information required to fulfill agency missions to
manage wildlife, as these agencies do not have scientific
research capacities. Moreover, the USGS is a non-regulatory
agency, which means that its research is independent of the
entities responsible for developing and implementing rules and
regulations.
--Reduced research on ecosystems of concern. This research is a
critical component of efforts to restore important national
resources, such as the Everglades and the Chesapeake Bay. The
Arctic ecosystem research and monitoring program addresses the
needs of Native communities, and also promotes public health
throughout the U.S. by monitoring avian influenza, which can
spread to humans.
Although we are pleased that the Invasive Species Program was
spared from large cuts in the administration's request, we urge
Congress to reject the deep cuts to other parts of the Ecosystems
mission area.
The President has also proposed cuts to climate research. The
National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers (formerly
regional Climate Science Centers) are responsible for developing the
science and tools to address the effects of climate change on land,
water, wildlife, fish, ecosystems, and communities. These centers play
a vital role in addressing the unique weather patterns of different
areas across the country and are slated for a 49 percent budget cut and
possible closures. This is irresponsible.
We request Congress to fund the agency at $1.2 billion in fiscal
year 2019, with $174 million for the Ecosystems mission area and
restored funding for the Biological Survey Unit, CRUs, and the climate
science centers.
environmental protection agency
Funding for EPA Science and Technology supports valuable research
used to identify and mitigate environmental problems facing our Nation.
EPA 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, this program provides the
scientific basis upon which EPA monitoring and enforcement programs are
built.
Despite the important role of the Science and Technology
appropriation, the proposed funding level for fiscal year 2018 is
roughly half of what the program received in fiscal year 2002. The EPA
Science Advisory Board has expressed concern repeatedly about the long-
term decline in research funding at EPA. ``These limitations pose a
vulnerability for EPA at a time when the agency faces significant
science questions with long-term implications for protecting the
environment and public health.''
We are especially concerned to see the proposed eliminations of the
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Research Grants and climate change
research. These programs are important parts of the Federal
Government's ability to ensure clean air and water for its citizens.
We ask Congress to provide at least $760.0 million in fiscal year
2019 to support scientific research at the EPA.
u.s. fish and wildlife service
The President's budget request eliminates the Science Support
program within USFWS. This program provides scientific information
needed by USFWS, such as research on conservation of priority species
prior to Endangered Species Act listing, the impacts of energy
production on wildlife, and best management practices for combating
invasive species. For this program to be eliminated in conjunction with
significant reductions in USGS biological research means that USFWS
will not have access to the unbiased data required to fulfill its
mission to conserve, protect, and enhance the living resources of the
United States for the benefit of the American people.
smithsonian institution
The Smithsonian Institution, particularly the National Museum of
Natural History, is a valuable Federal partner in the curation and
research on scientific specimens. The scientific experts at the
National Museum of Natural History care for 140 million specimens and
ensure the strategic growth of this national treasure. To increase the
availability of these scientific resources to researchers, educators,
other Federal agencies, and the public, Smithsonian is working on a
multi-year effort to digitize its collections. That effort will
substantially increase the scientific uses of these collections.
The National Museum of Natural History has also been working to
strengthen curatorial and research staffing and to backfill positions
left open by retirements and budget constraints. The current staffing
level is insufficient to provide optimal care for the collections.
Future curatorial and collections management staffing levels may be
further jeopardized given the proposed funding cuts at science
agencies, such as the USGS, that support staff positions at the
National Museum of Natural History.
We urge Congress to make additional investments in the National
Museum of Natural History that will allow the museum to undertake
critical collections care, make needed technology upgrades, and conduct
cutting edge research.
conclusion
We urge Congress to reject the administration's budget request for
fiscal year 2019 and continue the bipartisan tradition of investing in
our Nation's scientific capacity.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.
[This statement was submitted by Jyotsna Pandey, Ph.D., Public
Policy Manager and Robert Gropp, Ph.D., Co-Executive Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals
On behalf of our 2.5 million supporters, the American Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) appreciates this
opportunity to submit testimony to the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies. Founded in
1866, the ASPCA is the first humane organization established in the
Americas and serves as the Nation's leading voice for animal welfare.
We request that the subcommittee consider the following concerns when
making fiscal year 2019 appropriations.
wild horses and the blm
In the 45 years since Congress charged the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) with protecting our country's wild horses and burros,
Americans have witnessed the agency's Wild Horse and Burro Program
deteriorate into a continuous cycle of costly roundups and removals
with little regard for the preservation-focused mandate specified in
the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act or on-range management of
the herds. Our wild horses and burros should be revered as historical
icons, treated humanely, and managed fairly and respectfully on our
public lands. We appreciate BLM's recognition of the need for reform in
the Wild Horse and Burro Program and are encouraged by their
recognition of the need for long-term strategies for on-range
management that will require substantial front loaded investment of
resources. This approach will, within a few years, provide significant
relief for the range and enable all the stakeholders to come together
around a single solution. It is critical for the agency to commit to
non-lethal management rather than pressing to relax legal restrictions
on sale to slaughter or mass killing of healthy horses. It is also
critical for the agency to augment its capacity for gathers and focus
its attention on the high priority HMAs where horses, wildlife and the
range are most at risk. It is also important that robust fertility
control work begin immediately.
Prohibit BLM funding for euthanasia or sale of wild horses as
management methods
In December 2004, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for fiscal year 2005, which amended the Wild Free-Roaming Horses
and Burros Act to allow for the sale of certain wild horses and burros.
This instant transfer of title from the U.S. Government to the
individual purchaser strips key protections for wild mustangs and
burros making them vulnerable to the still-thriving horse slaughter
industry. Additionally, we take issue with the characterization of
large-scale killing of healthy wild horses as ``euthanasia''. The
agency currently has the authority to euthanize horses who are old,
sick or injured, but not healthy horses as a means of population
control. If allowed to destroy healthy horses, this would most likely
be accomplished using gunshot from some distance and does not qualify
as humane euthanasia.
The fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 Presidential budgets
request authorization to use lethal management techniques for wild
horses and burros. This is problematic not only because of the method
by which animals would likely be killed, but also because if this
option becomes available there is no end to it in sight. In 2007 the
number of wild equids on the range was very near the agency's appointed
national appropriate management level (AML). The failure to employ
available and effective fertility control methods has led to the
situation we face today. BLM's history of ineffective on-range
management of horses makes it likely that if lethal techniques are made
available, they will become the status quo management option, locking
the agency into a cycle of killing.
Instead, the ASPCA has joined with other organizations to offer a
humane solution that enables the agency to combine non-lethal
strategies (roundup and removal to sanctuaries, fertility control, and
adoption augmentation) to bring the population to the agency's desired
AML in a 10-12 year timeframe. We provided this proposal to the
Secretary of the Interior last fall (2017) and urge Congress to work
with the Agency to fund this approach.
In past appropriations bills, Congress has repeatedly confirmed its
opposition to the slaughter of our Nation's wild horses and burros; it
did so most recently in the fiscal year 2018 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, the current funding vehicle for the Department of
Interior. The ASPCA requests that the subcommittee continue to include
the following language: ``Appropriations herein made shall not be
available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and
burros in the care of the Bureau or its contractors or for the sale of
wild horses and burros that results in their destruction for processing
into commercial products.''
Implement existing, and explore new, methods for on-range and off-range
management
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. BLM has multiple options
at its disposal to follow that guidance in the Act. Effective, humane
management will require a multifaceted approach. We suggest that the
following strategies be implemented simultaneously:
--Conduct targeted gathers and removals at densely populated Herd
Management Areas (HMAs) to reduce herd size in the short term.
--Treat gathered horses with fertility control prior to being
returned to the range. This program should continue until 90
percent of mares on the range have been treated, followed by
continued consistent fertility control.
--Relocate horses in holding facilities, and those taken off the
range, to large cost-effective pasture facilities funded
through public-private partnerships.
--Promote adoptions in order to reduce captive populations and costs.
The four tiers of this approach--gathers and removals, fertility
treatment, public-private partnerships, and adoptions--are crucial to
the ultimate success of the program. Failure to effectively implement
any part of this program jeopardizes the success of a holistic and
sustainable wild horse and burro program. If employed correctly, this
plan will result in a natural population decline over the next two
decades. We support this humane, effective, and financially sustainable
approach.
The ASPCA realizes that population control is necessary in some
circumstances, and we appreciate BLM's public acknowledgement that
fertility control methods must be a significant part of wild horse
population management. Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP), the contraceptive
vaccine that has been used for decades to manage horse and deer
populations, is registered by EPA and commercially available. In fiscal
year 2018, the BLM administered 777 fertility control treatments.\1\ If
PZP is to be a serious part of the solution, its use must be increased
to levels that will significantly impact population growth. A 2013
National Academy of Sciences report noted the promising capabilities of
this and other forms of chemical fertility control.\2\ The ASPCA
recommends that the subcommittee direct BLM to prioritize the use of
fertility control when necessary to stem the population growth of wild
horse or burro herds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Program Data.'' U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management. April 27, 2018. https://www.blm.gov/programs/wild-
horse-and-burro/about-the-program/program-data.
\2\ ``Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro
Program: A Way Forward.'' National Research Council. The National
Academies Press, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration's fiscal year 2019 budget request appeals for
the authority to use a ``full suite of tools'' to manage horses. If
combined with the agency's recent report to Congress including the
suggestion that it is appropriate to sell or transfer thousands of our
wild mustangs to other countries, where they would lose their protected
status, we see cause for concern. We encourage congress to prohibit the
shipment of wild horses across the borders where they may fall prey to
slaughter and cruelty. The ASPCA strongly encourages the subcommittee
to prioritize and fund humane on-range management methods as it crafts
the fiscal year 2019 Interior appropriations bill.
[This statement was submitted by Nancy Perry, Senior Vice
President, Government Relations.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Andean Tapir Fund/Wild Horse and Burro Fund
April 2, 2018
Dear Senators:
Achieving justice for our wild horses and burros depends on Federal
officials exercising the authority to legally reduce private, usually
corporate, domestic livestock grazing in the wild horses' and wild
burros' legal areas, whether on BLM or USFS lands. Such exercise would
be legally covered under 43 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.)
4710.3-2 and 43 C.F.R. 4710.5(a). In particular 43 C.F.R. 4710.5
clearly states that the Bureau of Land Management can legally reduce or
even close livestock grazing in order ``to provide habitat for wild
horses and burros.''
Our Nation's present Herd Management Areas (BLM) and Territories
(U.S. Forest Service) for wild horses and wild burros represent only
about one-half of the original Herd Areas and Territories as far as
their size, or acreage. Indeed, the United States Government has
eliminated wild horses from many millions of acres and has then added
further injustice by allocating only small fractions of the grazing
resource to the wild horses within their remaining occupied areas.
Generally it is getting harder to find any maps of the original Herd
Areas probably because both officials and benefactors in wild horse
elimination or marginalization do not want the greater truth to be
known by the public.
In America today, the unique and legally defined areas in which
wild horses should be allowed to live unmolested are decreasing both in
number and in size. And the horses' access to resources needed for
survival are likewise being reduced. Both national laws, and laws of
basic decency, mandate that the present wild horse populations be
restored to higher, more genetically viable levels. Today, the
upgrading of America's wild horse herds and habitats is imperative to
insure their long-term viability.
Higher, more genetically viable population levels are required; and
the proven principles of Reserve Design should be employed to allow for
the natural adaptation of wild horses, both individually and
collectively, within their inhabited ecosystems.
My recommendations include an enlightened phasing in of progressive
changes whereby the major environmental disturbance factors are reduced
so that a more truly natural balance among all appropriate species can
be achieved within a positively regarded wild-horse-containing
ecosystem. Too often wild horses are maligned by established interests
accustomed to monopolizing (or nearly so) the natural resources of any
given area. These profit-seeking interests will filter and even twist
what purports to be objective field observations so as to discredit
their target: the wild horses. Their underlying motivation is not to
realize the Greater Truth and Justice concerning these animals and the
life community, but rather to perpetuate or even expand their
unquestioned exploitation of the public lands for their own private
benefit, or what they believe to be so.
Once larger more truly viable herds and habitats are established,
various means exist for limiting the increase and expansion of a herd.
One of the chief of which is to allow the mature social units, or wild
horse bands, to establish themselves over the generations. The older
dominant stallions and mares can and do inhibit reproduction in younger
males and females. Another means concerns natural predators. These act
as significant checks and balances--but are by no means the sole
limiting factors for wild horses, wild burros, or other prey species.
It is possible to design a reserve with natural boundaries or barriers
to constrain herd activities or to opt for artificial barriers, bearing
in mind that the reserve itself must contain sufficient appropriate
habitat to provide all the needs of a viably sized, vigorous and
dynamic wild horse population. The International Union for Conservation
of Nature (IUCN) indicates this should be around 2,500 individuals
(Duncan 1992), though BLM policies are grounded on the supposition
numbers should not fall below 50 actively breeding adults in a given
population, which would entail a total population of 200 or more. A
well-planned reserve would ensure appropriate niche space and forage
abundance and availability to govern a balanced herd size, but
management must allow natural processes to operate over significant
periods for ecological harmonization to take place.
It has been proven that the mass removals of wild horses, e.g. BLM
helicopter roundups removing half or even 90 percent or more of the
horses, result in ``compensatory reproduction'' among those horses who
remain (Jenkins & Ashley 2003). These traumatized horses then go into a
desperate survival mode and reproduce at a higher rate because they
feel threatened. Also this is a consequence of their lacking a stable
social structure in the form of mature bands. This sort of behavior is
observed among many species after sustaining severe reduction in
numbers and disorganization of their societies. Drastic herd reduction
results in a tragic loss of both social and resource interaction
memories. And this, in turn, results in larger, more chaotic, and less
harmonious populations. Perhaps, the latter is the devious design of
the wild horses' human enemies.
Although the following suggestion seems like pandering to some of
the wild horses' traditional enemies, I propose the following for your
consideration: Create financial incentives for livestock grazing permit
holders to voluntarily include wild horses upon the lands they graze
and to decrease equivalent numbers of livestock. This idea has been
proposed by rancher and wild horse advocate Lynn McCormick of Colorado.
Conflicts between public and private interests are increasing as
resources dwindle and human populations (and demand for recreation)
increase. Certain solid studies indicate that ranching in much of the
arid to semi-arid West (and elsewhere) is generally unprofitable and
that net profit is typically only between $50 and $100 dollars per
animal per year (Torell et al. 2012, Torell & Kincaid 1996, Taylor et
al. 2004). This situation adds pressure to increase livestock numbers
and/or weight/size, demonize perceived competitors (wild horses/burros,
wildlife), and overlook trespass grazing (see revealing report: United
States Government Accountability Office 2016).
Ms. McCormick suggests paying willing grazing permit holders some
agreed and rational rate, say one U.S. dollar per day per wild horse on
a year-round basis, in order to manage some reasonable number of wild
horses within their grazing permit area. This would represent a
substantial savings to taxpayers over current off-range holding costs.
In exchange, permit holders would decrease an equivalent number of
domestic livestock from the same grazing permit area. This system could
be based on standard Animal Unit Months (AUMs) used in calculating
sustainable grazing pressure, and each agreement would be independently
tailored to suit each rancher's situation and one option would be to
have this program entirely voluntary. This would entail no or only
minimal extra work for the rancher, and allow permit holders to realize
higher profits than they otherwise would from their public lands
grazing permits. It would also save U.S. taxpayers significant amounts
of money while resulting in the better monitoring and managing of
shared habitat. It would keep wild horses where they belong on the
range as wild animals. Though this alternative would rankle with those
with a keener sense of justice, it is one that might just work in the
immediate future and help many wild horses as well as wild burros
regain their rightful place in the wild.
Today, an inordinate percentage of the forage and water that is so
important to entire ecosystems is diverted to support a relative few,
often ecologically incongruous livestock operations, whose owners often
describe people on welfare as ``unjustly enjoying entitlements,'' while
overlooking the immense entitlements and subsidies needed to continue
propping up their ranching way of life at public expense. Much time and
taxpayer expense is also diverted to accommodate and then mitigate the
ill-effects of these shared and often competing uses of our public
lands.
More hopefully, most of the wild horse and wild burro herds today
have some type of citizen fan club composed of passionately protective
people. Many are very proactive in collaborating with BLM and U.S.
Forest Service officials to perform volunteer work and provide people
trained for citizen science-related monitoring, record keeping and
documentation, etc. Such collaborations can ease tension while taking
pressure off decreasing Federal budgets and encouraging better public
relations on our public lands, and should be encouraged and expanded.
Below for your consideration please find elements of a:
reserve design proposal for restoring america's wild horses and burros
to long-term viable levels in long-term viable habitats and as
naturally self-stabilizing herds
The small number of horses and burros our Government intends to
leave on each of the 179 remaining. BLM-designated areas will result--
indeed, has already resulted--in an over fragmentation of populations
that jeopardizes their long-term survival and the preservation of their
true vigor in the wild.
To remedy this, Americans must immediately and audaciously respond
with a well-conceived plan for change. As a wildlife ecologist and
fourth-generation Nevadan personally familiar with the wild horses and
burros of the West, I have come up with such a plan--a way to restore
these animals, proven to be returned-native species, to viable natural
herds throughout the West. My plan entails ending the cruel, disruptive
roundups and reproductive manipulations--practices that make a mockery
of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and cause untold
suffering and death to these freedom-loving creatures, while
compromising their long-term survival in the wild.
Wildlife, wilderness, and conservation professionals call this
strategy Reserve Design. Reserve Design combines ecological,
biological, social, and political considerations in order to achieve
desired results. Basically, wild horse/burro Reserve Design involves
the setting aside of areas of wild-equid-containing, year-round habitat
where human intervention is buffered against and/or strictly
controlled, and where natural processes are allowed to reestablish
natural checks and balances. In this way, a significant degree of
internal harmony is achieved for all diverse, yet interrelated, species
living in the ecosystem.
Critical steps for realizing Reserve Design in various wild horse &
wild burro habitats in the project:
--Properly identify the long-term survival requirements for viable
population levels of the principal equine species to be
accommodated in each reserve. Our chief focus would be to
promote a wild horse/burro-containing ecosystem, where all
species allowed to adapt naturally over the generations.
--Conscientiously identify appropriate geographical areas suitable
for the implementation of wild horse/burro-containing reserves.
This would involve travel to, on-ground inspection of, and
flights over, a wide variety of places throughout the West.
--Wherever possible, wisely incorporate natural equid predators (such
as puma, bear, and wolf) that would limit, tone and strengthen
wild horse and burro populations.
--Wherever possible, wisely incorporate natural barriers that would
limit the ingress and/or the egress of certain species,
including the wild horses and burros. This would avoid
conflicts and set up conditions for the natural self-regulation
of populations.
--Identify where buffer zones, artificial barriers or other means of
impeding movements in and out of a reserve should be
established in order to keep the species in question from
coming into conflict with humans. Buffer zones possibly
involving non-injurious means of ``adverse conditioning'' could
be employed as well as ``positive reinforcement'' means of
encouraging the wild equids to stay within the reserve. Also,
``semi-permeable barriers'' that do not restrict most species
but do prevent equids from passing out of the reserve may be
used. These means would be described in practical detail.
--Identify the presence and abundance of necessary food, water,
shelter, mineral procurement sites, elevation gradients for
seasonal migrations, etc., that will accommodate the long-term
habitat needs of viable wild equid populations and allow the
natural rest-rotation of grazing and foraging between the
natural subdivisions of the reserve. Fences within the reserve
that impede the free-roaming lifestyle of the wild equids would
be located and their removal planned. This would also involve
determining the intrinsic Carrying Capacity of the land in
question that would be based on the Productivity of forage
adequate to a viable population of wild horses/burros found in
this region and taking into account other survival factors such
as water, shelter, breeding and nurturing habitat, seasonal
migrations, mineral, and existing threats to the wild equids.
--Identify geographical regions whose human inhabitants are benignly
disposed toward the creation and long-term implementation of
extensive, ecologically balanced wild horse/burro-containing
reserves. This would involve travelling and setting up meetings
with pertinent individuals, town and government officials, etc.
--Identify ways of and benefits from implementing Reserve Design that
would result in win-win relationships centered on the presence
of wild horses and burros. Ecotourism is one major possibility
here. Restoring native ecosystems, including soils and native
species, would be another major benefit. The reduction of
flammable vegetation through equid grazing and the restoration
of hydrographic basins through enrichment of soils would be
other major positive contributions of the wild horses and
burros. Indeed, the restoration of the ``equid element'' in
North America is crucial to combating life-disrupting Global
Warming itself.
--Identify how best to educate the public concerning the many ways
that horses and burros, as ecological ``climax'' species, have
of self-limiting their own populations once their respective
ecological niches are filled. This knowledge is key to our
realizing a truly humane relationship with wild horses and
burros in America, one that does justice to these magnificent
animals and allows them to fulfill their important role within
the life community.
This list does not exhaust all the considerations for soundly
establishing Reserve Design that should be included in this enlightened
plan for the treasured equid herds and their habitats throughout the
West. Anxiously awaiting your response, Sincerely, Craig C. Downer,
Wildlife Ecologist, President: Andean Tapir Fund/Wild Horse and Burro
Fund, P.O. Box 456, Minden, NV 89423. Email: [email protected] Cc:
Secretary of the Interior, BLM National Director, U.S. Forest Service
National Director, and other interested parties.
References Cited in Letter: Duncan, P. 1992. Zebras, Asses, and
Horses: An Action Plan for the Conservation of Wild Equids. IUCN.
Jenkins, S.H. and M.C. Ashley, 2003. Wild Horse, Equus caballus and
Allies. Ch. 53 In: Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management
and Conservation. 2nd Edition. The John Hopkins University Press.
Taylor, D.T; R.H. Coupal; T. Foulke & J.G. Thompson. 2004 (Oct.). The
Economic Importance of Livestock Grazing on BLM Land in Fremont County
Wyoming. Univ. of Wyoming, Dept. of Agri. & Appl. Economics. Torell,
L.A., B. Dixon & D. McCullom. 2012 (Oct.). The Market-Value of Ranches
and Grazing Permits in New Mexico, 1996 to 2010. New Mexico State
Univ., http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/research/ecnomics/RR779.pdf. Torell,
L.A. & M.E. Kincaid. 1996. Public Land policy and the market value of
New Mexico ranches, 1979-94. Rangeland Ecology & Management/Journal of
Range Management Archives. Univ. of Arizona. https://
journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/articles/view/9121. United
States Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2016 (July).
Unauthorized Grazing: Actions Needed to Improve Tracking and Deterrence
Efforts. Report to the Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives. GAO-16-559. 64 pages. https://www.peer.org/assets/
docs/blm/7_18_17_GAO_grazing%20Trespass-Report.pdf.
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
The Animal Welfare Institute, a national animal welfare advocacy
nonprofit organization, asks the subcommittee to reject the
administration's fiscal year 2019 budget, which represents a wholesale
abdication of responsibility to protect the Nation's wildlife and the
environment.
bureau of land management (blm)--wild free-roaming horses and burros
act
The BLM continues to mismanage America's wild horses and burros,
emphasizing their removal from public lands instead of implementing
humane solutions, including the use of immuno-contraception to control
fertility rates, to manage the animals on the range. We ask the
Committee to urge the agency to continue exploring more effective and
longer lasting fertility control agents. Moreover, we strongly support
the continued inclusion of the Committee's ``no-kill'' language to
ensure that BLM does not kill healthy wild horses and burros:
``Appropriations herein made shall not be available for the destruction
of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the case 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.''
anti-endangered species act riders
We urge you to reject any riders that would undermine the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), including both those that legislate
species-specific listing decisions and those that weaken core tenets of
the ESA. In 1973, when an increasing number of plant and animal species
were on the decline, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act with
overwhelming bipartisan support. This law is just as important today as
it was then, if not more so. As a result of human impacts on our
environment, species today are disappearing at the highest rate since
the extinction of the dinosaurs. In addition, undermining the ESA does
not reflect the values of most Americans, who treasure America's
wildlife, and the law itself enjoys the support of 90 percent of
American voters (Tulchin Research, 2015). We specifically ask that you
block any riders that would remove Federal protections for gray wolves.
Decisions about protecting species under the Endangered Species Act
should be made based upon science, and judicial review should remain
available for challenging such decisions. Using legislation to delist a
species is contrary to Congress' intent that the best available science
underpin decisions made under this bedrock conservation law.
fish and wildlife service programs: ecological services
We are deeply concerned by the reduction in funding for Ecological
Services, and urge the Committee to commit the maximum possible funding
to this crucial program area responsible for implementing the
Endangered Species Act. The fiscal year 2018 funding level is barely
sufficient for the agency to carry out basic administrative functions
required under the ESA, and does not enable the staffing necessary to
address the backlog of hundreds of species awaiting listing decisions
or other time-sensitive actions mandated by the law. In the decades
since the ESA was enacted, we have seen irrefutable proof that this law
works. Ninety-nine percent of species listed under the ESA have been
spared from extinction. Furthermore, accusations of regulatory burden
and impediments to industry are unfounded. An analysis published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) revealed that
out of over 88,000 Section 7 consultations that the FWS conducted
between 2008 and 2015, not a single project was stopped as a result of
the agency finding that it would jeopardize a listed species or cause
adverse modification to critical habitat. However, this record of
success can only be maintained if the law is funded and enforced fully,
and we urge the Committee to allocate the amount necessary to do so.
fws programs: national wildlife refuge system
We request that the Committee maintain fiscal year 2018 funding
levels, at minimum, for the National Wildlife Refuge System, given the
crucial role that refuges across the country play in species
conservation and nonconsumptive outdoor recreation. Furthermore, given
the NWRS' stated purpose of conserving wildlife (including species
threatened with extinction), and to ensure that these refuges are safe
for the millions of Americans who visit them, we ask the Committee to
maintain the language in its fiscal year 2018 report (H. Rpt. 115-238)
regarding enforcement of a previous directive to institute signage on
refuges where body-gripping traps are used, and to post information
about trapping on NWRS websites. Such signage and other public alerts
are needed to promote public safety and greater transparency regarding
the use of such devices on wildlife refuges. Currently, over half of
the System's 563 refuges allow trapping. Steel-jaw leghold traps,
Conibear traps, and strangulation snares pose distinct risks to humans,
wildlife, and other animals (e.g., pets) given their indiscriminate
nature and the trauma such devices inflict upon those caught in these
traps.
fws programs: office of law enforcement
We urge the Committee to maintain at least the fiscal year 2018
enacted level for the Office of Law Enforcement at FWS. The OLE is one
of the most important lines of defense for wildlife both at home and
abroad. It enforces over a dozen Federal wildlife and conservation laws
that frequently impact both domestic and global security. Poaching is a
brutal, bloody practice. Animals are shot with military-grade weapons,
and tusks and horns are harvested by cutting the faces off of the
sometimes still-living animals. Tight-knit herds are torn apart and
babies orphaned or even killed. Poaching is also a national security
concern. Extremist groups, terrorist organizations, and other criminal
networks use poaching to finance their military operations. Wildlife
trafficking now produces profits of upwards of $20 billion a year,
placing it among the top five criminal enterprises (alongside
narcotics, human trafficking, weapons, and counter-feiting). OLE is a
crucial line of defense in the fight against poaching and the
trafficking of wildlife parts.
fws programs: international affairs
We urge the Committee to fund all program components within
International Affairs at fiscal year 2018 levels or higher. While cuts
were not proposed to all IA program components in the fiscal year 2019
budget, we oppose the overall reduction in funds. The activities
undertaken by IA build capacity and develop partnerships with other
nations for species conservation, which enables maximum cooperation in
fighting the terrorist organizations and international crime syndicates
that profit from wildlife trafficking. U.S. involvement in combating
wildlife trafficking is essential for species conservation and national
and global security, as outlined in the National Strategy for Combating
Wildlife Trafficking and the associated Implementation Plan. Congress
has demonstrated a strong bipartisan commitment to this work and it is
important to ensure adequate funding to continue implementing Public
Law 114-231, the Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt (END) Wildlife
Trafficking Act of 2016, which provides financial assistance to
projects in foreign countries that counter wildlife trafficking
activities. With poaching and illegal wildlife trade reaching
unprecedented levels, governments and private entities here and abroad
have turned to FWS for leadership in coordinating, guiding, and
implementing a response. Additionally, adequate funding for
implementation of agreements made under the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) facilitates
international cooperation and solidifies the U.S.'s leadership role on
conservation issues.
fws programs: multinational species conservation fund
We urge the Committee not to implement cuts to the Multinational
Species Conservation Fund, as requested in the fiscal year 2019 budget,
but rather maintain at least fiscal year 2018 funding levels. The MSCF
is comprised of five Congressionally established funds that support
public-private partnerships for conservation projects protecting
tigers, African and Asian elephants, rhinos, great apes, and marine
turtles in their native habitats. Since 1989, these programs--which
enjoy longstanding bipartisan support--have awarded more than 3,500
grants, focusing on key species and priority regions to ensure the
protection of some of the world's most endangered and treasured
animals. Administrative costs are low, with more than 95 percent of the
fiscal year 2016 appropriation going directly to grants. Full funding
of this popular, targeted, and efficient program is imperative to
maintain the consistency and efficacy of the projects it supports.
white-nose syndrome (wns)
--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.--$6.5 million total; $2 million
restored to Endangered Species Recovery; $4.5 million in
Science Support
--U.S. Geological Survey.--$1.6 million in Ecosystems/Wildlife
--National Park Service.--$3,155,000 in Natural Resource Stewardship
--Bureau of Land Management.--$500,000
--U.S. Forest Service.--$2.5 million, Research & Development;
$500,000, Forest Systems.
Twelve years after the first-known observation of white-nose
syndrome, this bat disease remains at the heart of North America's most
precipitous wildlife die-off of the past century, but Federal agencies
and their partners are making progress in addressing this crisis.
Caused by an invasive species of fungus, Pseudogymnoascus destructans
(Pd), WNS has killed more than 6 million bats, and has spread from its
first site in upstate New York to 32 States and 5 Canadian provinces.
Mortality has been so severe that some populations have declined by
over 90 percent. WNS has struck nine species, including the federally
endangered Indiana and gray bats. The disease is also responsible for
the population crash of the northern long-eared bat, leading to its
2015 designation as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
In the last few years, several events have taken place that are
significant for the WNS outlook. First is the discovery of WNS and Pd
in Washington State last year, the first known incidence of WNS or Pd
in western North America, occurring 1,300 miles from the previous
westernmost detection of the disease or fungus. Second is the discovery
of Pd in the panhandle of Texas in 2017 and more recently in central
Texas. Texas has the greatest diversity of bat species of any U.S.
State. It is also located at the intersection of the ranges of eastern,
southern, and western bat species. Two of these species have extensive
distributions in the western United States and Central America. Third
is the discovery of the first southeastern bat (Myotis austroriparius)
with WNS, adding another species to the list of those threatened by the
disease. Finally, fourth is the recent discovery of WNS in the State of
Kansas, home to 15 species of bats, including big brown bats, which are
known to eat about one-third of their body weight in insects each
night. If WNS were to spread further, the number of species and
ecosystems affected by the disease would escalate. Moreover, bat
ecology in the West poses additional challenges for managing the
disease. Western bat species roost and hibernate singly or in small
groups, making the bats hard to locate for surveillance or treatment
purposes. This is compounded by the difficulty of finding or accessing
potential bat roosts or hibernacula in the West's mountainous, rugged
topography.
The loss of bats from WNS is expected to have serious implications
for our economy and environment. Bats are primary predators of night-
flying insects, including agricultural pests that attack corn,
soybeans, cotton, and other crops. By eating these pests, bats reduce
the need for pesticides and lower food production costs; in this way,
bats save U.S. farmers an average of $22.9 billion per year. Bats also
perform ecological services for 66 plant species that produce timber.
In July 2017, USFWS announced a grant of $1 million to States
affected by WNS, bringing its total funding for States with WNS to $7
million over the last 8 years. In addition to making grants to States
and other entities for WNS research, monitoring, and management, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the lead agency for WNS response,
created a new WNS funding initiative in partnership of FWS, the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and U.S. Forest Service: the
Bats for the Future Fund. The BFF provides grants for developing and
deploying WNS treatments. NFWF administers the fund and match
government contributions with private-sector monies. FWS provided $1
million to launch BFF. In collaboration with partners, the agency also
began developing a structured decisionmaking model for prioritizing WNS
scientific efforts. In this way, FWS hopes to help Federal, State, and
other entities working on WNS get the best results possible with
limited funds. For example, NFWF/BFF has been supporting research on
whether UV light can be used as a treatment for bats suffering from
white-nose syndrome. Research to date has found extreme sensitivity to
UV light in the fungus. This study will measure the survival of little
brown bats during hibernation after being treated with UV-light
compared to control groups. The researchers are also exploring whether
there are any non-target effects by measuring changes in the bat skin
microbiome (both fungal and bacterial communities).
The U.S. Geological Survey continues its role in WNS research and
data-gathering. The agency supports state WNS and Pd surveillance,
particularly in regions on the edge of the disease spread. Confirming a
diagnosis of WNS requires both the analysis of bat skin tissue samples
by culture or molecular methods to detect the fungus AND viewing of
samples under a microscope by a trained pathologist to document signs
of skin infection. USGS hired a coordinator for NABat, with additional
funding from FWS. The agency is validating software for acoustic
detection of bats, which in the western United States is one of the
only bat-survey methods available. This supports not only the goals of
NABat but also FWS's requirements for monitoring listed bat species.
Topics of current USGS WNS-related research include: the fungi normally
found on various species of bats and possible correlations to the
differential WNS susceptibility of those species; determining ideal
environmental conditions for bat refugia in case populations must be
taken from the wild to ensure their survival; and evolving hibernation
behavior in post-WNS bats. USGS staff also are lending expertise to the
development of the structured decisionmaking model led by FWS.
The National Park Service monitors bat populations on its lands,
both in post-WNS areas to assess the disease's impacts and species'
survival, and in unaffected areas to gather baseline data on bat
populations and ecology. NPS's Bat Acoustic Survey Database is a
repository for acoustic monitoring data gathered from these activities,
providing guidance for collecting acoustic data, allowing for
standardization and data comparability across the Service. Furthermore,
the data-base is designed to allow for integration of data into NABat.
As the Federal agency that welcomes the largest number of visitors
every year, NPS plays an key role in educating the public about WNS,
through ranger outreach, visitor infrastructure, and multimedia
materials. Finally, NPS continues to fund research into WNS.
Congress has never allocated money for the U.S. Forest Service to
engage on WNS, despite the fact that since the early days of the crisis
the agency has contributed proactively to research and on-the-ground
management to address the disease. Ongoing USFS research includes: DNA
sequencing of bats across eastern and midwestern States, looking for
possible adaptive selection of immune systems and comparing them;
silencing WNS-related genes to increase bat resistance to the disease;
the effects of UV light to treat WNS-stricken bats; a so-called
electronic nose to identify WNS and Pd without direct contact with
bats; and the use of alternate winter roosts to protect tricolored bats
from WNS. It is clear that the Forest Service has made and continues to
make major contributions to our understanding, detection, and treatment
of Pd and WNS, but it has been doing so at the expense of other
programs. We believe that the redirection of surplus funds from other
accounts (such Forest Inventory and Analysis), as well as new funds,
are more than justified.
[This statement was submitted by Nancy Blaney, Director, Government
Affairs.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Reservation
The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation
thanks the Senate appropriations subcommittee for the opportunity to
submit written testimony concerning fiscal year 2018 appropriations for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS).
The Fort Peck Reservation is in northeast Montana, 40 miles west of
the North Dakota border, and 50 miles south of the Canadian border,
with the Missouri River defining its southern border. The Reservation
encompasses over 2 million acres of land. We have approximately 12,000
enrolled Tribal members, with approximately 7,000 Tribal members living
on the Reservation. We have a total Reservation population of
approximately 11,000 people.
Congress has long recognized that the foundation for economic
development and prosperity in Indian Country lay in community
stability, which begins with infrastructure such as safe drinking
water, roads, public safety, and healthcare. We ask the subcommittee to
reject the administration's proposal for fiscal year 2019 to reduce
appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian
Education and Indian Health Service which are core Federal programs
serving the Fort Peck Reservation and our members. Reducing funding for
Federal program funding that at current appropriation levels do not
fully address the full measure of well documented tribal needs, makes
little sense.
fort peck reservation rural water system ($2.634 million)
We ask the subcommittee to continue to fund the required $2.634
million for the Operation and Maintenance (OM&R) funding for the Fort
Peck Reservation Rural Water System for fiscal year 2019, within
appropriations to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Construction
account. This funding increase, of $234,000, is necessary for this
System to safely operate with the correct level of staff and operating
supplies, including chemicals. The System provides drinking water to
more than 17,000 residents in Northeast Montana and several social and
governmental agencies, including the BIA Agency Office, Poplar Schools,
and Poplar hospital, Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Fort Union
Trading Post National Historic site, as well as several towns including
Wolf Point, Frazier, Culbertson, and Medicine Lake.
The Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System was authorized by the
Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000, Public Law 106-
382. The measure ensures a safe and adequate municipal, rural and
industrial water supply for the residents of the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation and assists the citizens of Roosevelt, Sheridan, Daniels,
and Valley Counties in Montana develop safe and adequate municipal,
rural and industrial water supplies. As noted in the President's
budget: ``Groundwater from shallow alluvial aquifers . . . fort the
municipal systems . . . is generally poor with concentrations of iron,
manganese, sodium, sulfates, bicarbonates and total dissolved solids
above recommended standards.'' We must timely remedy this health risk.
The Project called for the construction of a single treatment plant
on the Missouri River near Poplar, Montana that distributes water
through 3,200 miles of pipeline to both the Reservation Tribal system
and, through three interconnections, to the Dry Prairie system. A
single water source on the Missouri River replaced nearly two dozen
individual community water sources ensuring a clean, plentiful and safe
water supply. The Project is now 75 percent complete and thus the
corresponding increase in O&M funding is needed. The Fort Peck Tribes
are very concerned that this major Federal investment and the source of
the Tribes' drinking water is no threatened by the construction of the
Keystone Pipeline. This pipeline will be built upstream of the Project
intake and there is no way that the intake and the water treatment
plant can continue to do their job if tar sands oil is leaked into the
Missouri River. We would ask Congress to direct the Interior Department
to consider the impacts this pipeline poses to the Fort Peck
Reservation Rural Water System, as it considers the necessary permits
to construct and operate this oil pipeline.
The Federal legislation authorizing the Fort Peck Reservation Rural
Water System requires that the OM&R of the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural
Water System--the portion on the Reservation that is held in trust by
the Federal Government--be paid in full by the BIA as a Federal
obligation. This is consistent with the Federal trust responsibility to
the Tribes who were promised a permanent home when we agreed to move to
the Reservation. A permanent home requires safe drinking water. If this
funding is not made available to the Tribes, this system will have to
shut down and all of the people, towns, and Federal, Tribal, State,
public and private agencies, and businesses will have no source of
drinking water.
Thus, the $2.634 million requested in fiscal year 2019 for the OM&R
of this vital infrastructure project is critical. The increased funding
of $234,000 over the fiscal year 2018 level for the O&M of the Project
is needed as the Project buildout has increased the service population
and thus requires additional personnel and other costs (power,
chemicals, maintenance) to operate the water treatment plant to
continue to meet this expanded service. If Congress does not
appropriate the required funds for OM&R, then this System will not
operate and the people of Northeast Montana will have no drinking
water.
indian health service
We continue to build government services and programs on the
Reservation and attract businesses to improve the quality of life for
our members. The IHS operates two clinics on the Reservation; the Verne
E. Gibbs IHS Health Center in Poplar, and the Chief Redstone IHS Health
Center in Wolf Point. In-patient services are available at the non-IHS
Poplar Community Hospital and Trinity Hospital in Wolf Point. To combat
the high incidence of heart disease, cancer and diabetes, the Tribes
supplement health services on the Reservation through our Health
Promotion and Disease Prevention (HPDP) Wellness Program and the
Spotted Bull Resource and Recovery Center, which we operate pursuant to
an ISDA contract with the IHS. A 2016 study found that a barrier to
healthcare is the failure of the IHS to fill critical healthcare
provider positions at our two IHS clinics in Wolf Point and Poplar.
We greatly appreciate the work of this subcommittee to increase the
level of funding for the Indian Health Service. The healthcare provided
through these dollars, whether it be direct medical care, dental care,
substance abuse treatment or purchased/referred care, is saving lives
and is making a difference on our Reservation. Our members know well
what it means to have access to care, so the Tribes can only ask that
you continue to fund these critical programs and reject the
administration's proposal to reduce IHS.
We would urge the members of the subcommittee to continue to
emphasize the need for additional mental health and substance abuse
treatment. Every day we are seeing the impact of abuse on our
Reservation, where we continue to be plagued by methamphetamine abuse.
Meth is cheap and very easy to find on our Reservation. This drug has
destroyed families and is tearing at the very fabric of our society.
We need more treatment options and we need mental health
specialists to be available to as individuals strive to remain clean.
We need more funding for programs like our Health Promotion and Disease
Prevention, which is focused on teaching our children about living a
healthy lifestyle and taking care of their health as young people.
Finally, we need mental health support for our children, who are
experiencing the trauma that accompanies living in a household in the
grip of addiction. We all know the statistics of childhood trauma in
Indian country and this no different on the Fort Peck Reservation. A
2016 study indicated that 13 percent of our youth attempted suicide,
that means that more than 1 in 10 of our children have tried to take
their own lives. This is unacceptable.
bia road maintenance
We are again appreciative of subcommittee's recognition of the
importance of transportation safety and economic development on Indian
reservations by increasing fiscal year 2018 funding for the BIA Road
Maintenance Program to $34.65 million, an increase of $4.35 million
above the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. Within the funding increase
for fiscal year 2018, Congress directs that 1 million be used by Tribes
and the BIA to improve the condition of unpaved school bus routes. We
share the subcommittee's concern that poorly maintained BIA System
routes contribute to higher absenteeism rates among our school
children, greater wear on our buses and higher maintenance costs, as
noted in a 2017 GAO Report (No. 17-423).
conclusion
We thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present testimony
concerning the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service
fiscal year 2019 budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies
The Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA) \1\
appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal
year 2019 proposed budget for U.S. EPA, including State and local air
quality management grants under the State and Tribal Assistance Grant
(STAG) program. AAPCA's State and local air agency members believe that
stable, adequate resources, including state and local air quality
management grants funded at a level at least equal to fiscal year 2018,
are critical to core Clean Air Act activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AAPCA is a national, non-profit, consensus-driven organization
focused on assisting State and local air quality agencies and personnel
with implementation and technical issues associated with the Federal
Clean Air Act. AAPCA represents more than 40 State and local air
agencies, and senior officials from 20 State environmental agencies
currently sit on the AAPCA Board of Directors. AAPCA is housed in
Lexington, Kentucky as an affiliate of The Council of State
Governments. You can find more information about AAPCA at: http://
www.cleanairact.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (H.R. 1625), passed on
March 23 of this year, recognized the need for these investments. H.R.
1625 funded the STAG program at $3.562 billion, with $1.076 billion
provided for categorical grants, including $228.219 million for the
State and Local Air Quality Management grant program, and $75 million
for the Diesel Emission Reductions Grant program (prior to
rescissions).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ H.R. 1625--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law
115-141).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants to State and local air agencies, including under Sections
103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, fund essential activities related to
planning, modeling, monitoring, training, developing emissions
inventories and rules, permitting, inspections, and enforcing key
elements of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), air
toxics, and regional haze programs. State and local air agencies have
found creative ways to amplify these Federal grant resources to fulfill
core Clean Air Act functions, and, through the framework of cooperative
Federalism, achieve significant success in virtually every measure of
air pollution control.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://cleanairact.org/documents/GreatestStory4-17-17.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 12, the White House released the President's budget
proposal for fiscal year 2019.\4\ The budget requests $5.4 billion to
fund U.S. EPA, approximately a 33-percent decrease from the
appropriations omnibus that passed on March 23. The budget also
proposes a nearly 45-percent reduction in categorical grants, or
$478.65 million less than enacted fiscal year 2018 levels. Further,
U.S. EPA's fiscal year 2019 Justification of Appropriation Estimates
for the Committee on Appropriations shows the elimination of several
air-related programs, including reducing State and local air quality
management grants by more than 33 percent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/budget-
fy2019.pdf.
\5\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/
fy-2019-congressional-justifica
tion-all-tabs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAPCA recognizes that your subcommittee is in the early stages of
the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process, and that H.R. 1625 did not
adopt similar figures proposed by the administration for fiscal year
2018. Congressional budgets for at least the past 15 fiscal years have
recognized the need for stable, adequate funding for State and local
air quality management grants. Since fiscal year 2008, funding for
these grants has averaged nearly $230 million, and the average year-to-
year change has never been less than 3 percent.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Figures assume dollars not adjusted for inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instability in funding for key grant programs may affect each State
or local air agency differently. Recent communication from the
Environmental Council of States (ECOS) indicated that ``As Categorical
Grants make up on average 27 percent of State environmental agency
budgets, decreases in these grants have significant impacts on the work
that State environmental agencies are able to accomplish.'' \7\
Providing stable, adequate funding for these grant programs through the
appropriations process allows for State and local air agencies to
continue the important and essential work that has driven success in
air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.ecos.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/FY18-EPA-
Budget-Letter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the attention to this testimony. AAPCA and its
members look forward to working with your subcommittee as Congress
develops its priorities for fiscal year 2019 appropriations.
Sincerely,
Stuart Spencer
Associate Director, Arkansas
Department of Environmental
Quality
President, AAPCA
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Art Museum Directors
The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) requests funding of
at least $155 million each for the National Endowment for the Arts
(NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) for fiscal
year 2019. We also ask that the subcommittee provide the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) with the funding necessary to staff and train
personnel in order to avoid placing any additional impediments on
American art museums that are importing works of art containing ivory
for the purposes of temporary public exhibition.
indemnity program
AAMD reminds the subcommittee that the NEA administers exhibition
indemnity agreements under the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act of 1975
on behalf of the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities. In the
indemnity program's 44 years of existence, it has facilitated the
presentation of more than a thousand significant exhibitions. Absent
the indemnity program, museums would be unable to present exhibitions
of the size and value that it covers. Careful review and stringent
standards have kept loss or damage to a minimum, while a high
deductible provides taxpayers with additional protection: to date only
two validated claim payments have been appropriated by Congress, for a
net sum of $4,700.
national endowment for the arts
We have been gratified to see bipartisan support on this Committee
and in Congress as a whole for the NEA's work. We particularly note the
widespread commendation of the NEA pioneering programs for military
personnel, veterans, and their families. AAMD also commends NEA for its
commitment to the Blue Star Museums initiative, now in its ninth year.
AAMD members have responded with overwhelming enthusiasm to Chairman
Chu's invitation to offer free admission to active duty military and
their families at least from Memorial Day through Labor Day. In 2016,
approximately 90 percent of AAMD members in the United States either
formally joined the program or already offered free admission to all.
Each year, more than 2,000 museums participate, reaching on average
more than 856,000 military members and their families. According to a
survey conducted by Blue Star Families, fifteen percent of participants
reported that it was the first time they had visited a museum. AAMD is
grateful to Blue Star Families and the NEA for the opportunity to serve
this new audience.
The NEA provides modest but important grants to art museums across
the country. Examples of recent grants include:
Anchorage Museum, Anchorage, Alaska, Fiscal Year 2018
To support the exhibition ``Walrus and the Polar Bear: Asveq and
Nanook,'' and accompanying catalogue. The exhibition will examine the
region's iconic and endangered walrus and polar bear, through
contemporary art, culture and indigenous traditions, providing a more
complex portrait of these animals than the romanticized portrayal
outside of the Arctic. The exhibition will feature existing works, as
well as newly commissioned works by native Alaskan and other artists.
Frist Art Museum, Nashville, Tennessee, Fiscal Year 2018 (formerly
Frist Center for the Visual Arts)
To support the exhibition ``Chaos and Awe: Painting for the 21st
Century.'' The exhibition, slated to open in June 2018, will be
presented thematically around specific themes that will explore issues
related to technological challenges, interpretation of history,
alienation and the sense of community, and the capacity and brilliance
of the mind. Works by approximately 50 established and emerging artists
will be presented. Educational programming includes a scholarly
symposium, in-gallery talks, workshops, and classes.
Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Missouri, Fiscal Year 2017
To support provenance research on works in the museum's collection,
specifically with respect to paintings and sculptures that may have a
Holocaust-related connection. The funding enables provenance
specialists to travel to specific archives and venues to complete
research on paintings and begin research on the sculptures. Research
results are being made public on the museum's online object database in
the form of provenance narratives. In-gallery didactics, webpages
dedicated to major contributors to the collection, and public programs
are being developed to educate visitors about the provenance of the
collection. The Nelson-Atkins welcomes any information that might help
to clarify the provenance history of artwork in its collection.
Yellowstone Art Museum, Billings, Montana, Fiscal Year 2017
To support an exhibition of work by Jaune Quick-to-See Smith and
accompanying catalogue. The exhibition featured paintings and prints
spanning five decades of Quick-to-See Smith's career, exploring how she
navigated Native and non-Native painterly expression as well as
concerns related to coming of age as a female during the height of the
male-dominated era of Abstract Expressionism. Quick-to-See Smith
created her own visual language, one that is vivid, layered, symbolic,
and unique in the canon of American art history. The exhibition
included extensive public programming.
Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art, Gainesville, Florida, Fiscal Year 2018
To support the exhibition ``The World to Come'' at the Harn Museum
of Art. The exhibition exploring environmental challenges will feature
works by more than 50 international contemporary artists who work in
all media. Lectures, an interactive touch table, a panel discussion,
workshops, and special youth educational programs will complement the
exhibition. It opens in September 2018.
Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, Fiscal Year 2018
To support the exhibition ``Cult of the Machine'' which opened in
March 2018. Presented at the de Young Museum, the exhibition features
approximately 150 works by modernists such as Georgia O'Keeffe, and
Charles Demuth, shedding scholarly light on the aesthetic and
intellectual concerns of Precisionism, underlying the development of an
important strand of American Modernism. Public outreach includes a
catalogue, musical performances, hands-on art activities, films, artist
demonstrations, scholarly talks, and school programs.
RISD Museum, Providence, Rhode Island, Fiscal Year 2017
To support Project Open Door. The free, after-school and summer
visual arts education program is a college access initiative for high
school students and teachers from underserved communities.
Participating youth develop technical skills in the visual arts and
prepare competitive college entrance portfolios. Graduate students
provide arts instruction in various artistic media. Students have the
opportunity to work in an open studio, build portfolios of creative
work, and make museum and gallery visits-including an annual visit to
New York City. Its goals are to encourage teens to graduate from high
school, to provide under-served teens attending Rhode Island urban
public and charter high schools with opportunities to develop their
artistic skills, to help prepare teens to enroll in post-secondary
education by offering guidance on college selection and preparation of
college applications, especially portfolio preparation for art and
design college programs, to provide RISD MA & MAT students an authentic
learning site that serves as a foundation for professional practices
that will engage in social justice and community arts endeavors, and to
provide RISD students, faculty, staff and alumni a platform for
community engagement.
Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, Maryland, Fiscal Year 2018
To support a project featuring contemporary artist Roberto Lugo,
invited to make new work and create an installation using the museum's
ceramics collection. The new installation will tell the intersecting
stories of the people who designed, built, occupied, and worked at One
West Mount Vernon Place, a mid-19th-century Greek Revival mansion. Lugo
aims to make the environment of the art museum accessible by permitting
individuals, physically and symbolically, to occupy spaces that were
previously denied to them. Public programming will include a community
conversation, clay workshops, gallery talks, and after-school programs.
Opening later this year.
national endowment for the humanities
This important agency assists art museums in presenting humanities
scholarship to the general public. NEH also plays an invaluable role in
assisting with the preservation and conservation of important
collections. This is exactly the type of unglamorous work for which it
is chronically difficult to raise private funding, making Federal
support all the more valuable.
AAMD notes NEH's support of grant programs to benefit wounded
warriors and to ensure educational opportunities for veterans and
service members transitioning to civilian life. We also note NEH's new
Infrastructure and Capacity-Building Challenge Grants program, which
seeks to strengthen the institutional base of the humanities in the
United States. Examples of recent grants include:
SFMoMA, San Francisco, California, Fiscal Year 2017
One of the first museums to recognize photography as an art form,
SFMOMA has more than 17,800 photographic works, dating from the advent
of the medium in 1839 to the digital images of today. Deepening and
expanding its commitment to photography, the new Pritzker Center for
Photography nearly triples the space dedicated to photography, filling
the majority of the third floor, the largest space permanently
dedicated to photography in any art museum in the United States. The
center includes enhanced permanent collection galleries and new special
exhibition galleries, along with a study center and the Photography
Interpretive Gallery, which was supported by a major grant from the
NEH.
Louisville-Jefferson County. Louisville, Kentucky, Fiscal Year 2017
The grant has enabled the purchase of new software, training costs,
printing, transportation of participating youth, and staff compensation
through the Cultural Pass Program, which provides free access for
children to Louisville culture all summer long, including the Speed Art
Museum.
Cummer Museum Foundation. Jacksonville, Florida, Fiscal Year 2018
For conservation of outdoor collections damaged by Hurricane Irma.
Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, Eugene, Oregon, Fiscal Year 2018
For the rehousing of 134 Asian paintings. This work will improve
preservation of historic scrolls, including Chinese, Japanese, and
Korean paintings, and promote access to these significant 19th-century
works for use within the university community, for undergraduate
research projects, museum exhibitions, as well as for related public
programs that reach a broad audience.
u.s. fish and wildlife service
We also ask that the subcommittee provide FWS with the funding
necessary to staff and train personnel in order to avoid placing
impediments on American art museums as they carry out their mission,
not only to temporarily exhibit works of art to the public, which
contain ivory, but also to be able to legally acquire works of antique
ivory from abroad.
FWS staff have worked well with the art museum community on several
important issues related to its mission and, as they continue to craft
regulations that recognize the importance of maintaining historic
works, we urge that they be given all necessary support and resources.
about aamd
The purpose of the Association of Art Museum Directors is to
support its members in increasing the contribution of art museums to
society. The AAMD accomplishes this mission by establishing and
maintaining the highest standards of professional practice, serving as
forum for the exchange of information and ideas, acting as an advocate
for its member art museums, and being a leader in shaping public
discourse about the arts community and the role of art in society.
[This statement was submitted by Christine Anagnos, Executive
Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Public and Land-Grant (APLU)
Universities Board on Natural Resources (BNR)
On behalf of the APLU Board on Natural Resources (BNR), we thank
you for your support of science and research programs within the
Department of Interior (DOI) and the United States Geological Survey
(USGS). We appreciate the opportunity to provide recommendations for
the following programs within USGS: $9 million for the Water Resources
Research Institutes and $23.9 million for the Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Units. We also recommend a minimum of $5.9 million of
funding for the Joint Fire Science Program within DOI.
APLU BNR requests $9 million for the Water Resources Research
Institutes (WRRI). The APLU BNR request is based on the following:
$7,500,000 in base grants for the WRRI as authorized by Section 104(b)
of the Water Resources Research Act, including State-based competitive
grants; $1,500,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g)
of the Act. Federal funding for the WRRI program is the catalyst that
moves States and cities to invest in university-based research to
address their own water management issues. State WRRIs take the
relatively modest amount of Federal funding appropriated, match it 2:1
with State, local and other funds and use it to put university
scientists to work finding solutions to the most pressing local and
State water problems that are of national importance. The Institutes
have raised more than $16 in other funds for every dollar funded
through this program. The added benefit is that often research to
address State and local problems helps solve problems that are of
regional and national importance. Many of the projects funded through
this program provide the knowledge for State or local managers to
implement new Federal laws and regulations. Perhaps most important, the
Federal funding provides the driving force of collaboration in water
research and education among local, State, Federal and university water
professionals. This program is essential to solving State, regional and
inter-jurisdictional water resources problems. As USGS itself has
stated: ``The Water Institutes have developed a constituency and a
program that far exceeds that supported by their direct Federal
appropriations.''
The institutes also train the next generation of water resource
managers and scientists. In 2016, these institutes provided research
support for more than 279 undergraduate and graduate students studying
water-related issues in the fields of agriculture, biology, chemistry,
earth sciences, engineering and public policy. Institute-sponsored
students receive training in both the classroom and the field, often
working shoulder-to-shoulder with the top research scientists in their
field on vanguard projects of significant regional importance.
In addition to training students directly, Water Resources Research
Institutes work with local residents to overcome water-related issues.
For example, the California Institute for Water Resources, like most of
its peers, holds field days, demonstrations, workshops, classes,
webinars, and offers other means of education to transfer their
research findings to as many users as possible. Outreach that succeeds
in changing a farmer's approach to nitrogen application or reducing a
homeowner's misuse of lawn treatments can reduce the need for
restrictive regulation. Recently, CIWR has served as a go-to resource
for information regarding the historic drought.
Below are some examples of work being done in various States:
--The Alaskan Water and Environmental Research Center (WERC) at the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, has contributed has partnered
with the U.S. Department of Energy and the Alaska Department of
Transportation to support transportation planning and tundra
travel on Alaska's North Slope, an important area for energy
development. At the same time, WERC established a methane
bubbling monitoring program utilizing a team of scientists,
teachers, and enthusiastic citizens. Methane, naturally
produced in lakes and wetlands, is a greenhouse gas thought to
contribute to climate change. The pan-arctic bubbling
monitoring team, which began in Alaska but will extend beyond
the State's borders, feeds information back to climate
scientists to better predict the response of methane production
in lakes as a feedback to climate warming.
--In the southwest, three university-based water resources research
institutes have teamed with USGS Water Science Centers.
Researchers at New Mexico State University, Texas A&M, and the
University of Arizona worked with USGS colleagues on the
Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program. Populations in El
Paso, Texas, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Nogales, Arizona and towns
in Mexico, share aquifers that cross the national boundary
between the U.S. and Mexico. https://webapps.usgs.gov/taap/.
APLU BNR requests at least $23.9 million for the Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Units (CRUs). This program: (1) trains the next
generation of fisheries and wildlife managers; (2) conducts research
designed to meet the needs of unit cooperators; and (3) provides
technical assistance to State, Federal and other natural resource
managers. Originally established in the 1930s to provide training for
students in fisheries and wildlife biology, today the CRUs provide
experience and training for approximately 600 graduate students per
year, a critical need as State and Federal workforces face
unprecedented retirements over the next 5 to 10 years. The CRUs also
provide valuable mission-oriented research for their biggest clients,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating State agencies.
Today, there are 40 Cooperative Research Units in 38 States.
Each unit is a true Federal-State-university-private sector
collaboration in that it is a partnership between the U. S. Geological
Survey, a State natural resources management agency, a host university,
and the Wildlife Management Institute. For every $1 the Federal
Government puts into the program, $3 more are leveraged through the
other partners. The U.S. economy has long relied on the bountiful
natural resources bestowed upon this land. Federal investment in the
CRUs will be returned many times over though the training of future
natural resource managers who will guide the Nation in sustainable use
of our natural resources. The research conducted by CRU scientists
directly supports the difficult management challenges faced by natural
resources managers. The examples below demonstrate the value of the
CRUs to wildlife issues with local and national importance.
--Alaska: The Alaska unit is currently working with Federal and State
stakeholders to model the effects of climate on available
forage for moose and caribou, two important species for both
subsistence and sport hunting in the State. This CRU is also
examining the availability of habitat for Chinook Salmon
juveniles in the Chena River; improving data collection on the
productivity of the Black Oystercatcher population in southwest
Alaska; developing a research framework for studying impacts of
climate and land use on migratory waterfowl; and researching
the foraging and migration patterns of Broad Whitefish on the
Arctic Coastal Plain, a valuable subsistence species that may
be troubled by a changing climate.
--California: Because the marbled murrelet, a bird that feeds in the
ocean and nests in old forests, is listed as a threatened
species through the Endangered Species Act, State and Federal
natural resources managers have implemented many conservation
tactics to aid the species recovery. Despite these efforts,
researchers are realizing that a combination of changing
foraging conditions and nesting habitat loss is potentially
driving continued trouble for the species. Current research
will help specify what the bird is eating in hopes of helping
natural resources managers bridge the gap between marine
management and forest management.
--Minnesota: The Minnesota CRU is currently researching the olfactory
sensitivity of Asian carps to putative sex pheromones. This
work has recently received national attention, because Asian
carps are an invasive species that threatens many of the
Nation's freshwater native fishes through competition for food.
The Minnesota CRU hopes to use the sex pheromones to attract
and trap Asian carp, removing them permanently from the
Nation's freshwater lakes and rivers.
The APLU request of $23.9 million would allow the CRUs to be fully
staffed, which currently they are not. There are a record number of 35
vacancies nationwide. For example, the California CRU currently has
only one Federal staff member where there should be 2-4. These
vacancies leave the CRUs less able to fulfill their critical roles in
bridging the gap between Federal fish and wildlife policies and the
States that charged with managing the Nation's fish and wildlife
resources.
APLU strongly recommends funding the Joint Fire Science Program
(JFSP) at a minimum of $5.9 million.
According to NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information
(NCEI), which tracks U.S. climate events that have great economic and
societal impacts (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions), the U.S. had an
extraordinarily damaging wildfire season in 2017 burning more than 9.8
million acres. The cumulative costs approach $18 billion, which triples
the previous U.S. annual wildfire season cost record of $6 billion
(Consumer Price Inflation-adjusted) that occurred in 1991. These
wildfire conditions were enhanced by the preceding drought conditions
in the Western United States.
The height of the wildfire season occurred in October, as a
historic firestorm damaged or destroyed over 15,000 homes, businesses
and other structures across central California and caused 44 deaths.
Incredibly, another California firestorm developed in early December
from persistent Santa Ana winds and extremely dry conditions. These
wildfires burned another 1,000 homes and structures in southern
California. The largest was Thomas fire that consumed over 285,000
acres making it the largest California wildfire on record. It is worth
noting that none of the top 20 largest California wildfires have
occurred after October, making the Thomas fire temporally unprecedented
and a harbinger of longer western wildfire seasons.
Despite this abysmal tally of damage from wildfires in 2017, the
administration has recommended no funding for the Joint Fire Science
Program within the Department of Interior. The JFSP model for funding
critical research, based on management priorities and with requirements
for active science delivery, makes the program uniquely valuable and
the only one of its kind. No other program offers researchers the
opportunity to address fire management challenges in direct response to
manager priorities. Based on direction from Congress, the program is a
partnership of Federal land management agencies that work together to
identify and address problems associated with managing wildland fuels,
fires, and fire-impacted ecosystems. They competitively allocate
funding to researchers to tackle those issues via applied research, and
require active delivery of science to managers and policymakers,
linking science to management.
With a relatively limited budget, the Joint Fire Science Program
has improved efficacy and accountability of agency activities by
funding research to address important topics. Past research has focused
on such salient issues as understanding smoke impacts to communities,
overcoming barriers to prescribed fire, identifying how drivers of fire
costs affect decisionmaking, analyzing fire behavior, and understanding
fire effects on resources and communities. The program supports
regional Fire Science Consortia that support science delivery to the
management and practitioner communities. Research and science delivery
under this program have proven valuable for both Federal land managers
and partner organizations working to restore fire-adapted landscapes
and promote fire-adapted communities.
BNR thanks you for the opportunity to provide our views to the
subcommittee. We look forward to working with you through the fiscal
year 2019 appropriations process.
About APLU and the Board on Natural Resources
APLU's membership consists of 224 State universities and State-
university systems. APLU institutions enroll more than 4.1 million
undergraduate students, and 1.2 million graduate students, award 1.1
million degrees, employ 1.1 million faculty and staff and conduct $42.4
billion annually in university-based research annually. The Board's
mission is to promote university-based programs dealing with natural
resources, fisheries, wildlife, ecology, energy, and the environment.
BNR representatives are chosen by their president's office to serve and
currently number over 500 scientists and educators, who are some of the
Nation's leading research and educational expertise in environmental
and natural-resource disciplines.
[This statement was submitted by Susan White, Executive Director of
the North Carolina Sea Grant and Director of the Water Resources
Research Institute of the University of North Carolina System, North
Carolina State University.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators
Summary of Request: The Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA) respectfully submits the following
recommendations for fiscal year 2019 appropriations on behalf of the
drinking water programs in the 50 States, five territories, District of
Columbia, and Navajo Nation. ASDWA requests funding for two programs
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, $1.16 billion for the Drinking Water State
Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) program, and $50 million for the three new
drinking water grant programs.
overview: the importance of safe drinking water for our communities and
the economy & the role of state drinking water programs
States need sustained Federal support to maintain public health
protection and to support the needs of the water systems they oversee.
State drinking water programs strive to meet the Nation's public health
protection goals through two principal funding programs: the Public
Water System Supervision Program and the Drinking Water State Revolving
Loan Fund Program. These two programs, with their attendant State match
requirements, provide the means for States to work with drinking water
utilities to ensure that American citizens will have safe and adequate
water supplies.
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 safe and reliable water supplies. Over 90 percent of the
population receives water used for bathing, cooking, and drinking from
a water system that is overseen by State drinking water program
personnel. Water systems--as well as the cities, villages, schools, and
businesses they support--rely on State drinking water programs to
ensure they comply with all applicable Federal requirements.
In addition to the water we drink in our homes, water produced by
water systems is also used to fight fires, transport wastewater, cook,
wash clothes and dishes, as well as by businesses for manufacturing,
food processing, and cooling. State drinking water programs must have
adequate funding to protect public health and maintain the economic
health of communities. Incidents such as the chemical spill in
Charleston, West Virginia; algal toxins in the water for Toledo, Ohio;
and the leaching of lead from lead-containing pipelines into the water
supply in Flint, Michigan all serve as stark reminders of the critical
nature of the work that State drinking water programs do--every day--
and the reason why the funding for State drinking water programs must
be not only sustained but enhanced. More recently, the pervasive
incidents of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) contamination
adds to the urgency of the need for funding.
state drinking water programs: how they operate, why support is needed,
and justifications for requested amounts
The Public Water System Supervision Program
How the PWSS Program Operates: To meet the requirements of the
SDWA, States have accepted primary enforcement responsibility for
oversight of regulatory compliance and technical assistance efforts for
more than 150,000 public water systems to ensure that potential health-
based violations do not occur or are remedied in a timely manner. This
involves more than 90 federally regulated contaminants and the
complexity of regulations has increased in the past decade. Beyond the
contaminants covered by Federal drinking water regulations, States are
also implementing an array of proactive initiatives to protect public
health from ``source to tap.'' These include source water assessments
and protections for communities and watersheds; outreach and education
on programs such as asset management and workforce, technical
assistance for water treatment and distribution for challenged
utilities; and enhancement of overall water system performance.
In recent years, States have also taken on an increasingly
prominent role in working with Federal and local partners to help
ensure sufficient water quantity. Many States have worked intensively
with numerous small water systems in recent years that were within days
of running completely dry. In short, State activities go well beyond
simply ensuring compliance at the tap--and States perform these tasks
more efficiently and cheaply than would be the case if the program were
federally implemented.
Why Adequate Support is Needed: Inadequate Federal funding cannot
support the principles of Cooperative Federalism. States will be unable
to protect public health without adequate Federal funding support.
Inadequate Federal funding for State drinking water programs has
several negative consequences. For example, consider the proposed Long-
Term Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule (LT-LCR). As part of ASDWA's
comments on EPA's Federalism Consultation, ASDWA conducted a Costs of
States' Transaction Study (CoSTS). The resulting data estimated that
the costs of States' staff time for the LT-LCR would be in the range of
72 percent-95 percent of current PWSS funding. Without additional
funding, this rule will be an unfunded mandate for States. Many States
are facing difficult choices on what implementation activities to not
do, such as conducting less frequent inspections or providing technical
assistance to systems that need it. Others are looking to EPA for
assistance, which is challenged by the Agency's own resource
constraints and lack of ``on the ground'' expertise. States also want
to offer the flexibilities allowed under existing rules to local water
systems. However, fewer State resources mean less opportunity to work
individually with water systems to improve their systems and protect
public health.
State drinking water programs are extremely hard pressed
financially and the funding gap continues to grow. State-provided
funding has historically compensated for inadequate Federal funding,
but State budgets have been less able to bridge this funding gap in
recent years. State drinking water programs are stretched to the
breaking point. Insufficient Federal support for this critical program
increases the likelihood of contamination events that puts the public's
health at risk. $101.9 million was appropriated for the PWSS program in
fiscal year 2018--the same funding level as was appropriated in fiscal
years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. The administrations fiscal year 2019
request of $67.9 million represents a 34 percent decrease for PWSS
funding. This level of funding has not been seen since 1995, nearly 25
years ago. This is an untenable situation--a significant decrease in
funding to work with a growing population who are increasingly
concerned about drinking water contaminants. The number of public water
systems to be overseen has not decreased; and the number of regulatory
requirements to be implemented also has not decreased. In fact, several
non-regulatory actions such as addressing PFAS and algal toxins and
providing oversight for the development of water systems' inventories
of lead service lines have increased States' workloads. States always
step in to help resolve the problems and return the systems to
providing safe water as quickly as possible. The $101.9 million that
was appropriated for the PWSS program for fiscal year 2018 was sorely
needed for States to be able to implement their public health
protection responsibilities and more is still needed today. Any
reduction, no matter how small, exacerbate States' existing financial
difficulties.
For the PWSS Program in fiscal year 2019, ASDWA Respectfully
Requests $200 million: The number of regulations requiring State
implementation and oversight as well as performance expectations
continue to grow while at the same time, the Federal funding support
has been essentially ``flat-lined.'' Inflation has further eroded these
static funding levels. This recommended amount is based on ASDWA's
December 2013 Resource Needs Report and begins to fill the above-
described resource gap. These funds are urgently needed for
implementing existing drinking water rules, taking on new initiatives,
and to account for the eroding effects of inflation. It is a small
price to pay for public health protection.
The Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund Program
How the DWSRF Program Operates: Drinking water in the U.S. is among
the safest and most reliable in the world, but it is threatened by
aging infrastructure. Through low interest loans provided by the DWSRF,
States help water utilities overcome this threat. The historical
payback to the DWSRF on this investment has been exceptional. Since its
inception, the DWSRF has touched millions of Americans through projects
that enhance drinking water capabilities at water utilities. In the
core DWSRF program, nearly $21 billion in cumulative Federal
capitalization grants since 1997 have been leveraged by States into
over $35 billion in infrastructure loans to 14,000 small and large
communities across the country. 26.3 percent of the cumulative DWSRF
assistance, including negative interest loans and principal
forgiveness, has been provided to disadvantaged communities. Such
investments pay tremendous dividends--both in supporting our economy
and in protecting our citizens' health. States have very effectively
and efficiently leveraged Federal dollars with State contributions to
improve health protection for millions of Americans.
An important feature of the DWSRF program is the State ``set-
aside'' fund component and another key reason to adequately fund this
critical program. Set-asides function as a proactive way for States to
work with drinking water systems to maintain compliance and avoid
violations. States may reserve up to 31 percent of these funds for a
variety of critical tasks, such as increasing the technical,
managerial, and financial capacity of water systems; providing training
and certification for water system operators; and continuing wellhead
and source water protection efforts. Set-asides are an essential source
of funding for States' core public health protection programs and these
efforts work in tandem with infrastructure loans.
Drinking Water Infrastructure Investment is Well below the
Documented Need: EPA's 6th Drinking Water Needs Survey concluded that
$427.6 billion of capital investment was needed for the next 20 years.
The total translates to $21.4 billion annually. Continued investment is
needed for aging treatment plants, storage tanks, pumps, and
distribution lines that carry water to our Nation's homes, businesses
and schools. The DWSRF must continue to be a key part of the
infrastructure solution. The newly created WIFIA program will
complement the DWSRF, as the DWSRF can also offer project subsidization
for disadvantaged communities, funds for training or technical
assistance, or health-based drivers. Both the DWSRF and WIFIA support
drinking water needs but neither should serve as a replacement for the
other.
For the DWSRF Program in fiscal year 2019, ASDWA respectfully
requests $1.16 billion: Multiple years of flat DWSRF funding has
hampered solving the Nation's infrastructure problem. DWSRF funding has
been static at $863 million since fiscal year 2016, until Congress
provided a partial solution in the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus
appropriation by adding a one-time boost of $300 million. ASDWA
supports maintaining the increased funding. 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. Physical water infrastructure
improvements coupled with critical assistance initiatives are essential
to support public health protection as well as a sustainable economy.
ASDWA believes that funding the DWSRF at the recently increased $1.16
billion level will better enable the DWSRF to meet the SDWA compliance
and public health protection goals.
Three New Drinking Water Grant Programs in Fiscal Year 2018 Omnibus
ASDWA respectfully requests continuation of $50 million of funding
for the three new grant programs: ASDWA applauds the addition of $50
million of new funding in the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus for three new
grants programs for disadvantaged communities ($20 million), lead
reduction ($10 million), and voluntary lead testing in schools and
child care centers ($20 million). These three new grants programs will
provide significant public health improvements if continued beyond
fiscal year 2018, as a single year is not enough time for the multiple
organizations are needed to develop and implement these complex
programs. A multi-year grant program, for at least 5 years, is needed
for these grants to be effective.
Conclusion: ASDWA respectfully recommends that the Federal fiscal
year 2019 budget needs for States' role in the provision of safe
drinking water be adequately funded by Congress. A strong State
drinking water program supported by the Federal-State partnership will
ensure that the quality of drinking water in this country will not
deteriorate and, in fact, will continue to improve--so that the public
can be assured that a glass of water is safe to drink no matter where
they travel or live. States are willing and committed partners.
However, additional Federal financial assistance is needed to meet
ongoing and ever growing regulatory, infrastructure, and security
needs.
[This statement was submitted by J. Alan Roberson, P.E., Executive
Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Back Country Horsemen of Washington
April 8, 2018
To: Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
(Senate)
Re: U.S. Forest Service 2019 Proposed Capital Improvement and
Maintenance budget
The Back Country Horsemen of Washington (BCHW) is a non-profit
501c-3 organization that works through the volunteer efforts of our
members to maintain trails, trailheads, and campgrounds on our state
and Federal public lands in Washington State. We are one of the primary
organizations that provide volunteer support for clearing trails on the
U.S. National Forest system and have been part of the National
Sustainability and Stewardship strategies. However, our efforts to
assist with addressing the growing backlog of trail maintenance on
Forest Service lands can only be productive if the Forest Service
(USFS) has the funds for planning, management, materials, and supplies
to design, lead, and complete trail projects on their trail systems.
Otherwise the trails do not get repaired, become unusable, and over
time disappear off the trail inventory. This is at a time when the
public need for outdoor recreational access for health and social
benefit is growing, not shrinking.
We in BCHW are stock users and packers. For us to be able to
maintain trails, we need to haul our stock to the trailheads on USFS
road systems which are themselves in serious need of repair due to
weather damage as well as deferred maintenance. Many of the roads are
impassable and can remain so for several years. We often are in the
position of not just volunteering our time, labor, and stock use but
also having to cover our increased vehicle repair costs. Heavy
reconstruction of bridges and puncheons can require specialized
equipment and bulky materials which we must not only pack but also in
many cases provide. Training and safety requirements put additional
cost impacts on both staff and volunteers. There is no shortage of
regulations on what are best and required management practices. The
shortage is in the funding to meet both the requirements and the work
that needs to be completed.
BCHW volunteers have witnessed the effects of wildfires on
recreational assets on USFS lands. The damage lasts many years after
the fires are put out and the BAER response teams go home. Some of our
most treasured areas remain wastelands with soft trails, failed
puncheons, and falling dead timber. We can do very little without major
dynamic support from agencies for relocating and reconstructing trails.
How can they do that if they don't have any staff?
This problem has been growing for decades, and in 2013 there was a
GAO study of USFS recreational trails. This graph (adjacent) from that
study shows that the 80 million a year in the USFS budget for trails is
sorely inadequate (Figure 7 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail
Maintenance)
While the solution will require boosting that 80 million per year,
there has been no movement to do so. Approaching 2019, the
administration's proposed budget is to lower that amount to an
unsustainable level (the CMTL portion for trails would be lowered from
$54 million to $9.4 million).
New studies highlight how recreation on public lands contributes
significantly to the national economy through visitations from
tourists, recreationists, and other citizens, and this is certainly
true. But the beneficiaries of this robust revenue are not the agencies
that provide the services unless they are appropriated a share through
the budget process. A bus may carry a lot of visitors but it needs gas,
maintenance, roads to run on, and access to view sites and facilities.
The investment in maintenance pays dividends in economic benefit. That
reinvestment needs to come from Congress in responsible appropriations.
We therefore ask that Congress do its part in supporting public lands
recreation by properly funding the Capital Maintenance trails budget of
the USFS at $100 million or more. Equally important is the Capital
Maintenance roads budget. Instead of lowering the road funding from
$138 million to $56 million, raise that item to $150 million.
Thank you,
Jeff Chapman
Legislative Committee Chair
Back Country Horsemen of Washington
______
Prepared Statement of Bardin David Jonas deg.
Prepared Statement of David Jonas Bardin
Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall,
(a) Please ask the Secretary of the Interior: How best to assure
long-term survival of, stability for, and adequate resources for USGS
Geomagnetism Program?
(b) Please reject for fiscal year 2019 (as you did for fiscal year
2018) the President's proposal to terminate this low-cost Program which
is so vital to national security and protection of our electric power
grid, other critical infrastructure, and their operations from natural
and hostile events.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Finn & Love, Proposed elimination of USGS Geomagnetism
Program (June 3, 2017); available at https://geohazards.usgs.gov/
pipermail/geomag-data/2017-June/000026.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Please raise USGS Geomagnetism Program line for fiscal year
2019 to $3.6 million, rather than the Public Law 115-141 level of $1.9
million (continuing to draw $500,000 from the much larger USGS
Facilities line and $550,000 from the U.S. Air Force \2\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ House Report 115-238 (available at https://www.congress.gov/
115/crpt/hrpt238/CRPT-115hrpt238.pdf) shows a Geomagnetism line of
$1,885,000 (at p. 136). The Program also receives $550,000 from the Air
Force and $500,000 out of the USGS Facilities line for a total of about
$3 million. U.S. Geological Survey 2019 Budget Justification, p. 61,
states: ``To address higher priorities, the USGS is not requesting
funds for the Geomagnetism program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USGS Geomagnetism Program has data acquisition, analytic, and
information sharing capabilities. It provides geomagnetic time series
and real-time data used by military and civilian agencies, the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI), utility firms and groups, consultants and
researchers.
It provides continuous outputs of its 14 geomagnetic observatories:
five in Alaska, four in the Western Interconnection [Electricity
Coordinating Council (WECC)] (in Washington, Colorado, Arizona,
California), two in the Eastern Interconnection (in Mississippi,
Virginia), one each in Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico--none in the Texas
Interconnection [Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)].\3\ It
reciprocates internationally. It's ``most important product . . . is
time series of stable magnetometer data having high accuracy and
resolution.'' \4\ We should not risk interruption or degradation of
Program outputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In July 2009, USGS closed and subsequently dismantled its Del
Rio, Texas, observatory for budgetary reasons.
\4\ See https://geomag.usgs.gov/monitoring/operations.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should fund Program preservation and at least six more
USGS magnetometer stations in the Contiguous United States (CONUS),
targeted on parts of the country that are under-monitored and where
geomagnetic hazards are of greatest concern, to be located in
consultation with stakeholders (likely in these six general regions: *
New York-New England, * Minnesota-Wisconsin-Iowa, * Illinois-Indiana-
Ohio-Michigan, * Pennsylvania, * Texas, * a location in Southeast
U.S.)
Map below shows two gaps exposing Americans to geomagnetic blackout
hazards:
--Big circles, marking six existing USGS magnetometer stations in
CONUS and three Canadian ones near border, leave a huge gap
between Boulder Colorado and Fredericksburg Virginia.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Love & Finn (2017) [Real-time geomagnetic monitoring for
space weather-related applications: Opportunities and challenges Space
Weather, 15, doi:10.1002/2017SW001665. Please ask: Considering the
existing ground-based observation systems for geomagnetic storms, from
the standpoints of NOAA space weather forecasts and research, USGS
support for the electric power industry situational awareness and
research, and the current under-monitoring of the areas of the U.S.
with greatest geomagnetic blackout hazard concerns, into what general
regions of the country should the magnetometer network of USGS
Geomagnetism Program be usefully expanded? How many additional stations
would be needed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Small circles mark Earth conductivity survey of two-thirds of
CONUS, leaving gap for all or parts of 14 Southern and
Southwestern CONUS States: ALABAMA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS,
CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, FLORIDA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI,
NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS and UTAH.
Protecting the electric power grid from Geomagnetic Disturbances
(GMDs) caused by natural explosion from the Sun (or from E3 pulses due
to a high-altitude nuclear explosion), requires data about electric
conductivity of the Earth \6\ which federally-funded surveys have
acquired (or are acquiring) for most of the country, mainly done via
National Science Foundation (NSF) EarthScope grants to Oregon State
University (OSU). (Mineral Resources Program of USGS also performed a
fraction of these surveys.) As NSF funding for such surveying runs out
this year, completion of surveying for remainder of our country seems
unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Space Weather Enterprise Forum, 27 June 2017, Session 4,
transcript at 5-7, available at https://swfound.org/media/205939/
swef_2017_4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please ask USGS and the Secretary of the Interior--in light of the
National Space Weather Strategy--How best to complete CONUS Earth
conductivity survey?
Respectfully submitted,
David Jonas Bardin,
Retired member,
Arent Fox LLP
______
Prepared Statement of BennetMichael deg.
Prepared Statement of U.S. Senator Michael F. Bennet Requesting
Resources for Agencies and Programs That Are Important to Address
Climate Change and to the Conservation and Management of Public Lands,
Air, and Water
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
State Member Agency Account Program (if President's 2018 Enacted Member Request Request Description Contact
applicable) Budget ($) Amount ($) ($) Fiscal Year 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Payments in Lieu of .................... .............. 13,228,000 13,228,000 We support full Patrick Donovan (8-
Taxes. funding for fiscal 5907)
year 2019.
CO......... Bennet............... USDA Forest Service/ Land and Water .................... .............. 425,000,000 900,000,000 Full funding, both Patrick Donovan (8-
DOI. Conservation Fund. mandatory and 5907)
discretionary.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. State and Tribal Categorial Grants 480,671,000 886,112,000 886,112,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Assistance Grants. for Air, Water, and funding consistent 5907)
Waste (Summy of with fiscal year
below). 2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Categorical Grant: .............. 169,754,000 169,754,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Nonpoint Source. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Categorical Grant: 67,892,000 101,271,000 101,271,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Public Water System funding consistent 5907)
Supervision (PWSS). with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Categorical Grant: 151,961,000 226,669,000 226,669,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
State and Local Air funding consistent 5907)
Quality Management. with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Categorical Grant: 153,683,000 229,239,000 229,239,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Pollution Control funding consistent 5907)
(Sec. 106). with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Categorical Grant: 66,381,000 99,016,000 99,016,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Hazardous Waste funding consistent 5907)
Financial with fiscal year
Assistance. 2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Categorical Grant: 8,963,000 12,742,000 12,742,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Tribal Air Quality funding consistent 5907)
Management. with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Categorical Grant: 31,791,000 47,421,000 47,421,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Brownfields. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. State and Tribal Grants for Air, 62,000,000 109,253,000 109,253,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Assistance Grants. Water, and funding consistent 5907)
Brownfields with fiscal year
(Summary of below). 2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Brownfields Projects 62,000,000 79,457,000 79,457,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Targeted Airshed .............. 29,796,000 29,796,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Grants. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Wildland Fire Supression.......... 1,165,366,000 1,556,818,000 1,556,818,000 We support funding ....................
Management. above the 10-year
average in fiscal
year 2019, prior to
the implementaiton
of the budget cap
adjustment in 2020.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Superfund Cleanup... Hazardous Substance 1,088,830,000 1,154,947,000 1,154,947,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Superfund. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Drinking Water State .................... 863,233,000 863,233,000 863,233,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Revolving Fund. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Clean Water State .................... 1,393,887,000 1,393,887,000 1,393,887,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Revolving Fund. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... OSMRE............... Abandoned Mine .................... 20,375,000 139,672,000 139,672,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Reclamation Fund. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Environmental .................... 300,738,000 305,844,000 305,844,000 Cuts larger than Patrick Donovan (8-
Program and $100 m to the 5907)
Management. entire EPM program
will prevent EPA
from conducting
core EPM functions..
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Environmental Brownfields......... 16,082,000 25,593,000 25,593,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Program and funding consistent 5907)
Mangement. with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Environmental GHG Reporting....... 13,580,000 95,436,000 95,436,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Program and funding consistent 5907)
Mangement. with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Climate Change .................... .............. 16,520,000 16,520,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Research. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Stratospheric Ozone. Montreal Protocol... .............. 8,677,000 10,000,000 Al least fiscal year Candace Vahlsing (8-
2018 levels.. 5433)
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Stewardship......... Collaborative Forest .............. 40,000,000 40,000,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Landscape funding consistent 5907)
Restoration Program. with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ State and Private Urban and Community .............. 27,850,000 27,850,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Forestry. Forestry Program. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Capital Improvement Roads............... 71,481,000 173,905,000 173,905,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
and Maintanance. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ National Forest Hazardous Fuel 390,000,000 387,352,000 390,000,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
System. Reduction. funding at least at 5907)
the fiscal year
2018 enacted level..
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ National Forest Forest Products 341,165,000 365,307,000 365,307,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
System. Program (e.g., funding consistent 5907)
Timber Sales). fiscal year 2018
levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Wildland Fire State Fire 69,400,000 80,000,000 80,000,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Management. Assistance. funding at least at 5907)
fiscal year 2018
levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Wildland Fire Volunteer Fire 11,600,000 16,000,000 16,000,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Management. Assistance. funding at least at 5907)
fiscal year 2018
levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Capital Improvement Legacy Roads and .............. 40,000,000 40,000,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
and Maintanance. Trails Program. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Recreation, .................... 240,236,000 262,798,000 262,798,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Heritage, and funding at least at 5907)
Wilderness. fiscal year 2018
levels.
CO......... Bennet............... NPS................. Historic .................... 32,700,000 96,910,000 96,910,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Preservation Fund. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. National Priorities Extramural research .............. 4,100,000 4,100,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Research Program. grants. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... DOI................. Central Hazardous .................... 2,000,000 10,010,000 10,010,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Materials Fund. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFWS............... North American NAWCA Fund.......... 33,600,000 40,000,000 40,000,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Wetlands funding consistent 5907)
Conservation Act with fiscal year
(NAWCA). 2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... NPS................. National Heritage Heritage Partnership .............. 20,321,000 20,321,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Areas. Program. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... NPS................. National Park Centennial Challenge .............. 23,000,000 23,000,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Foundation. Fund. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... DOI................. Climate Science North Central .............. .............. 25,335,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Centers. Climate Center. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2017 levels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared Statement of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation
The Requests of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) for
the fiscal year 2019 Indian Health Service Appropriations and our
comments are as follows:
--VBC Funding.--Direct the IHS to fully fund Village Built Clinic
(VBC) leases and make it a line item in the budget and allocate
at least an additional $12.5 million to the IHS for VBC leases,
for a total of $17 million.
--CSC Funding.--Continue to fund Contract Support Costs (CSC) at 100
percent and provide funding on a permanent and mandatory basis.
--Sequestration.--Shield the IHS/BIA from sequestration or
rescissions.
--Increase IHS behavioral healthcare funding (Mental Health/Substance
Abuse)
--Land Transfer Legislation.--Enactment of H.R. 236/S. 269, to
facilitate transfer of a parcel of land from IHS to BBAHC on
which our dental clinic is located.
--USAC Subsidies for Telecommunications Connectivity.
The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation was created in 1973 to
provide healthcare services to Alaska Natives of Southwest Alaska. We
began operating and managing the Kanakanak Hospital and the Bristol Bay
Service Unit for the IHS in 1980, and was the first Tribal organization
to do so under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act (ISDEAA). BBAHC is a co-signer to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact
with the Indian Health Service (IHS) under the ISDEAA and is now
responsible for providing and promoting healthcare to the people of 28
Alaska Native Villages.
We have made significant progress but now deal with modern-day
health problems. Today, rather than TB and influenza epidemics, we
struggle with diseases of a modern society that include chronic
illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease and behavioral and
mental health needs. The life expectancy of our people has increased
from 47 years of age in 1952 to 69.4 in 1998, still below that of U.S.
residents and other Alaskans.
Village Built Clinics. We thank Congress for appropriating an $11
million increase over base funding for Tribal health clinic leases in
the fiscal year 2017 and 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Acts We
appreciate the Alaska Congressional delegation's continued support and
are particularly thankful to Senator Murkowski for her leadership on
this issue. We thank her for her steadfast determination in advocating
for these small chronically underfunded remote clinics that serve as an
essential health lifeline in rural Alaskan villages where there is no
road system to connect villages to urban centers. As noted above, BBAHC
serves 28 remote villages in southwest Alaska.
BBAHC hope that any infrastructure proposal that may move forward
would include assistance for the Village Built Clincs. We appreciated
the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska
Native Affairs holding a hearing on Indian infrastructure needs in
Indian Country, and the support and participation of Chairman Emeritus
Young in the discussion that focused on the considerable unmet needs of
Village Built Clinics. Many of the Village Built Clinics are in extreme
disrepair and there is a considerable need for a reserve fund for
upkeep and expansion of these essential village facilities. In 2015,
the Alaska Native Health Board estimated that a $14 million annual
appropriation would be needed to fund a replacement reserve to tackle
the clinic crisis in addition to $12.5 million added to the base
funding. BBAHC supports increased funding for Village Built Clinics and
requests that funding be a: (1) separate line item in the IHS budget,
(2) recurring funding, and (3) displayed in the Budget Justification to
better enable planning and certainty.
Contract Support Costs (CSC). BBAHC thanks the House and Senate
Interior Appropriations Subcommittees for their leadership in
committing to fully fund IHS and BIA contract support costs and for
finding a way to due it through providng ``such sums as may be
necessary'' and making it a separate account in the IHS and BIA
budgets. For many years, both the IHS and BIA have vastly underpaid the
contract support costs owed to Tribal organizations and this
transformation makes an enormous difference in helping to ensure that
Tribes and Tribal organizations can successfully exercise their rights
and responsibilities under the ISDEAA. The shift is also likely to
significantly improve the Federal-Tribal government-to-government
relationship. We also appreciate that the proviso that would have
effectively denied CSC carryover authority granted by ISDEAA is absent
from fiscal year 2017 and 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Acts.
The House Committee Report language fom fiscal year 2018
encouraging IHS to pay CSC on their grant programs was welcome, and we
will continue to advocate to IHS that they take this action.
BBAHC will continue to advocate for our long-term goal of ensuring
that full CSC appropriations are made permanent and mandatory. Under
the ISDEAA, the full payment of CSC is not discretionary; it is a legal
obligation affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Funding
of CSC on a discretionary basis has in the recent past placed the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees, in their own words, in the
``untenable position of appropriating discretionary funds for the
payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.'' BBAHC is
committed to working with the appropriate Congressional committees to
determine how best to achieve that goal.
Sequestration/Rescissions. BBAHC respectfully requests the
subcommittee's support in amending the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act to exempt Indian programs, such as the IHS and BIA
budgets, from across-the board sequestration of funds. We supported
Congress fully exempting Veterans Health Administration programs from
sequestration. However, Indian healthcare, as a Federal trust
responsibility, should be afforded equal treatment. A number of members
of this subcommittee and other Members of Congress have publicly stated
that it was an oversight that the Indian budgets were not included in
the exempt category when the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act was enacted.
We are aware that there is some advocacy in Congress and within the
administration to rescind some of the recent increases provided in the
fiscal year 2018 Consolidated Appropritaions Act. The IHS received some
of those increases, notably in the Facilities Account. It would not be
right to break the bipartisan agreement that led to the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2018 and the fiscal year 2018 Consolidated Appropriations
Act, and we strongly oppose any such an action.
Behavioral Health. We have testified before Congress previously
regarding the hardships in providing for our communities' behavioral
and mental health needs, particularly with regard to our youth. As you
know, there is an epidemic of suicide among Alaska Natives, especially
teens. BBAHC has well-qualified professional staff who service
approximately 6,500 people in our region. But our social workers,
counsellors and behavioral health aides have a theoretical caseload of
300 persons each. The ratio of mental health clinicians to clients is 1
to 1,300. Our 14-bed residential youth facility for substance abuse
(Jake's Place) has an Alcohol and Drug Safety program funded by the
State of Alaska but it is primarily an education program, not a
treatment program, and much of the education is done remotely, via the
Internet.
We urge increases under the IHS Mental health program for
behavioral health integration and the Zero Suicide Initiative and under
the Alchohol and Substance Abuse account for Generation Indigenous, the
pilot youth project, and detoxification. We acknowledge the HHS
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
Tribal behavioral health grants ($15 million substance abuse; $15
million mental health) but the need in Indian Country is so great.
Opioid Epidemic. Indian Country has been hit especially hard by the
opioid abuse epidemic and we urge that the fiscal year 2019 $150
million SAMHSA passthrough of opioid and mental health funds to the IHS
be distributed as soon as possible following consultation with Tribes.
We undersetand that IHS is looking as a starting point distributing the
funds in a manner similar to that utilized by the Special Diabtes
Program for Indians.
Land Transfer Legislation. BBAHC also asks for your support in
enacting legislation that would direct the Secretary of the Department
of Health and Human Services to convey a 1.474-acre parcel of land, via
warranty deed, to BBAHC for the land on which our new state-of-the-art
dental clinic is located. The legislation is H.R. 236, introduced on
January 3, 2017 by Congressman Young and S. 269 introduced on February
1, 2017 by Senators Murkowski and Sullivan.
The House and Senate bills are identical, and there is no reason
they should not pass under unanimous consent or under suspension of the
rules. The property transfer authorized by these bills would enable the
land transfer from IHS to BBAHC via warranty deed, and would supersede
any existing quitclaim deed. It would allow the BBAHC to have greater
control over the land and more opportunities for financing as well as
to remove any IHS reversionary interests.
Our new dental facility opened in September 2016, on the grounds of
the Kanakanak Hospital Compound. The new clinic replaced a dilapidated
clinic and is providing expanded dental care to our region where there
are very few public dental clinics. Our service population is 6,500.
Part of the funding for the dental facility came from BBAHC reinvesting
its share of a CSC settlement with IHS that was paid to compensate for
years of contract underpayments to the Tribal health organization. The
clinic is the first building owned by BBAHC on the hospital campus and
there is a lot of pride and self-determination that flows from the new
tribally-owned dental building.
Telecommunications Connectivity Shortfall Due to Funding Cap. A
major issue in Alaska is that the subsidies provided for rural
healthcare providers for telecommunications connectivity, through the
Universal Service Administration Company (USAC) have been greatly
reduced. USAC has imposed a pro-rata reduction in rural Health Care
funding due to a funding cap. This amounts to a reduction of $18.1
million shortfall just among Alaska's Tribal health programs. We
literally must have Internet connectivity in order to provide
healthcare in Alaska and so any shortfall comes out of our health
services. In the BBAHC area we serve a vast area covering 28 Tribal
villages. The shortfall next year may be $35 million for Alaska Tribal
health programs, and our potential shortfall is $4.2 million. We and
others are advocating with the Federal Communications Commission to end
the funding cap and we ask for your attention to and support for us on
this matter.
We appreciate your leadership and commitment to the advancement of
Native American people and thank you for your consideration of the
concerns and requests of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation.
[This statement was submitted by Robert J. Clark, President and
CEO.]
______
Prepared Statement of Brown University
April 26, 2018
Submitting organization: Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
To: Senate Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Regarding: NIEHS Superfund Research Program
This letter addresses funding for the Superfund Hazardous
Substances Basic Research and Training Program (Superfund Research
Program [SRP]) of the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The SRP
program was launched in 1987 to implement the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.
The annual funding for the SRP program is determined by Congress
separately from the rest of the NIH budget. Of critical importance,
while the rest of NIH funding has experienced a fairly steady increase
in budget by Congress, the Research Project Grants of SRP have seen a
decline in funding since 2006 with a drop from $50.6 million to $46.8
million (out of a total of $77.3 million for SRP).
We urge your support for the SRP program in the fiscal year 2019
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bills. We are
requesting $80,349,000 for fiscal year 2019, which is an increase of $3
million to reverse losses and sustain growth in this public health and
research program. The funds will expand support for public and private
universities and small businesses across the country and will continue
the SRP track record of creating jobs and economic growth by allowing
development of abandoned and otherwise unusable land.
The SRP focuses on human health protection against toxic substances
in the environment and is frequently the first resource that concerned
citizens turn to when confronted with threats to their health by
exposures to environmental chemicals, which are far too common. There
are currently over 84,000 such chemicals in common use. With broad
geographic representation, over the years the SRP has funded
universities, individual research projects and small-businesses in 35
States including: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nebraska,
Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Wyoming. With
continued and expanded funding the opportunities for the SRP we have
the capacity to expand into other States continuing the trend in
accelerating Superfund sites restoration, public health protection, job
creation and the generation of millions of dollars in business revenue
across the United States.
The pioneering nature of the SRP has helped to produce a
distinguished record of accomplishments for the U.S. population,
guaranteeing a more promising future for all. The SRP pushes the bounds
of science and engineering by creating innovative technologies that
save taxpayer dollars and are adopted by small-businesses for the
restoration of Superfund sites. Some examples include:
--A natural soil acid strategy developed by SRP researchers was used
to accelerate remediation of an arsenic-contaminated site at
the Vineland Superfund Site in New Jersey. This strategy
greatly reduced the cleanup time, saving taxpayers an estimated
$2.4 billion over the life of the project.
--Small businesses developed new devices to treat gasoline
contamination in water and a unique microwave technology for
removal of contaminants that was tested at the McClellan Air
Force Base.
--New technologies are being developed to use solar-powered systems
to provide clean water to rural communities. Beyond
restoration, SRP developed innovative exposure risk reduction
strategies that are being communicated to affected communities.
Risk reduction leads to significant savings in medical costs.
Examples include:
--Giving folic acid supplementation to exposed individuals to lower
blood arsenic levels.
--Giving calcium to nursing mothers to lower their lead levels.
--Emphasizing nutrition at all life stages as a form of risk
reduction.
SRP innovations have also been and will continue to be timely for
facing national natural or manmade disasters. Examples include:
--New devices to measure biological responses from oil spills in the
Gulf of Mexico--created after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
of 2010.
--New technologies to measure biological responses from the Elk River
chemical spill of 2014, in West Virginia.
--Understanding the health effects of the World Trade Center Disaster
of September 11, 2001.
The leading edge SRP is a model for a multidisciplinary research
which pursues discoveries at the boundaries where scientific
disciplines meet and innovation is essential. The program will continue
its forward-thinking strategies by launching new companies and creating
jobs with a mission of protection against toxic substances. The SRP
will continue to develop innovative technologies to reduce exposures
and prevent diseases, ultimately leading to reductions in healthcare
costs. It will accelerate the removal of sites from the Superfund list
and develop these sites for industrial use. It will continue to train
workers to safely clean up and redevelop abandoned, contaminated land.
It will continue to provide community-based assistance and
interventions and train an advanced next-generation of
interdisciplinary scientists.
Locally in Rhode Island, Brown University is home to one of the 23
national SRP centers. The Brown University SRP is entitled: Toxicant
Exposures in Rhode Island: Past, Present, and Future, and is focused on
complex environmental contaminant issues in Rhode Island. Rhode Island
has a long history of industrial activity resulting in extensive
contamination, and we are using an academic-government-community
partnership to expand the understanding of the human health
consequences and management of these contaminated sites in our State.
The Brown center has been in operation for over 11 years, and has
produced 13 patents and 2 start-up companies. Our Rhode Island
Community partners include the RI Department of Environmental
Management, the RI Dept. of Health, the Narragansett Indian Tribe and
the Woonsaquatucket River Watershed Council.
Thank you for supporting funding of the SRP program and continuing
this critical investment in education, public health, and job creation.
Sincerely,
Robert Hurt, Ph.D.
Professor, Brown University
Director, Brown Superfund Research Program
Director, GAANN training program
______
Prepared Statement of BrownfieldsPrograms deg.
Prepared Statement of U.S. Senators in Support of the Environmental
Protection Agency's Brownfields Program
______
Prepared Statement of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy
On behalf of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE), I
am writing to express support for fiscal year 2019 Federal investment
in initiatives that help businesses manage environmental issues, foster
transparency and best practices in emissions and water management, and
that recognize leadership in environmental stewardship and
sustainability.
This includes programs funded by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under the Office of Air and Radiation and Enforcement
Division related to air quality, international climate change programs,
climate change research and partnership programs, and water management,
as well as the ENERGY STAR program.
BCSE is a coalition of companies and trade associations from the
energy efficiency, natural gas and renewable energy sectors. It
includes independent electric power producers, investor-owned
utilities, public power, manufacturers, commercial end users and
service providers in energy and environmental markets. Founded in 1992,
the coalition's diverse business membership is united around the
continued revitalization of the economy and the creation of a secure
and reliable energy future in America.
As a business group working to advance clean energy policies over
the last 25 years, BCSE has seen first-hand the importance of the
Federal role EPA fills in sharing information about new technologies
and practices to help speed adoption and allow consumers to make more
informed decisions.
The Federal Government's role in these efforts is critical to
provide transparent, standardized and independent data and expertise
that cannot be replicated by private sector or non-governmental
organizations with the same credibility.
maintaining america's status as an energy leader
Through regulatory and voluntary initiatives, EPA helps foster the
U.S. leadership role in clean energy and transportation technologies
globally. Many EPA programs, including the CHP Partnership, Green Power
Partnership, Natural Gas Star, AgStar, SmartWay Transport Partnership,
and others, embody longstanding public-private endeavors that benefit
American businesses and help them continue to compete on a global
scale.
For example, the Natural Gas Star program brings companies together
to voluntarily evaluate emissions, work to reduce them, and gather data
that adds transparency and highlights the market's eagerness to adopt
energy saving measures.
EPA initiatives provide market transparency, encourage voluntary
action, and identify companies that are leaders in businesses and in
environmental protection. Additionally, EPA's laboratories lead the
world in capabilities that make the United States preeminent in
research and analysis which supports private sector capabilities to
enhance economic growth and emissions reductions simultaneously.
epa programs provide value to u.s. taxpayers
Federal investments in programs implemented by the EPA have
multiple benefits including reducing air pollution, saving consumers
money, and achieving energy independence and security. Additionally,
clean energy supported over 3 million jobs in the United States in
2016, due in part to EPA and other government programs that encourage
the use of clean energy and energy efficiency.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report, Department of Energy,
available at: https://
energy.gov/downloads/2017-us-energy-and-employment-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs like ENERGYSTAR have proven track records success and are
extremely cost-effective. Through brand recognition, information and
positive publicity, the ENERGY STAR program has provided the catalyst
for many consumers, homeowners, businesses, and State and local
governments to invest in energy efficiency. The Council opposes moving
to a fee-based funding model for ENERGYSTAR, which would erode the
integrity and effectiveness of the program.
epa programs provide critical support to states, tribes, and localities
Many State, local, and Tribal efforts to improve the environment
are dependent on the information and resources provided by Federal
programs. The EPA provides valuable technical assistance, analytical
tools, and outreach support to State, local, and Tribal governments
that enable the States to administer robust clean energy and energy
efficiency programs. Investing in energy efficiency, renewable energy,
and environmental policies and programs is an important way for State
and local governments to improve air quality and to improve people's
health, and to save money. For example, EPA's State and Local Climate
and Energy Program offers expertise about energy efficiency, renewable
energy, and climate change policies and programs to interested State,
local, and Tribal governments. By providing these resources, EPA
removes barriers that would otherwise prohibit action at the local
level due to resource constraints or lack of information on best
practices.
the federal role for air quality and climate change programs
EPA can address barriers to the adoption of emissions-reducing
technologies--such as a lack of reliable information, inconsistent
regulatory environments, and workforce training gaps--through
activities that include providing objective information, creating
networks between the public and private sector and providing technical
assistance. These efforts can help energy consumers in all sectors.
Through its programs on renewable energy, natural gas, combined heat
and power and energy efficiency, EPA encourages the use of clean,
efficient, and market-ready technologies that can lower costs and
improve resiliency in addition to lowering emissions.
EPA also has an important role to play as an international leader
in climate science and emission reduction frameworks. EPA is engaged in
a variety of international activities to advance climate change
science, monitor our environment, and promote activities that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. EPA establishes partnerships, provides
leadership, and shares technical expertise to support these activities.
The Council wishes to work with members of the Appropriations
Committee to maximize the value of limited Federal dollars and we
request the opportunity to meet with your staff to further discuss the
Council's position and support for EPA programs.
[This statement was submitted by Lisa Jacobson, President, Business
Council for Sustainable Energy.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Catawba Indian Nation, South Carolina
Recommendations:
1. Provide necessary funding to support Tribal self-determination
and economic development.
2. IHS--Provide full funding and parity to the Indian Health
Service.
3. IHS--$71.292 increase in funding for Preventive Health
services.
4. BIA OJS--$113.7 million for Tribal court development and
support services.
5. BIA--$200 million for Tribal law enforcement development and
support services.
6. BIA--$35 million for the BIA Road Maintenance Program.
7. EPA--Maintain adequate funding to protect environmental
quality in Indian Country.
8. BIA--$30 million for the Tribal Climate Resilience Program.
9. DOI--$30 million for Department-wide Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives.
10. BIA--$1 million in dedicated funding for NAGPRA
implementation.
11. BIA--Increase funding for Tribal historic preservation efforts
to protect sacred sites.
Introduction. Thank you Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall,
and Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on
critical funding needs for American Indian and Alaska Native programs
under your jurisdiction. The people of the Catawba Indian Nation thank
you for your hard work on behalf of Indian Country and for inviting
Tribal leaders to submit witness testimony on their communities'
behalf. As you are aware, these programs are based on the political
relationship that exists between the Federal Government and Tribal
nations. My name is William Harris and I am the Chief of the Catawba
Indian Nation, the only federally recognized Tribe in the State of
South Carolina. Since before recorded history, the Catawba have lived
in the Piedmont area of South Carolina, east of the Nantahala National
Forest and along the life-giving waters of the river bearing our name.
Like our traditional pottery, the Catawba have been created from
southern soil, to be shaped and fired over time by unimaginable
hardship, and now stand tall as a living testament to our ancestors and
to the land we call home. To advance the socioeconomic development and
well-being of my Nation and other Native communities, I offer the
following budget recommendations for fiscal year 2019.
i. sustainable economic development for smaller tribes
Increased Support for Non-Gaming Tribes. As a sovereign nation and
industrious people, we are committed to achieving economic self-
sufficiency. For the Catawba Indian Nation, this goal is immeasurably
complicated by the terms of our 1993 Settlement Act with the State that
inhibit meaningful Tribal economic development. For example, our Nation
is currently prohibited from establishing gaming operations on Tribal
lands under the terms of our Settlement Act. Instead, we are allowed to
operate just two bingo halls--neither of which ever turned even a
marginal profit for the Nation due to the mandatory 10 percent fee on
gross bingo revenue that must be first transmitted to the State. It is
our hope to come back to the Congress and ask for amendments to our
Settlement Act that would restore some of our lost sovereignty and
free-up our economic potential. In the interim, we continue to explore
innovative avenues for economic growth. We urge Congress to invest in
economic development programs for non-gaming Tribes to further the
Federal Government's policy of promoting Tribal self-determination and
economic self-sufficiency.
Expanded Access to Investment Opportunities in Indian Country.
Given adequate support and the appropriate resources, the majority of
Tribal nations would likely become--assuming they are not already--
significant contributors to their local and regional economies. Tribal
nations are economic engines of the tourism industry, renewable
energies, small business development, commercial services, among many
others. However, limited access to capital and investment financing
remain substantial barriers in Indian Country. We struggle with
uniquely burdensome Federal restrictions and regulations, poor
infrastructure, and other challenges that limit their economies from
flourishing. It is important to create avenues for investment funds,
financial resources, and business models that are mutually advantageous
to Tribes and potential partners for economic advancement, stability,
and diversification. We encourage Congress to provide increased support
for investment opportunities in Indian Country in the fiscal year 2019
budget.
ii. promoting health and wellness in indian country
Provide Full Funding and Parity for the Indian Health Service.
Indian health programs continue to suffer from the effects of annual
budget cuts due to sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011
(Public Law 112-25). While other critical healthcare agencies such as
Veterans Affairs were exempt from Federal sequestration in 2013, the
IHS was not. The disruption in Federal funding resulted in a loss of
over $219 million from the IHS budget that was never recouped in
subsequent fiscal cycles through appropriate increases in the IHS
budget. The compounding, negative effect of this lost funding
translated into immediate and long-lasting negative health impacts on
Tribal citizens through lost resources for primary and preventative
healthcare services, staff recruitment and training, and other
specialized health programs serving Indian Country. These losses are
exacerbated every year due to the lack of full IHS funding. We urge
Congress to provide the IHS with full funding in fiscal year 2019, as
well as with parity to other Federal healthcare agencies through an
exemption from any reductions in the Federal budget.
Plan for the Future with Dedicated Funding for Preventative Health
Services. The Catawba Indian Nation depends on the IHS for the delivery
of healthcare services in our community through the local Catawba
Service Unit. Access is limited, however, due to the Service Unit's
restricted operating hours and lack of emergency and urgent care
services. When combined with the disproportionately high rates of
chronic illness--including diabetes, heart disease, and behavioral
health and substance use disorders--it becomes clear that innovation in
healthcare is urgently needed to uproot these negative outcomes in
Indian Country. For its part, the Catawba Indian Nation is planting the
seeds for healthy generations of Tribal members through our Wellness
Warriors program. The mission of the Wellness Warriors is to improve
overall community health through crosscutting programs, health
education, physical activity, nutrition, and tobacco cessation. The
program serves as a trellis for life-long community fitness and
engagement.
We believe that increased Federal funding for preventative care
services as an IHS sub-activity would enable other Tribal nations to
cultivate and sustain similar programs in their communities. The result
would be significant long-term savings for the Federal Government by
reducing future incident rates of chronic illness and associated
medical costs, as well as increased life-savings by promoting the
vitality of Tribal members. The President's fiscal year 2019 proposal
would fund Preventive Health programs at $89.1 million--almost half of
the fiscal year 2018 Annualized CR level of $158.645 million. We urge
Congress to invest heavily in the future health and well-being of our
country by providing an increase of $71.292 million for Preventive
Health.
iii. public safety and justice services
Advance Public Safety with Increased Support for Tribal Courts and
Law Enforcement Services. At the Catawba Indian Nation, we are proud to
provide our members with governmental services designed to address
their myriad socioeconomic, educational, spiritual, and other needs.
Missing from this panoply is a robust Tribal justice department. We are
working with the Department of Justice and Bureau of Indian Affairs to
fill this critical gap through the development of a Tribal court,
Healing to Wellness alternative drug court, law enforcement agency, and
related justice services. We have entered into a 638 contract with the
BIA to develop Tribal court services, once established we will then
satisfy the necessary requirements to apply for DOJ grants. The process
is long, complicated, and costly for our Nation. However, building the
internal infrastructure to address these needs is a fundamental aspect
of our Tribal sovereignty and one that we are dedicated to fulfilling.
To advance public safety, we recommend Congress allocate $113.7 million
for Tribal court services in the BIA Office of Justice Services. We
also urge Congress to provide an additional $200 million for law
enforcement and detention services.
Connect Tribal Communities to Essential Services through Increased
BIA Roads Construction and Maintenance Funding. Adequate and well-
maintained roads are essential to connecting our Tribal members with
essential on-reservation programs and services, as well as with nearby
urban centers. Funding for the BIA Road Maintenance program, however,
has been level-funded at approximately $30 million for several fiscal
year cycles, despite the accumulation of over $290 million in
backlogged needs. The Catawba Indian Nation has 33 miles of roads
included on the BIA Roads Inventory. Maintaining these roads costs
$215,000 annually, but we receive only $25,000 in Federal assistance.
The $190,000 difference is taken from our Tribal Transportation Roads
Program allocation, which in turn reduces the amount available for new
roads construction to support our housing and economic development
projects. We also have several pressing roads construction and
maintenance needs, such as an access road to the Veterans Cemetery,
that will require significant Tribal investment. These unmet needs
place our Tribal members in harm's way due to the unnecessary risks
posed by unstable and unsafe roads that impair access, damage vehicles,
and obstruct the timely arrival of emergency assistance. We urge
Congress to provide at least $35 million for the BIA Road Maintenance
program to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Indian Country.
iv. natural resources management
Maintain Adequate EPA Funding to Protect the Environmental Quality
of Indian Country. We depend on the EPA's fulfilment of its trust
responsibilities and partnership obligations to protect human health
and our shared environment. Currently we receive funding for the
General Assistance Program, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and
Brownfield 128a Program. We have used and leveraged these resources to
advance our environmental programs with benefits at the Tribal, local,
and State levels. For example, we developed an ambient air monitoring
program that measures ozone and particulate matter 2.5 micron and
smaller. The data is posted on Air Now South Carolina, providing Tribal
members and State residents with accurate air quality information. We
also partner with the State to generate air quality forecasts for a
three county area. Moreover, for water equality, we established a water
monitoring program using Clean Water Act funding. This program has
enabled us to monitor and conduct analysis of pathogens in the water
and inform Tribal members and leadership of potential health risks.
Through these programs, we have cultivated an environmental presence
that we have not had through history to ensure to the best of our
abilities, that Catawba Tribal members have access to clean water, air,
land and fish that are safe for consumption. The job is not finished.
We urge Congress to maintain adequate funding for EPA environmental
quality programs serving Indian Country so that we can achieve a
cleaner, healthier and more prosperous Nation today and for future
generations.
Maintain Funding for the Tribal Climate Resilience Program and
Interior Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Today, across the United
States, American communities are facing increasing public health,
safety, and natural resources management challenges associated with our
progressively unstable natural environment. Water availability,
catastrophic wildfires and floods, invasive species, disappearing tree
lines, and accelerated rates of erosion are only limited examples of
the ways in which our world is changing. Tribal nations are often among
the first to feel the effects of these developments on our subsistence,
hunting, and gathering activities. The BIA Tribal Climate Resilience
Program--along with Department-wide Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
run in agencies such as the BLM, FWS, NPS, BIA, and BOR--is intended to
provide Tribal nations with the tools to manage resource stressors and
develop adaptive management plans in coordination with Federal, State,
and local actors, to mitigate and prevent environmental degradation.
Maintaining and furthering this progress is critical, not only for
Tribal nations but for all Americans. We urge Congress to provide $30
million for the BIA Tribal Climate Resilience Program and $30 million
for Interior Cooperative Landscape Conservation programs.
v. protection for tribal cultural patrimony
Maintain the $1 Million in Dedicated Funding for NAGPRA
Implementation. The Catawba Indian Nation would like to take this
opportunity to thank Congress for providing $1,000,000 to implement the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in the
fiscal year 2019 Omnibus. This directed funding within BIA Criminal
Investigations and Police Services supports Bureau-wide trainings and
the salary of a dedicated FTE on this issue. Because of your support,
the Federal Government is undergoing a paradigm shift on the way that
it views and understands the importance of safeguarding Tribal objects
of patrimony. When aligned with the Federal protections of the PROTECT
Patrimony Resolution, passed by the Congress in December 2016, we can
see a positive path forward in ensuring that the next generation will
have access to these important cultural and ceremonial resources. We
strongly encourage Congress to maintain the $1 million in dedicated
funding for NAGPRA enforcement in fiscal year 2019.
Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs). The landscapes and
features that qualify as Tribal sacred sites are as diverse as the 573
Tribal nations currently recognized by the Federal Government. Each
individual Tribal nation must decide for itself what does or does not
constitute a sacred site. In recent years, an increasing number of
Tribal governments have established THPOs equivalent to State programs
under the National Historic Preservation Act. Federal funding, however,
has not kept up with the expansion of THPO programs and, as a result,
it is difficult for Tribal governments to meet their preservation
compliance duties and responsibilities. For fiscal years 2018 and 2019,
the President proposed to eliminate all funding for Tribal historical
preservation. We were and continue to be encouraged by Congress's
steadfast refusal to do so--in fact, Congress provided a $1,000,000
increase in funding for fiscal year 2018. We urge Congress to hold the
course and provide an increase in THPO funding for fiscal year 2019 to
better protect Tribal sacred sites.
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Invasive Species Prevention
April 27, 2018
The Honorable Lisa Murkowski The Honorable Tom Udall
Chairman Ranking Member
Committee on Appropriations Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior, Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Environment and Related Agencies
Dear Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Honorable Committee
Members:
The Center for Invasive Species Prevention (CISP) is a not-for-
profit organization which promotes policy and non-governmental
approaches to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species.
One area of focus is non-native insects and diseases which threaten the
tree species which compose our Nation's forests--wildland, rural, and
urban.
CISP greatly appreciates this subcommittee's long support for the
USDA Forest Service' important and effective programs addressing non-
native pests. We ask you to again reject the drastic cuts proposed in
the President's fiscal year 2019 budget, which target programs that
have already suffered significant cuts in recent years.
usda forest service: state and private forestry
Forest Health Management
Forests across the country are threatened by insects and disease
pathogens introduced from abroad as unwanted hitchhikers on imports.
Already, nearly 500 such pests are killing trees and additional species
are likely to be introduced as undesired hitchhikers on imported goods.
The damage usually starts in urban forests because most imported goods
enter this country through urban ports. As a result, municipal
governments across the country are spending an estimated $3 billion
each year to remove trees on city property killed by non-native pests.
Homeowners are spending an additional $1 billion to remove and replace
trees on their properties and are absorbing an additional $1.5 billion
in reduced property values. These costs are projected to rise to more
than $36 billion as pests spread.
The pests do not stay in the cities, however. They spread to the
rural and wildland forests and threaten their many values. The most
recent examples are the shot hole borers in southern California, now
known to be in the Angeles and Cleveland National forests.
While preventing introductions are the desired approach (this
responsibility falls to the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service), it is essential that the U.S. Forest Service initiate
programs countering these pests as soon as they are detected. Only such
prompt and aggressive actions can protect public and private forests
from massive pest spread and tree devastation.
Unfortunately, the President's budget proposes to cut the forest
health protection program by 8.5 percent. The proposal would cut the
``cooperative lands'' account by 11 percent (from $38,735,000 to
$34,376,000). The Center for Invasive Species Prevention considers this
proposed cut to be extremely unwise in the face of the growing threat
from non-native pests. The ``cooperative lands'' forest health
protection program provides essential expertise and assistance to State
and municipal agencies and private landowners working where the pests
first appear to prevent these pests' spread and minimize the damage
they cause. Consequently, the Center for Invasive Species Prevention
recommends increasing funding cooperative lands programs under the
Forest Health Management program to $48 million.
usda forest service: forest and rangeland research
The Center for Invasive Species Prevention urges the subcommittee
to maintain funding for the overall R&D program at $303 million. The
R&D program
Non-native Insects and Diseases Research
Among the major research challenges facing R&D is the destruction
of our Nation's forests caused by non-native insects and diseases. All
Americans look to the USDA Forest Service R&D program to develop better
tools for pest detection and protective strategies including chemical
and biological controls and breeding of trees resistant to pests. The
budget justification document reports that invasive species are one of
six priority areas for research, receiving a total of $28.5 million (11
percent of the total budget request). However, only about $3 million of
the $28 million supports studies by the Research stations on non-native
insects and diseases--barely more than 1 percent of the total research
budget. Funding for the Research stations to study invasive species has
fallen 60 percent since fiscal year 2010. CISP believes further
reductions are unwise given the large and growing threat from non-
native insects and diseases. In the absence of a budget line item for
invasive species research, we urge the subcommittee to include language
in its Interior Appropriations report encouraging the Forest Service to
increase funding for research targeting non-native insects and
pathogens.
Sincerely,
Faith T. Campbell, Ph.D.
Vice President
Center for Invasive Species Prevention
www.cisp.us
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
Support for $1.5 Million for Salinity Control in Fiscal Year 2019
Funding for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Under the
Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water and Air Program
On behalf of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
(CAWCD), I encourage you to include $1.5 million for salinity specific
projects in the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water and Air
Program in fiscal year 2019. The funding will help protect the water
quality of the Colorado River that is used by approximately 40 million
people for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate
approximately 5.5 million acres in the United States.
CAWCD manages the Central Arizona Project (CAP), a multi-purpose
water resource development and management project that delivers
Colorado River water into central and southern Arizona. The largest
supplier of renewable water in Arizona, CAP diverts an average of over
1.5 million acre-feet of Arizona's 2.8 million acre-foot Colorado River
entitlement each year to municipal and industrial users, agricultural
irrigation districts, and Indian communities.
Our goal at CAP is to provide an affordable, reliable and
sustainable supply of Colorado River water to a service area that
includes more than 80 percent of Arizona's population.
These renewable water supplies are critical to Arizona's economy
and to the economies of Native American communities throughout the
State. Nearly 90 percent of economic activity in the State of Arizona
occurs within CAP's service area. The canal provides an economic
benefit of $100 billion annually, accounting for one-third of the
entire Arizona gross State product. CAP also helps the State of Arizona
meet its water management and regulatory objectives of reducing
groundwater use and ensuring availability of groundwater as a
supplemental water supply during future droughts. Achieving and
maintaining these water management objectives is critical to the long-
term sustainability of a State as arid as Arizona.
negative impacts of concentrated salts
Natural and man-induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates
environmental and economic damages. EPA has identified that more than
60 percent of the salt load of the Colorado River comes from natural
sources. The majority of land within the Colorado River Basin is
federally owned, much of which is administered by BLM. Human activity,
principally irrigation, adds to salt load of the Colorado River.
Further, natural and human activities concentrate the dissolved salts
in the River.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has estimated the
current quantifiable damages at about $454 million per year to U.S.
users with projections that damages would increase to approximately
$574 million per year by 2035 if the program were not to continue.
These damages include:
--A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector;
--Increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--An increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector; and
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins.
Adequate funding for salinity control will prevent the water
quality of the Colorado River from further degradation and avoid
significant increases in economic damages to municipal, industrial and
irrigation users.
history of the blm colorado river basin salinity control program
In implementing the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of
1974, Congress recognized that most of the salts in the Colorado River
originate from federally owned lands. Title I of the Salinity Control
Act deals with the U.S. commitment to the quality of waters being
delivered to Mexico. Title II of the Act deals with improving the
quality of the water delivered to users in the United States. This
testimony deals specific with Title II efforts. In 1984, Congress
amended the Salinity Control Act and directed that the Secretary of the
Interior develop a comprehensive program for minimizing salt
contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by BLM.
In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the Secretary and
requested a report on the implementation of BLM's program (Public Law
106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to increase BLM
efforts in the Colorado River Basin and to pursue salinity control
studies and to implement specific salinity control practices.
Meaningful resources have been expended by BLM in the past few years to
better understand salt mobilization on rangelands. With a significant
portion of the salt load of the Colorado River coming from BLM
administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall program is essential
to the success of the effort. Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts
will result in significant additional economic damages to water users
downstream.
The threat of salinity continues to be a concern in both the United
States and Mexico. On November 20, 2012, a 5-year agreement, known as
Minute 319, was signed between the U.S. and Mexico to guide future
management of the Colorado River. Among the key issues addressed in
Minute 319 included an agreement to maintain current salinity
management and existing salinity standards. The United States, Mexico,
and key water users, including CAWCD, worked since 2015 to develop a
successor agreement, Minute 323, which was finalized on September 27,
2017. Minute 323 continues collaboration and cooperation among the
United States and Mexico with respect to salinity control in the
Colorado River system. The CAWCD and other key water providers are
committed to meeting these goals.
conclusion
Implementation of salinity control practices through the BLM
Program has proven to be a very cost effective method of controlling
the salinity of the Colorado River and is an essential component of the
overall Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
CAWCD urges the subcommittee to include $1.5 million for salinity
specific projects in the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water
and Air Program. The continuation of funding will prevent further
degradation of the water quality of the Colorado River and further
degradation and economic damages experienced by municipal, industrial
and irrigation users. A modest investment in source control pays huge
dividends in improved drinking water quality for nearly 40 million
Americans.
[This statement was submitted by Theodore C. Cooke, General
Manager.]
______
Prepared Statement of ChildrensEnvironmentalHealth deg.
Prepared Statement of U.S. Senators in Support of the Environmental
Protection Agency's Programs That Improve Children's Environmental
Health and Educational Facility Issues for Fiscal Year 2019
______
Prepared Statement of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
On behalf of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, I am submitting
written testimony for the hearing record on the fiscal year 2019
budgets for the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). This testimony identifies the funding priorities and
budget issues important to the Choctaw Nation and its citizens. The
Choctaw Nation requests that Congress exempt Tribal Government Services
and Program Funding from Sequestrations, Unilateral Rescissions and
Budget Cuts in all future appropriations. We also request that Congress
continues to fully-fund Contract Support Cost (CSC) without impacting
direct program funding.
The Choctaw Nation requests that the subcommittee works to approve
timely appropriations for fiscal year 2019. Tribes are severely
impacted under an annualized continuing resolution (CR) because of less
funding being available for Tribes programs. The Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) estimates the budgetary effects of interim CRs on an
``annualized'' basis, meaning that the effects are measured as if the
CR were providing budget authority for the remainder of the fiscal
year. However without the timely approval of annual budgets, Tribal
government services are put on hold, decreased or eliminated until the
budget is approved. We ask that Congress take into account how Tribal
services are unfairly impacted repeatedly with the failure to pass an
annual appropriation.
The Indian Health Service and the Indian Affairs have been without
congressionally confirmed leadership since 2015. For American Indians
and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) this represents a violation to the Federal
trust responsibility as a legal enforceable fiduciary obligations on
the United States to protect Tribal treaty rights, lands, assets,
resources as well as a duty to carry out the mandates of Federal law.
We are underrepresented in the budget process without Executive Branch
Leadership working with us to advance our policy and budget priorities.
These positions require qualified leadership who understands Tribes and
how to work with us to advance a budget that includes the real needs of
Tribes. We ask that you work with the administration to quickly fill
these positions with Native candidates who meet the criteria and have
verifiably demonstrated the qualifications for the jobs.
Thank you for appropriating staffing funds in 2017 for the Joint
Venture Project (JVP) between the Choctaw Nation and Indian Health
Service. We opened our medical campus, the Choctaw Nation Health Care
Center, in February 2017. We are the first Tribal IHS program to have
an outpatient ambulatory surgery clinic. Other services also include
primary care, dental, pediatrics, a lab, diabetes care, community
health nurses, optometry, radiology services (including MRI, CT, bone
density, mammography, ultrasound, fluoroscopy and x-ray), pharmacy,
behavioral health, physical therapy, and numerous specialty care
services. This is our fourth JVP with IHS and both have been an
invaluable exercise in partnership and investment in improved quality
healthcare for Native American people.
Although there are many facility needs in the Choctaw Nation and
Oklahoma City Area, none are included on the IHS Health Facilities
Construction program listing. The current backlog of facility needs
would take decades to construct at the current pace of appropriations
and yet it will still not address any needs in Oklahoma. Therefore, the
only viable option for Tribal health facilities in Oklahoma is the JVP,
which is a very small and highly competitive program. IHS has not held
a competition for the program since 2014 and has created a similar
`queue' as the large Health Facilities Construction program. The IHS
should abandon this failed approach and compete the JVP on at least a
bi-annual basis to address the highest facility priorities.
We strongly urge the Committee to protect the Federal trust and
treaty obligations that are funded in the Federal domestic budget.
Federal funding that meets Federal Indian treaty and trust obligations
also provides significant contributions to the economy. In just the
Department of the Interior (DOI), the BIA and Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE) contribute substantially to economic growth in Tribal
areas through advances in infrastructure, strategic planning, improved
practices of governance, and the development of human capital.
the choctaw nation of oklahoma
The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma is the third largest Native American
Tribal government in the United States with over 230,000 members. The
Choctaw Nation territory consists of all or part of 10 counties in
Southeast Oklahoma, and we are proudly one of the State's largest
employers. The Nation operates numerous programs and services under
Self-Governance compacts with the United States, including but not
limited to: a sophisticated health system serving over 60,000 patients
with Choctaw Nation Health Care Center (Hospital) in Talihina, nine (9)
outpatient clinics, including three Joint Venture Projects in
partnership with the Indian Health Service, the most recent of which is
the Choctaw Regional Medical Clinic in Durant.
The Nation also administers referred specialty care and sanitation
facilities construction; higher education; Johnson O'Malley program;
housing improvement; child welfare and social services; law
enforcement; and, many other programs and services. The Joint Venture
Construction Program (JVCP) is one of the IHS's most successful
initiatives to increase access to healthcare throughout Indian Country.
The Choctaw Nation has operated under the Self-Governance authority in
the DOI since 1994 and in the Department of Health and Human Services'
IHS since 1995. As a Self-Governance Tribe, the Nation is able to re-
design programs to meet Tribally-specific needs without diminishing the
United States' trust responsibility. Self-Governance is now a permanent
reality for many Tribes.
The Choctaw Nation has improved the health status of our people by
operating a high quality healthcare system that is responsive and
designed to meet the increasing complex needs of our users. We have
leveraged scarce resources that have enabled us to succeed in the
challenging healthcare field. We owe much to Self-Governance which
authorized flexibility to use Federal appropriations in an efficient,
effective way that supports the expansion and growth of the healthcare
system we are continuing to build for our people.
NATIONAL BUDGET REQUESTS--INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
1. Special Diabetes Program for Indians--Support reauthorization
of $200 million/year for 5 years (IHS).--The administration's budget
proposes to move SDPI from ``mandatory funding'' which Congress must
authorize from time to time to ``discretionary spending'' which would
allow Congress to control the funding going to SDPI as part of the
annual appropriations process. That means SDPI will compete for other
Indian programs annually, as opposed to being funded automatically
outside of that environment today. Indian Country has not been
consulted on this proposal and the rationale for the request has not
been made available to us. We request no changes until such
consultation occurs.
2. Contract Support Costs--Indian Health Service and Bureau of
Indian Affairs (IHS and BIA).--The Nation appreciates the continued
support of the Committees to fully fund CSC requirements without
impacting direct Indian health programs. Beginning in fiscal year 2014,
fully funding CSC has made a tremendous improvement and properly
retained important health program funding to direct services. We
request that IHS be instructed to consult with Tribes on every
provision of the CSC Policy until both sides reach consensus; and if at
any time the IHS seeks to unilaterally make changes, they should be
directed to consult with Tribes prior to any changes in the CSC Policy.
3. Purchased and Referred Care (PRC)--Provide $407.4 million.--The
Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) program pays for urgent and emergency,
specialty care and other critical services that are not directly
available through IHS and Tribally-operated health programs when no IHS
direct care facility exists, or the direct care facility cannot provide
the required emergency or specialty care, or the facility has more
demand for services than it can currently meet. Although the Nation
operates a hospital facility, the hospital is located in a very rural
area, we are the only provider in the community and services are
limited. In fact, our hospital does not have an intensive care unit,
which requires patients to be flown to another facility using PRC.
Therefore, PRC is a significant need to provide intensive care and
tertiary care, as well as emergency transportation.
4. IHS Mandatory Funding (Maintaining Current Services)--Provide a
total of $6.4 billion, a 33 percent increase over the fiscal year 2016
planning base. Increases include:
a. an increase of $421.2 million to maintain current services and
other binding obligations($169.1 million for full funding of current
services and $252.1 million for binding fiscal obligations); and,
b. an increase of $1.17 billion for program expansion
5. Opioid Funding.--Increase funding and include Tribal set asides
in any funding decisions to states. Addressing the opioid epidemic is a
nationwide priority. American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) face
opioid related fatalities three times the rate of non-Natives.
6. Other IHS Program Services & Facilities Increases:
a. Hospital and Clinics: Increase of $295.5 million
b. Dental Services: Increase of $67.2 million
c. Mental Health: Increase of $122.6 million
d. Alcohol and Substance Abuse: Increase of $114.5 million
e. IHS Facilities: Increase of $280.4 million
7. Provide $6 million Funding Increases to Support the IHS Office
of Tribal Self-Governance (IHS) to fully staff the operations to build
capacity to support the increased number of Tribes entering Self-
Governance.--Today there are 365 Self-Governance (SG) Tribes which
represents over 64 percent of all federally-recognized Tribes. The
Self-Governance process serves as a model program for Federal
Government outsourcing, which builds Tribal infrastructure and provides
quality services to Indian people.
NATIONAL BUDGET REQUESTS --BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
1. Education.--Support the following funding amounts:
a. Provide $2.6 billion for system-wide Bureau of Indian Education
(BIE) school construction and repair.
b. Provide $42illion for Johnson O'Malley
c. Provide $73 million for Student Transportation in the BIE system
d. Provide $78 million for Tribal Grant Support Costs for Tribally-
controlled schools
e. Provide $109 million for BIE facilities operations
f. Provide $76 million for BIE facilities maintenance
g. Provide $431 million for the Indian School Equalization Formula
h. Provide $41 million for Education IT
i. Provide $5 million for BIE immersion programs
j. Reinstate $620,000 for juvenile detention education in BIA-funded
facilities
2. Fully Fund Fixed Costs and Tribal Pay Costs.--We strongly urge
full funding of fixed costs and Tribal pay costs. Most Federal agencies
receive annual increases to their Fixed Costs rates each year to
address inflationary costs associated with Fringe Benefits and Pay
Costs. Historically, Tribes have been disadvantaged because they have
never received Fringe Benefit Fixed Cost adjustments. Previous
administrations have only partially funded Pay Costs. Partially funding
or failing to fund Pay Costs for Tribes has devastated Tribal
communities by causing critical job losses.
3. Increase Tribal Base Funding (instead of through grants)--
Provide increases via tribal base funding instead of through grants to
Tribal governments.--Tribal leaders have grown increasingly frustrated
by the increase in Indian Affairs funding offer through grants, which
are inconsistently funded and unreliable upon which to build successful
programs and interventions. Allocating new funds via grants
marginalizes and impedes the Tribal Self-Determination and Self-
Governance.
4. Office of Self-Governance (OSG).--Provide increase funding to
the OSG to fully staff the office for the increase in the number of
Tribes entering Self-Governance.
The Choctaw Nation supports the National Congress of American
Indian (NCAI), the National Indian Health Board (NIHB), and the
National Indian Education Association (NIEA) Fiscal Year 2018 Tribal
Budget Recommendations. These recommendations have been compiled in
collaboration with Tribal leaders, Native organizations, and Tribal
budget consultation forums.
Thank you for accepting this written testimony from the Choctaw
Nation of Oklahoma.
[This statement was submitted by Mickey Peercy, Executive Director,
Self-Governance.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Choose Clean Water Coalition
Dear Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
To follow a common sense path to maintain healthy local water and
restore the Chesapeake Bay, which is critical for our regional economy,
the undersigned members of the Choose Clean Water Coalition request
funding for the following programs in fiscal year 2019:
u.s. environmental protection agency
Chesapeake Bay Program--$73.0 million
We support level funding of $73.0 million for the base budget of
the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). At least two-thirds of the program's
funds are passed through to the States and local communities for on-
the-ground restoration work through the Small Watershed Grants,
Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Grants, State Implementation
Grants, and the Chesapeake Bay Regulatory and Accountability Program
grants.
We strongly support the highly successful and popular Chesapeake
Small Watershed Grants and the Innovative Nutrient and Sediment
Reduction Grants--$6 million each--that Congress appropriated for the
past few years. These have contributed significantly to water quality
improvements throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These are the
CBP's only grants that go directly to on-the-ground restoration efforts
by local governments and communities, including to family farms.
Without specific Congressional direction, EPA has, in the past,
reallocated this grant money for purposes other than local restoration.
This is not the time to stop local implementation of restoration work.
We strongly support the funding levels that Congress has appropriated
each year since fiscal year 2015, and we urge you to include language
similar to the Senate's Explanatory Statement for the Department of the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2018,
which states, ``Chesapeake Bay--The Committee recommends $73,000,000
for the CBP. From within the amount provided, $6,000,000 is for
nutrient and sediment removal grants and $6,000,000 is for small
watershed grants to control polluted runoff from urban, suburban and
agricultural lands.''
We urge you to retain similar language in the fiscal year 2019
Interior Appropriations Bill, for both the overall CBP and for the
local grant programs.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) --$2.8 billion
This program is critical to any national initiative to provide a
Federal Infrastructure Spending Plan and it provides the lifeblood for
the 1,779 local governments throughout the Chesapeake region to secure
their water infrastructure. The funding level for this CWSRF has eroded
over the years as the clean water needs of local communities have
increased dramatically. The CCWC supports efforts in both the House and
the Senate, and within the administration, to enhance investments in
key water infrastructure projects nationwide, and the CWSRF is the
single best mechanism to accomplish that goal. We support doubling the
current funding for the CWSRF--and that is what we are requesting. This
will help to close the gap between Federal infrastructure investment in
clean water and the known need. This will also dramatically improve
water quality and protect human health in our region and across the
Nation.
These low interest loans are critical for clean water and for
ratepayers in the Chesapeake region and nationwide. We urge you to
support the $2.8 billion funding level that would provide $590 million
in low interest loans to local governments in Delaware, Maryland, New
York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of
Columbia. We also strongly support targeting 20 percent of the CWSRF
funds for green infrastructure and innovative projects including those
to manage stormwater, which helps communities improve water quality
while creating green space, mitigating flooding, and enhancing air
quality.
The CWSRF allocates money to the States based on a set formula,
which is then used for low interest loans to local governments for
critical capital construction improvement projects to reduce nutrient
and sediment pollution from wastewater treatment and stormwater
facilities. In addition, it provides assistance for other pollution
reduction and prevention activities in rural areas, such as
reforestation and stream restoration. The CWSRF enables local
governments in the Chesapeake watershed to take actions to keep their
rivers and streams clean. As the list of clean water infrastructure
needs in the Chesapeake region continues to expand, we request that
Congress double the funding of the CWSRF from the current funding
level.
department of the interior
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)--Chesapeake Bay Studies--$12.6 million
We support full funding for the USGS to continue to provide the
critical science necessary for restoration and protection efforts for
fish, wildlife and the 18 million people in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. USGS monitoring and assessment informs decisions made by the
Department of the Interior as well as other Federal and State partners
on issues related to fisheries and associated water quality, waterfowl
and their habitats and land protection.
In fiscal year 2019, USGS is putting a new focus on habitat
conditions supporting important recreational fisheries. Habitat
conditions from headwater streams to tidal estuaries will be assessed
to help focus, and evaluate, restoration and protection efforts. The
efforts will include summarizing the factors affecting fish health in
the watershed. The findings will also inform the development by the
States of their Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans.
USGS provides the expertise to restore and conserve coastal
wetlands that are critical habitat for the more than one million
waterfowl that winter in the Chesapeake region. In 2019 studies of
black duck habitats will be used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to adapt practices on national wildlife refuges, and USGS will begin to
address shallow water habitats important for additional recreational
species.
USGS will be supplying land-change forecasts to inform land
protection. The National Park Service and the Chesapeake Conservation
Partnership have requested the USGS to provide forecasts of where
development may impact healthy watersheds and vital lands across the
watershed.
Finally, USGS is leading an effort to map areas where restoration
and conservation efforts will contribute to multiple Chesapeake goals--
benefiting people in the watershed as well as fish and wildlife. This
mapping is being used by State and Federal partners to more effectively
focus actions and share available resources.
National Park Service--Chesapeake Regional Programs--$2.897 million
The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office runs a number of
small, but important programs that focus on increasing public access
and the use of resources of the Chesapeake region. Expanding access and
public awareness fosters stewardship and protection efforts.
We are requesting level funding for these key programs administered
by the National Park Service in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: Captain
John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail ($389,000); Chesapeake
Bay Gateways & Trails ($2.02 million); and support for coordinating
these programs through the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office
($488,000). In addition, as in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2016, we urge you to extend the authorization for the Chesapeake Bay
Gateways & Trails program for 2 more years.
department of the interior/u.s. department of agriculture
National Park Service/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/U.S. Forest
Service--Land and Water Conservation Fund Priority Projects in
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed--$12.752 million
We strongly support full funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. In particular, we support continuation of the
strategic use of funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for
priority projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These efforts target
conservation funds for critical priority landscapes throughout the
Chesapeake Bay region. The following projects would protect nearly
6,000 acres nationally significant resources, such as migratory bird
habitat, spawning areas for economically important fish and shellfish,
significant forest resources and projects to enhance public access.
--U.S Fish & Wildlife Service--James River Nat'l Wildlife Refuge
(VA)--$1 million
--U.S Fish & Wildlife Service--Rappahannock River Valley Nat'l
Wildlife Refuge (VA)--$2 million
--U.S. Forest Service--George Washington and Jefferson Nat'l Forests
(VA)--$452,000
--U.S. Forest Service--George Washington and Jefferson Nat'l Forests
(VA)--$2,300,000
--National Park Service--Captain John Smith Chesapeake Nat'l Historic
Trail (VA)--$4,000,000
--National Park Service--Richmond Nat'l Battlefield Park (VA)--
$3,000,000
Thank you for your consideration of these very important requests
to maintain funding for these programs which are critical to clean
water throughout the mid-Atlantic region. Please contact Peter J. Marx
at [email protected] with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
1000 Friends of Maryland
Alice Ferguson Foundation
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
American Chestnut Land Trust
American Rivers
Anacostia Watershed Society
Audubon Naturalist Society
Audubon Society of Northern Virginia
Back Creek Conservancy
Baltimore Tree Trust
Blue Heron Environmental Network
Blue Ridge Watershed Coalition
Blue Water Baltimore
Cacapon Institute
Capital Region Land Conservancy
Catskill Mountainkeeper
Center for Progressive Reform
Chapman Forest Foundation
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Chesapeake Legal Alliance
Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage
Clean Fairfax
Clean Water Action
Coalition for Smarter Growth
Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania
Delaware Nature Society
Ducks Unlimited
Earth Force
Earth Forum of Howard County
Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Elizabeth River Project
Elk Creeks Watershed Association
Environmental Working Group
Friends of Accotink Creek
Friends of Dyke Marsh
Friends of Lower Beaverdam Creek
Friends of Quincy Run
Friends of St. Clements Bay
Friends of Sligo Creek
Friends of the Middle River
Friends of the Nanticoke River
Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River
Friends of the Rappahannock
Interfaith Partners for the Chesapeake
James River Association
Lackawanna River Conservation Assoc.
Lancaster Farmland Trust
Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper
Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Pennsylvania
Lynnhaven River NOW
Maryland Conservation Council
Maryland Environmental Health Network
Maryland League of Conservation Voters
Maryland Native Plant Society
Mattawoman Watershed Society
Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association
Mid-Atlantic Council Trout Unlimited
Mid-Atlantic Youth Anglers & Outdoor Partners
Montgomery Countryside Alliance
Muddy Branch Alliance
National Aquarium
National Parks Conservation Association
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nature Abounds
Neighbors of the Northwest Branch
New York League of Conservation Voters
New York State Council of Trout Unlimited
Otsego County Conservation Association
Otsego Land Trust
PennEnvironment
PennFuture
Pennsylvania Council of Churches
Piedmont Environmental Council
Potomac Conservancy
Potomac Riverkeeper
Potomac Riverkeeper Network
Prince William Conservation Alliance
Queen Anne's Conservation Association
Rachel Carson Council
Rivanna Conservation Alliance
Rivertown Coalition for Clean Air and Clean Water
Rock Creek Conservancy
St. Mary's River Watershed Association
Savage River Watershed Association
Severn River Association
Shenandoah Riverkeeper
Shenandoah Valley Network
ShoreRivers
Sidney Center Improvement Group
Sleepy Creek Watershed Association
South River Federation
Southern Environmental Law Center
Southern Maryland Audubon Society
SouthWings
Sparks-Glencoe Community Planning Council
Susquehanna Heritage
The Downstream Project
Trash Free Maryland
Trout Unlimited
Upper Potomac Riverkeeper
Upper Susquehanna Coalition
Virginia Conservation Network
Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper
Virginia Interfaith Power and Light
Virginia League of Conservation Voters
Warm Springs Watershed Association
Water Defense
Waterkeepers Chesapeake
West/Rhode Riverkeeper
West Virginia Citizens Action Group
West Virginia Environmental Council
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy
West Virginia Rivers Coalition
Wicomico Environmental Trust
______
Prepared Statement of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission
The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC) is pleased to
submit written testimony reflecting the needs, concerns and requests of
CRRC in the proposed fiscal year 2019 budget for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). Our recurring funding is included in the
administration's annual budget within the BIA's Tribal Management
Development Program (TMDP) account. CRRC is able to leverage our
limited BIA funds into real economic opportunity for those living in
the small Alaska Native villages located in Prince William Sound and
Lower Cook Inlet. From an fiscal year 2017 appropriation of $410,000 in
BIA funds, we leveraged those funds and operated with a budget of
nearly $2 million to support community-based programs (almost a five-
to-one ratio). In fiscal year 2019, the administration proposes to
reduce our funding to $380,000, cut the BIA's TMDP budget of $11.65
million by 25 percent, and overall spending for BIA by $665 million
below the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. We object.
CRRC opposes the administration's proposed reductions to the BIA
budget and to our TMDP funds. A modest increase of $100,000 in fiscal
year 2019 funding for CRRC may translate into as much as $500,000 in
additional revenues that we can use to serve our Alaska Native
communities. As noted in the administration's budget request for fiscal
year 2019 concerning the BIA's TM/DP:
[T]he Tribal Management/Development Program (TMDP) supports
Tribal self-determination by allowing Tribal management of fish
and game programs . . . Contract agreements are executed with
individual fish and wildlife resource Tribes [and consortia] to
accomplish management objectives. Tribes administer programs
that contribute significantly towards economic development [].
CRRC is an intertribal organization organized in 1987 by the seven
Native Villages located in Prince William Sound and Lower Cook Inlet in
South-central Alaska; namely, 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. The
success of our programs, from both an economic and social standpoint,
make them an integral part of our constituent Tribes' ongoing
development. Reductions in our BIA funding will limit our out-reach and
ability to leverage additional Federal, State, local and other Tribal
resources which are critical to our program's and our constituent
Tribes' success.
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
Tribal entity demonstrates the concern and importance the Tribal
governments hold for environmental and natural resource management and
protection--which is the wellspring for jobs and the perpetuation of
our Alaska Native communities and culture.
Through its many important programs, CRRC provides employment for
up to 35 Native people in the Chugach Region annually--an area of high
unemployment--through programs that conserve and restore our natural
resources and ensure a future for our Tribal communities.
An investment in CRRC has 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
and support their families, thereby removing them from the rolls of
people needing Alaska State and Federal support. This contributes to
family and community stability and is a bulwark against depression,
substance abuse, suicide and other ills that plague remote Tribal
communities. With the job opportunities made possible by CRRC programs,
Alaska Native members are able to reinvest their wages into the
community, supporting the employment of and opportunities for other
Alaska Native and non-Native families. Our programs also support future
economic and commercial opportunities for the Prince William Sound and
Lower Cook Inlet regions--protecting and developing our shellfish
industry and other natural resources.
Programs. As noted above, CRRC has leveraged its recurring BIA
funding of $410,000 within the Tribal Management/Development Program,
into almost $2 million to support our community-based programs.
Specifically, the $410,000 in base funding provided through BIA
appropriations has allowed CRRC to maintain core administrative
operations and seek specific project funding from other sources such as
the Administration for Native Americans (ANA), the State of Alaska,
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Education, the Exxon Valdez
Oil Spill Trustee Council, the North Pacific Research Board and other
foundations. This diverse funding pool has enabled CRRC to develop and
operate several important programs that provide vital services,
valuable products, and necessary employment and commercial
opportunities. These programs include:
Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery. The Alutiiq Pride Shellfish
Hatchery is the only shellfish hatchery in the State of Alaska. The
20,000 square foot shellfish hatchery is located in Seward, Alaska, and
houses shellfish seed (cockles, littlenecks and butter clams), 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
the region; as the only shellfish hatchery in the State, it is uniquely
qualified to carry out this research and production.
Alutiiq Pride staff are working on developing a shellfish sanctuary
concept in Port Graham and Resurrection Bay, acquiring land use permits
from the Department of Natural Resources for Port Graham and from the
Alaska Railroad for Resurrection Bay. Port Graham has been stocked with
220 little neck, 200 cockles and 220 butter clam adults and CRRC is
working to reduce predation and ensure greater survival rates.
Alutiiq Pride also devotes considerable time to its Ocean
Acidification (OA) monitoring lab, processing 300 discrete samples
collected from villages and scientific partners. A Burk-O-Later, an
instrument that tests for aragonite saturation, required for shellfish
to form their shells, requires frequent maintenance and calibration.
Alutiiq Pride recently implemented a preventive maintenance program
to prolong the useful life of essential capital equipment. Alutiiq
Pride installed chillers at its facility that were donated by the
University of Alaska. The chillers will house king crab brood stock in
case water temperatures are too high. In 2016, warm waters caused the
crabs to release their larvae early which reduced survivability.
Natural resource curriculum development. Partnering with the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, CRRC continues its model curriculum in
natural resource management for Alaska Native students. This curriculum
integrates traditional knowledge with Western science. The goal of the
program is to encourage more Native students to pursue careers in the
sciences. In addition, we are working with the Native American Fish &
Wildlife Society and Tribes across the country (including Alaska) to
develop a university level textbook to accompany these courses.
In addition, we have completed a K-12 Science Curriculum for Alaska
students that integrates Indigenous knowledge with western science.
This curriculum is being piloted in various villages in Alaska and a
thorough evaluation process will ensure its success and mobility to
other schools in Alaska.
Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. CRRC is a member of
the Council responsible for setting regulations governing the spring
harvest of migratory birds for Alaska Natives, as well as conducting
harvest surveys and various research projects on migratory birds of
conservation concern. Our participation in this state-wide body ensures
the legal harvest of migratory birds by Indigenous subsistence hunters
in the Chugach Region. After a nearly 30-year moratorium, the Alaska
Board of Game lifted a ban on the harvest of Emperor Geese once the
geese population reached sustainable levels. We are proud to have
participated in this work.
Statewide Subsistence Halibut Working Group. CRRC continues to
participate in a working group to ensure halibut resources are secured
for subsistence purposes, and to conduct harvest surveys in the Chugach
Region.
conclusion
We urge Congress to protect and increase CRRC's fiscal year 2017
appropriation level of $410,000 in the BIA's fiscal year 2019 budget
for TMDP. With a five-to-one return on every Federal dollar invested in
CRRC, we clearly demonstrate our ability to effectively administer
these dollars. Thank you for the opportunity to present our testimony.
[This statement was submitted by Patty Brown-Schwalenberg,
Executive Director.]
______
Climate Change deg.
Prepared Statement of U.S. Senator Michael F. Bennet Requesting
Resources for Agencies and Programs That Are Important to Address
Climate Change and to the Conservation and Management of Public Lands,
Air, and Water
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
State Member Agency Account Program (if President's 2018 Enacted Member Request Request Description Contact
applicable) Budget ($) Amount ($) ($) Fiscal Year 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Payments in Lieu of .................... .............. 13,228,000 13,228,000 We support full Patrick Donovan (8-
Taxes. funding for fiscal 5907)
year 2019.
CO......... Bennet............... USDA Forest Service/ Land and Water .................... .............. 425,000,000 900,000,000 Full funding, both Patrick Donovan (8-
DOI. Conservation Fund. mandatory and 5907)
discretionary.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. State and Tribal Categorial Grants 480,671,000 886,112,000 886,112,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Assistance Grants. for Air, Water, and funding consistent 5907)
Waste (Summy of with fiscal year
below). 2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Categorical Grant: .............. 169,754,000 169,754,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Nonpoint Source. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Categorical Grant: 67,892,000 101,271,000 101,271,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Public Water System funding consistent 5907)
Supervision (PWSS). with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Categorical Grant: 151,961,000 226,669,000 226,669,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
State and Local Air funding consistent 5907)
Quality Management. with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Categorical Grant: 153,683,000 229,239,000 229,239,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Pollution Control funding consistent 5907)
(Sec. 106). with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Categorical Grant: 66,381,000 99,016,000 99,016,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Hazardous Waste funding consistent 5907)
Financial with fiscal year
Assistance. 2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Categorical Grant: 8,963,000 12,742,000 12,742,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Tribal Air Quality funding consistent 5907)
Management. with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Categorical Grant: 31,791,000 47,421,000 47,421,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Brownfields. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. State and Tribal Grants for Air, 62,000,000 109,253,000 109,253,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Assistance Grants. Water, and funding consistent 5907)
Brownfields with fiscal year
(Summary of below). 2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Brownfields Projects 62,000,000 79,457,000 79,457,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. .................... Targeted Airshed .............. 29,796,000 29,796,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Grants. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Wildland Fire Supression.......... 1,165,366,000 1,556,818,000 1,556,818,000 We support funding ....................
Management. above the 10-year
average in fiscal
year 2019, prior to
the implementaiton
of the budget cap
adjustment in 2020.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Superfund Cleanup... Hazardous Substance 1,088,830,000 1,154,947,000 1,154,947,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Superfund. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Drinking Water State .................... 863,233,000 863,233,000 863,233,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Revolving Fund. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Clean Water State .................... 1,393,887,000 1,393,887,000 1,393,887,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Revolving Fund. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... OSMRE............... Abandoned Mine .................... 20,375,000 139,672,000 139,672,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Reclamation Fund. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Environmental .................... 300,738,000 305,844,000 305,844,000 Cuts larger than Patrick Donovan (8-
Program and $100 m to the 5907)
Management. entire EPM program
will prevent EPA
from conducting
core EPM functions..
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Environmental Brownfields......... 16,082,000 25,593,000 25,593,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Program and funding consistent 5907)
Mangement. with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Environmental GHG Reporting....... 13,580,000 95,436,000 95,436,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Program and funding consistent 5907)
Mangement. with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Climate Change .................... .............. 16,520,000 16,520,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Research. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. Stratospheric Ozone. Montreal Protocol... .............. 8,677,000 10,000,000 Al least fiscal year Candace Vahlsing (8-
2018 levels.. 5433)
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Stewardship......... Collaborative Forest .............. 40,000,000 40,000,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Landscape funding consistent 5907)
Restoration Program. with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ State and Private Urban and Community .............. 27,850,000 27,850,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Forestry. Forestry Program. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Capital Improvement Roads............... 71,481,000 173,905,000 173,905,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
and Maintanance. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ National Forest Hazardous Fuel 390,000,000 387,352,000 390,000,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
System. Reduction. funding at least at 5907)
the fiscal year
2018 enacted level..
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ National Forest Forest Products 341,165,000 365,307,000 365,307,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
System. Program (e.g., funding consistent 5907)
Timber Sales). fiscal year 2018
levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Wildland Fire State Fire 69,400,000 80,000,000 80,000,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Management. Assistance. funding at least at 5907)
fiscal year 2018
levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Wildland Fire Volunteer Fire 11,600,000 16,000,000 16,000,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Management. Assistance. funding at least at 5907)
fiscal year 2018
levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Capital Improvement Legacy Roads and .............. 40,000,000 40,000,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
and Maintanance. Trails Program. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFS................ Recreation, .................... 240,236,000 262,798,000 262,798,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Heritage, and funding at least at 5907)
Wilderness. fiscal year 2018
levels.
CO......... Bennet............... NPS................. Historic .................... 32,700,000 96,910,000 96,910,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Preservation Fund. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... EPA................. National Priorities Extramural research .............. 4,100,000 4,100,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Research Program. grants. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... DOI................. Central Hazardous .................... 2,000,000 10,010,000 10,010,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Materials Fund. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... USFWS............... North American NAWCA Fund.......... 33,600,000 40,000,000 40,000,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Wetlands funding consistent 5907)
Conservation Act with fiscal year
(NAWCA). 2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... NPS................. National Heritage Heritage Partnership .............. 20,321,000 20,321,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Areas. Program. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... NPS................. National Park Centennial Challenge .............. 23,000,000 23,000,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Foundation. Fund. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2018 levels.
CO......... Bennet............... DOI................. Climate Science North Central .............. .............. 25,335,000 We support robust Patrick Donovan (8-
Centers. Climate Center. funding consistent 5907)
with fiscal year
2017 levels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared Statement of the Coalition for the Delaware River Watershed
September 11, 2018
The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
S-128 Capitol
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Tom Udall, Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
S-146A Capitol
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
As organizations working to protect and restore water resources
throughout the four States of the Delaware River Watershed, the
undersigned members of the Coalition for the Delaware River Watershed
request $10 million in fiscal year 2019 funding for programs to restore
and protect the critical resources in this unique and valuable region.
Congress recognized the significance of this special place by passing
the Delaware River Basin Conservation Act, which was signed into law in
December 2016.
The Act established the Delaware River Basin Restoration Program,
which is a non-regulatory program under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. This new Federal-State-local-private
cooperative program seeks to conserve and restore fish and wildlife
habitat, improve and maintain water quality, sustain and enhance water
management and reduce flood damage, and improve recreational
opportunities and public access in the Delaware River Basin.
The Delaware River Basin spans 13,500 square miles across Delaware,
New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Pennsylvania and is home to 6.4
million people--an additional 8 million people living outside of the
watershed depend on the river for their drinking water. The basin is
home to a world class trout fishery in its upper reaches, the world's
largest freshwater port complex in the Philadelphia-Wilmington area and
a rich estuarine system at its mouth which is home to the largest
spawning population of horseshoe crabs in the world.
Funding for the following programs is essential to implementing the
vision Congress had for this special region when it passed the Delaware
River Basin Conservation Act in 2016. We request the following funding
for fiscal year 2019:
Department of the Interior: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--Delaware
River Basin Restoration Program--$10 million
With the passage of the Delaware River Basin Conservation Act in
2016, Congress directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to establish
this new non-regulatory Program, which would have as its centerpiece, a
grants program. The Service was tasked with establishing a basin-wide
plan and to set a foundation for a grant program that will implement
the Act. These pieces are now in place and the House passed Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill,
2018 (H.R. 3354) clearly directs the Service to begin implementation of
the Program, ``In addition, the recommendation includes $5,000,000 to
begin implementing the Delaware River Basin Conservation Act; the
Service is strongly encouraged to enter into an agreement with an
outside party for grant management services.''
We strongly support the fiscal year 2018 language and funding to
begin this Program, and urge Congress to provide $10 million in fiscal
year 2019 to fund a more robust grant program across this large region
that will lead to real improvements throughout the watershed.
Thank you for considering our request to support Delaware River
Basin Restoration Program funding for fiscal year 2019. Please contact
Kelly Mooij, Co-Chair of the Coalition for the Delaware River
Watershed, if you have any questions about our position on this or any
other issues at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Action Together NEPA
American Littoral Society
American Rivers
Appalachian Mountain Club
Audubon Pennsylvania
Aquashicola/Pohopoco Watershed Conservancy
Basha Kill Area Association
Bertsch-Hokendauqua-Catasauqua Watershed Association
Brodhead Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Brodhead Watershed Association
Christina Conservancy, Inc
Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania
Darby Creek Valley Association
Delaware Highlands Conservancy
Delaware Nature Society
Ducks Unlimited
Environment New Jersey
Friends for the Abbott Marshlands
Friends of Cherry Valley
Friends of the Upper Delaware River
Green Valleys Watershed Association
Isles, Inc.
Land Conservancy of New Jersey
Lackawaxen River Conservancy
National Wildlife Federation
National Audubon Society
National Parks Conservation Association
Newtown Creek Coalition
New Jersey Audubon
New Jersey Conservation Foundation
New Jersey Highlands Coalition
New Jersey League of Conservation Voters
New Jersey Outdoor Alliance
New York League of Conservation Voters
Mid-Atlantic Youth Anglers & Outdoor Partners
Musconetcong Watershed Association
Partnership for the Delaware Estuary
PennFuture
PennEnvironment
Pennsylvania Land Trust Association
Pennypack Ecological Trust
Pinelands Preservation Alliance
Schuylkill Headwaters Association, Inc.
Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association
Tookany/Tacony-Frankford Watershed Partnership, Inc.
Tobyhanna Creek/Tunkhannock Creek Watershed Association
Trout Unlimited
Upper Delaware Preservation Coalition
Urban Promise Ministries
Valley Creek Restoration Partnership
Western Pocono Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Wilmington Rowing Center
White Clay Watershed Association
Willistown Conservation Trust
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition for Healthier Schools
April 26, 2018
U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Chairman
U.S. Senator Tom Udall, Ranking Member
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for US EPA
RE: EPA fiscal year 2019 appropriations for healthy school & child
care facilities, healthy children
Dear Chairmen Murkowski and Ranking Members Carper:
America's School Infrastructure earned a D+ in 2017 from the
American Society of Civil Engineers and a D in 2013. And, in 2017 the
Harvard Chan School of Public Health released a new report detailing
how unhealthy school facilities can damage children's ``health,
thinking, and learning.'' The Harvard findings are echoed in research
produced by the University of Tulsa, University of California at
Berkeley, and in countless university studies across Europe and
Scandinavia over many years. This spring, American teachers and
students are highlighting poor learning conditions among their issues
in State and local demonstrations.
The U.S. Senate EPW Committee has recognized that children are
uniquely vulnerable to environmental health hazards, as have EPA, CDC,
ED, HHS, and other agencies. Every school day there are some 65 million
children in schools or child care facilities. Decades of research have
shown that indoor environmental exposures to pollutants can be more
intense than outdoor exposures; that educators are often unaware of how
facility problems impact children; and that school and child care
facilities are filled with asthma triggers such as dusts, molds,
chemical fumes, pests and pesticides, other contaminants. Poor indoor
environments in schools decrease attention, seat time, attendance, and
test scores, and increase asthma and other health complaints, thus
increasing healthcare costs for children and personnel and for those
who provide coverage.
Adding to the need to act, we note that in February 2018, the EPA
Administrator hosted fellow cabinet members and other key senior
leaders to outline a proposed Federal strategy to reduce childhood lead
exposure and associated health risks as part of the President's Task
Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children.
Funding key EPA programs that comprehensively address school and child
care facilities and children's health is essential for the success of
any new lead prevention work. Sources of lead in these facilities can
include paint, drinking water, construction materials, instructional
products, soil, and equipment, as a recent national workshop on
Eliminating Lead risks reported.
Thus, we urge the U.S. Senate to restore and increase funding for
U.S. EPA's proven programs and annual symposia that educate schools and
child care entities on how to site, design, maintain and operate
buildings to prevent or address common problems, such as: indoor air
pollution, dampness and molds, lead in drinking water and paint and
products, pests and pesticides, hazardous chemical management, legacy
toxics like PCBs, and more. The EPA programs also support public health
services for children with suspected environmental exposures in these
settings.
The urgency for educators, agencies, and communities to be smart
and effective in preventing or reducing common hazards in these
settings grows every year: today, there are fewer Federal and State
dollars for schools, fewer personnel, fewer funds for repairs, and yet
more children enrolled who are of color, in poverty, or have special
health and learning needs.
U.S. EPA, uniquely among the Federal agencies, has a twenty+-year
history of successes in convening and providing training grants to PK-
12 and child care communities, facility owner-operators and personnel,
as well as to NGOs and health agencies. The primary offices are: (1)
U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation/Indoor Environments Division
which, on a tiny budget, educated over 42,000 school and child care
stakeholders through guidelines, grants, annual symposia, and webinars;
and, (2) EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection which partners
with the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences on
research and with the Federal Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention on pediatric environmental health services. Overall, the two
primary offices and other schools-focused programs at EPA help reduce
exposures to children and personnel in school and childcare facilities,
and help preserve these facilities as healthful, productive, and valued
community assets.
We urge an increase of $65 million ($1/child for the 65 million
enrolled in schools and child care) to U.S. EPA's budget over the
Omnibus fiscal year 2018 Act, as follows:
--$35 million for EPA's Indoor Environments Division-Reducing the
Risks of Indoor Air to advance healthy indoor environments in
schools and child care centers with guidelines, grants to the
field, annual symposia, webinars, and to provide Federal
leadership on school infrastructure concerns;
--$5 million for EPA's Office of Children's Health to strengthen
pediatric environmental health capacity to address children
with suspected exposures in schools and child care settings;
--$5 million for EPA's Drinking Water office to disseminate user-
friendly guidance to key school and child care stakeholders
regarding lead in drinking and cooking water;
--$10 million for EPA's Office of Chemical Safety to strengthen its
guidelines and enforcements that address legacy toxics in
schools such as asbestos, lead, PCBs, and pesticides, and to
encourage the safe management and disposal of hazardous
chemicals in schools;
--$10 million for EPA's Office of Research to strengthen and expand
its research into children's exposures in the school/child care
settings.
Sincerely,
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
Association of Asthma Educators (PA)
Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO
International)
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
Californians for Pesticide Reform
Cancer Prevention Coalition for Los Angeles (CA)
Center for Environmental Health
Child Care Aware of America
Children's Environmental Health Network
Coalition for Environmentally Safe Schools (MA)
Collaborative for High Performance Schools
The Deirdre Imus Environmental Health Center at Hackensack UMC (NJ)
District of Columbia Asthma Coalition
Education Law Center
Empire State Consumer Project (NY)
First Focus
Green Schools National Network
Healthy Legacy (MN)
Health Promotion Consultants (VA)
Health Resources in Action
Healthy Schools PA/Women for a Healthy Environment
Healthy Schools Network, Inc.
Improving Kids' Environment (IN)
IPM Institute of North America
Learning Disabilities Association of Georgia
Learning Disabilities Association of Illinois
Learning Disabilities Association of Maine
Learning Disabilities Association of New Jersey
Learning Disabilities Association of South Carolina
Learning Disabilities Association of Tennessee
Learning Disabilities Association of Utah
Maryland Children's Environmental Health Coalition
Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health
Midwest Pesticide Action Center
National Center for Environmental Health Strategies
Nontoxic Certified (NY)
Pesticide Action Network of North America
Occupational Health & Safety Section of the American Public Health
Association
Ohio Public Health Association
Parents for Students Safety (TN)
Partners for a Healthier Community (MA)
Pennsylvania Integrated Pest Management Program
Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition (MA)
Project Green Schools (MA)
Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP- CA)
School-Based Health Alliance
School Based Health Alliance of Arkansas
South Texas Asthma Coalition
Toxics Information Project (TIP--RI)
Valley Community Healthcare (CA)
Individuals (organizational affiliations for informational purposes
only):
Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, Alaska Inter-Tribal Council; Gary Arthur,
Issaquah Education Association (WA); Carl R. Baum, MD, FAAP, FACMT,
Yale School of Medicine; Mary Gant, Green Science Policy Institute;
Augusta Gross PhD (NY); Chip Halverson, ND, Northwest Center for
Biological Medicine (OR); Kate Hewett (SC); Jerry Lamping, Take Care of
Your Classroom Air (TX); Paul Landsbergis, PhD, MPH, SUNY Downstate
Medical Center; Patricia A. Lasley, MPH, Great Lakes Center for
Children's Environmental Health (IL); Larry K. Lowry, Southwest Center
for Pediatric Environmental Health (TX); Daniel Lefkowitz (NY);
Virginia Mott (ME); Christina Olbrantz, Columbia University; Larry K.
Olsen, DrPH, MCHES, AT Still University; Jerome A. Paulson, MD, FAAP,
Emeritus, George Washington University Milken Institute School of
Public Health; Joseph Ponessa PhD, Rutgers University; Chelsea
Alexandra Schafer, California State University, Northridge; Alexandra
W. Sipiora (IL); Mariana Torchia (CA); Theodora Tsongas, PhD, MS (OR).
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
TO: The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chair
The Honorable Tom Udall, Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Appropriations--Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies
SUBJECT: Continued Funding for the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program under BLM's Aquatic Habitat Management sub-activity
(formerly known as the Soil, Water and Air Program)
FROM: Don A. Barnett, Executive Director
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
DATE: March 27, 2018
Waters from the Colorado River are used by nearly 40 million people
for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate
approximately 5.5 million acres in the United States. Natural and man-
induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates environmental and
economic damages. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has
estimated the current quantifiable damages at about $454 million per
year. Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program (Program) in 1974 to offset increased damages caused by
continued development and use of the waters of the Colorado River.
Modeling by Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages would
rise to approximately $574 million by the year 2035 without
continuation of the Program. Congress has directed the Secretary of the
Interior to implement a comprehensive program for minimizing salt
contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM has funded these efforts through
its Soil, Water and Air Program (proposed to be moved to the new
Aquatic Habitat Management sub-activity in the President's 2019
Budget). BLM's efforts are an essential part of the overall effort. A
funding level of $1.5 million for salinity specific projects in 2019 is
requested to prevent further degradation of the quality of the Colorado
River with a commensurate increase in downstream economic damages.
EPA has identified that more than 60 percent of the salt load of
the Colorado River comes from natural sources. The majority of land
within the Colorado River Basin is federally owned, much of which is
administered by BLM. In implementing the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act in 1974, Congress recognized that most of the salts in the
Colorado River originate from federally owned lands. Title I of the
Salinity Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to the quality of
waters being delivered to Mexico. Title II of the Act deals with
improving the quality of the water delivered to users in the United
States. This testimony deals specifically with Title II efforts. In
1984, Congress amended the Salinity Control Act and directed that the
Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive program for
minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands
administered by BLM. In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the
Secretary and requested a report on the implementation of BLM's program
(Public Law 106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to
increase BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin and to pursue salinity
control studies and to implement specific salinity control practices.
BLM is now working on creating a comprehensive Colorado River Basin
salinity control program as directed by Congress. In January 2018 BLM
issued A Framework for Improving the Effectiveness of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program, 2018-2023. This document lays out
how BLM intends to implement Colorado River Basin salinity control
activities over the next 5 years. Meaningful resources have been
expended by BLM in the past few years to better understand salt
mobilization on rangelands. With a significant portion of the salt load
of the Colorado River coming from BLM administered lands, the BLM
portion of the overall program is essential to the success of the
effort. Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts will result in
significant additional economic damages to water users downstream.
Concentration of salt in the Colorado River causes approximately
$454 million in quantified damages and significantly more in
unquantified damages in the United States and results in poor water
quality for United States users. Damages occur from:
--a reduction in the ability to re-claim and reuse water due to high
salinities in the water delivered to water treatment and
reclamation facilities,
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector,
--increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector,
--a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector,
--an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector,
--an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector,
--a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector, and
--difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum is charged with reviewing the
Colorado River's water quality standards for salinity every 3 years. In
so doing, it adopts a Plan of Implementation consistent with these
standards. The level of appropriation requested in this testimony is in
keeping with the adopted Plan of Implementation. If adequate funds are
not appropriated, significant damages from the higher salinity
concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the United
States and Mexico.
In summary, implementation of salinity control practices through
BLM is a cost effective method of controlling the salinity of the
Colorado River and is an essential component to the overall Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program. Continuation of adequate funding
levels for salinity within the Aquatic Habitat Management sub-activity
(formerly the Soil, Water and Air Program) will assist in preventing
the water quality of the Colorado River from further degradation with a
commensurate significant increase in economic damages to municipal,
industrial and irrigation users. A modest investment in source control
pays huge dividends in improved drinking water quality to nearly 40
million Americans.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
TO: The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chair
The Honorable Tom Udall, Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Appropriations--Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies
SUBJECT: Continued Funding for the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program under BLM's Soil, Water and Air Program
FROM: Christopher S. Harris, Executive Director
Colorado River Board of California
DATE: March 27, 2018
This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2019 funding for the
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) associated
activities that assist the implementation of Title II of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-320). This
long-standing successful and cost-effective salinity control program in
the Colorado River Basin is being carried out pursuant to the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act and the Clean Water Act (Public Law
92-500). Congress has directed the Secretary of the Interior to
implement a comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to
the Colorado River from lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). BLM funds these efforts through its Soil, Water and
Air Program (proposed to be moved to the new Aquatic Habitat Management
sub-activity in the President's 2019 budget). BLM's efforts are an
essential part of the overall effort. A funding level of $1.5 million
for salinity specific projects in 2019 is requested to prevent further
degradation of the quality of Colorado River water supplies and
increased economic damages.
The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
the State agency charged with protecting California's interests and
rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system.
In this capacity, California participates along with the other six
Colorado River Basin States through the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Forum (Forum), the interstate organization responsible for
coordinating the Basin States' salinity control efforts. In close
cooperation with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Forum is charged
with reviewing the Colorado River water quality standards every 3
years. 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 2017 Plan of Implementation. The Forum's 2017 Plan of
Implementation can be found on this website: http://
coloradoriversalinity.org/docs/2017%20Review%20-%20FINAL.pdf. If
adequate funds are not appropriated, significant damages associated
with increasing salinity concentrations of Colorado River water will
become more widespread in the United States and Mexican portions of the
Colorado River Basin.
The EPA has determined that more than 60-percent of the salt load
of the Colorado River comes from natural sources. The majority of land
within the Colorado River Basin is federally owned, much of which is
administered by BLM. Through passage of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act in 1974, Congress recognized that much of the
salts in the Colorado River originate on federally-owned lands. Title I
of the Salinity Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to efforts
related to maintaining the quality of waters being delivered to Mexico
pursuant to the 1944 Water Treaty. Title II of the Act deals with
improving the quality of the water delivered to U.S. users. In 1984,
Congress amended the Salinity Control Act and directed that the
Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive program for
minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands
administered by BLM. In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the
Secretary and requested a report on the implementation of BLM's program
(Public Law 106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to
coordinate BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin States to pursue
salinity control studies and to implement specific salinity control
practices. BLM is now working on creating a comprehensive Colorado
River Basin salinity control program as directed by Congress. In
January 2018 BLM issued A Framework for Improving the Effectiveness of
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, 2018-2023. This
document lays out how BLM intends to implement Colorado River Basin
salinity control activities over the next 5 years. Meaningful resources
have been expended by BLM in the past few years to better understand
salt mobilization on rangelands. With a significant portion of the salt
load of the Colorado River coming from BLM-administered lands, the BLM
portion of the overall program is essential to the success of the
entire effort. Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts will result in
significant additional economic damages to water users downstream.
Over the 34 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 $454 million in quantifiable economic
damages in the United States annually. Economic and hydrologic modeling
by Reclamation indicates that these economic damages could rise to more
than $574 million by the year 2035 without continued implementation of
the Program. For example, damages can be incurred related to the
following activities:
--A reduction in the ability to re-claim and reuse water due to high
salinities in the water delivered to water treatment and
reclamation facilities;
--A reduction in the yield of salt-sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector;
--Increases in the amount of imported water;
--Increased costs of desalination and brine disposal for recycled
water in the municipal sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, and other household appliances, and
increased use of bottled water and water softeners in the
municipal and industrial sectors;
--Increased costs of cooling operations and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--Increases in the use of water and cost of water treatment, and an
increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--Decreased life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility
sector;
--Increasing difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements
to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit terms and conditions; and
--Increased desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation
of salts in groundwater basins.
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 the continuation and expansion of an
effective salinity control program will avoid, or reduce, additional
economic damages to water users in California and the other States that
rely on Colorado River water resources.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
The National Wildlife Refuge System stands alone as the only
Federal land and water conservation system with a mission that
prioritizes wildlife and habitat conservation alongside wildlife-
dependent recreation. Since 1995, the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement (CARE) has worked to showcase the value of the Refuge
System and to secure a strong congressional commitment for conserving
these special landscapes.
Found in every U.S. State and territory, national wildlife refuges
conserve a diversity of America's environmentally sensitive and
recreationally vital ecosystems, including wetlands, coasts, forests,
prairie, tundra, deserts, and oceans, and provide Americans with an
opportunity to encounter and engage with these areas.
We ask that the Committee provide a funding level of $586 million
for the Operations and Maintenance accounts of the National Wildlife
Refuge System for fiscal year 2019.
This testimony is submitted on behalf of CARE's 23 member
organizations, which represent over 16 million American hunters,
anglers, bird and wildlife watchers, scientists, managers, and
concerned citizens passionate about wildlife conservation and related
recreational opportunities.
American Birding Association
American Fisheries Society
American Sportfishing Association
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
Defenders of Wildlife
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
Izaak Walton League of America
Marine Conservation Institute
National Audubon Society
National Rifle Association
National Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Refuge Association
Safari Club International
The Corps Network
The Nature Conservancy
The Wilderness Society
The Wildlife Society
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Trout Unlimited
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Wildlife Forever
Wildlife Management Institute
We also thank you for the much needed $2.8 million funding increase
for fiscal year 2018, as well as the added funding to continue to
reduce the refuge maintenance backlog. In addition, we very much
appreciate the $210 million allocated by this subcommittee to assist
refuges damaged by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. The continued
support of the Committee for refuges is much appreciated by all of our
organizations.
Inadequate Funding--Challenges to the Refuge System
The Refuge System budget, at $486.7 million, is now $93.3 million
below the level needed to keep pace with inflation and fixed costs
($580 million), relative to the fiscal year 2010 budget of $503.2
million.
Workforce has declined in that time by 488 positions through
attrition. Those employees provided services such as administration,
maintenance, fire management, wildlife management, and research
support. That is a loss of nearly 1 out of 7 refuge positions. As a
result, refuge staff struggle to maintain habitat, while also providing
adequate visitor services, environmental education, and access for
hunting, fishing, and other recreation.
An additional problem with lack of funding is the System's
inability to provide for ongoing maintenance costs, which only compound
and become more expensive with time. At Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee
NWR in Florida, the invasive species issues are overwhelming the
refuge. In the last 12-15 years, Loxahatchee has struggled with
invasive Lygodium, with initial costs of $2 million a year to restrict
uncontrolled spread. Now, the refuge needs roughly $5 million a year
for 5 years in order to control this weed, with costs having doubled or
tripled.
Unfortunately, inadequate funding threatens the System's ability to
carry out its mission, which is mandated by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Between fiscal year 2010 and
fiscal year 2013, Refuge System funding was reduced by $50 million--a
10 percent cut. Even with increased budgets in fiscal year 2018 to
$486.7 million, the Refuge System continues to function at
unsustainable levels. CARE estimates that the Refuge System needs at
least $900 million in annual operations and maintenance funding to meet
conservation targets, including wildlife management, habitat
restoration, and opportunities for public recreation.
Completely inadequate numbers of Federal wildlife officers (by some
measures, the number of FWOs should be three times higher than current
numbers) imperil healthy habitat and the safe and enjoyable visitor
experience. The `lucky' refuges still have one or two employees per
refuge or refuge complex doing work such as environmental education,
biology, or maintenance work. Yet many other refuges sit for years with
unfilled, critical positions. For example, the Ding Darling NWR in
Sanibel, Florida--the 8th most visited refuge with 936,000 visitors
last year--is losing their environmental ranger this spring.
Environmental education is a critical service provided to the community
by this refuge, and this kind of loss is inexcusable.
Without drastic increases in funding, there is simply no room left
to trim positions and still maintain at least a portion of those
services--they will simply disappear, and school programs or ongoing
maintenance will end.
National Wildlife Refuge System: Statistics and Visitors
The National Wildlife Refuge System, established by President
Theodore Roosevelt in 1903, protects approximately 850 million land and
marine acres on 566 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management
districts in every State and territory in the U.S., and 5 marine
monuments in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. These acres are both part
of the Refuge System and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service managed (with
some marine acres co-managed with NOAA). From the Virgin Islands to
Guam to Alaska to Maine, the Refuge System spans 12 time zones and
protects America's natural heritage in habitats ranging from arctic
tundra to arid desert, boreal forest to sagebrush grassland, and
prairie wetlands to coral reefs.
A refuge is within an hour's drive from most metropolitan areas,
enabling the Refuge System to attract a growing number of visitors each
year (53.6 million in fiscal year 2017, up from 46.5 million in fiscal
year 2013) and provide opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, kayaking, hiking, and outdoor education.
Americans are flocking to refuges for the wild beauty and recreational
opportunities they provide.
CARE welcomes recreational use of our Nation's refuges. Refuge
visitors generate $2.4 billion annually to local and regional
economies--on average returning $4.87 in economic activity for every $1
appropriated--and support 35,000 U.S. jobs.\1\ In addition, refuges
provide major environmental and health benefits, such as filtering
storm water before it is carried downstream and fills municipal
aquifers; reducing flooding by capturing excess rainwater; and
minimizing the damage to coastal communities from storm surges. Refuges
generate more than $32.3 billion in these ecosystem services each year,
a return of over $65 for every $1 appropriated by Congress.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Banking on Nature, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, October
2013, http://www.fws.gov/refuges/about/refugereports/pdfs/
BankingOnNature2013.pdf.
\2\ The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural
Resources Conservation, and Historic Preservation in the United States,
Southwick Associates, October 2011, https://www.fws.gov/refuges/news/
pdfs/TheEconomicValueofOutdoorRecreation[1].pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Use of the Refuge System--Increases and Decreases from RAPP
The fiscal year 2015 Refuge Annual Performance Plan (RAPP) reports
revealed falling performance rates in several important System
categories--as a direct result of funding shortfalls--including habitat
condition, habitat restoration, recreation opportunities, volunteerism,
and scientific research. Performance declined from fiscal year 2010 to
fiscal year 2015 for the following measures: open water acres restored
(-63 percent), wetland acres restored (-70 percent), acres of non-
native, invasive plants controlled (-58 percent), number of invasive
animal populations controlled during the year (-55 percent), riparian
miles restored (-30 percent), acres of farming (-30 percent), and total
refuge acres receiving needed management (-12 percent).
However, many measures of public use increased for the Refuge
System over this same timeframe, despite budget shortfalls. Funding for
fiscal year 2019 needs to ensure Americans will be able to safely
continue these valuable recreational activities. These include
waterfowl hunt visits (+7 percent), photography participants (+52
percent), number of boat trail visits (+18 percent), acres of
prescribed grazing (+13 percent), number of auto tour visits (+14
percent), and wildlife observation visits (+12 percent).
CARE Requests $586 Million in Fiscal Year 2019
We acknowledge that this request would mean a dramatic $100 million
increase. However, with the effective $93 million decrease in funding
since fiscal year 2010, the Refuge System has lost a great deal of
conservation work and public use opportunities, all at a time when
visitor numbers are increasing. If annual operations and maintenance
funding does not rise substantially, CARE anticipates further impacts
both within and outside of refuge boundaries, including:
--Reduced treatment of invasive plants, reducing habitat quality for
wildlife (both game and non-game) and placing nearby private
lands at higher risk of infestations;
--Decreased use of prescribed fire, which is used on refuges both to
improve habitat for wildlife and to reduce hazardous fuels that
pose a wildfire risk to nearby communities. This risk has been
mitigated by the fire fix passed by the Congress this spring,
but resources for prescribed fire still need to be in place on
individual refuges;
--Reduced number and quality of visitor programs, with visitor
centers operating at fewer hours, even as the numbers of
visitors increases;
--Reduced quality of habitat for hunting. Secretary Ryan Zinke has
continued to add and expand hunt programs at refuges. These
hunt expansions will require corresponding funding to keep up
with the demand on Federal wildlife officers and on biologists
and other staff responsible for keeping wildlife habitat and
populations healthy.
--Elimination of ancillary functions like FWS's operation of
Henderson Field at Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, which
serves as a critical emergency landing site for trans-pacific
flights, as well as the public's main window to the marine
national monuments.
The common denominator to all these challenges is a lack of
funding. Adequate staffing and funding are critical to the maintenance
of healthy wildlife populations and access for recreational users to a
healthy ecosystem. Increasing funding for the System will empower and
enable individual Refuge units to deliver on-the-ground conservation
that benefits not only wildlife and recreation, but also local
communities across the Nation.
We ask that this Committee use a portion of its additional funding
allocation in the budget deal finalized in January, and put it towards
a substantial increase in Refuge Operations and Maintenance funding.
CARE has a goal of seeing Refuge Operations and Maintenance funding
reach $900 million by fiscal year 2021, and a large increase in fiscal
year 2019 would help us meet that goal.
We urge Congress to fund the Refuge System at $586 million in
fiscal year 2019--to bridge the growing gap between what the System
needs and what it receives--enabling refuges to continue moving America
forward as the world's leader in wildlife conservation and restoration.
Our hope is that this level of funding will put the Refuge System
on a path to full funding of $900 million and help the System advance
its mission to maintain refuge lands as intended in their purpose for
the benefit of the American people, finalize outstanding Comprehensive
Conservation Plans, and implement programs that will benefit both
wildlife and people. If the requested funding level is satisfied, the
Refuge System can better:
--Conduct management and restoration activities to provide healthy
habitats that attract wildlife and, in turn, draw visitors and
increase economic return to communities;
--Keep refuges open and staffed so quality recreational opportunities
continue to be offered to the public;
--Maintain facilities and equipment used to serve the public and
manage habitat;
--Provide Federal wildlife officers needed to keep refuge resources
and the people who come to appreciate them safe.
On behalf of our more than 16 million members and supporters, CARE
thanks the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit comments on the
fiscal year 2019 House Interior Appropriations bill, and we look
forward to meeting with you to discuss our request.
______
Prepared Statement of The Corps Network
Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall;
On behalf of 130+ Corps of The Corps Network and our 25,000
Corpsmembers, I write to respectfully urge your strong support for
increased funding for the youth, maintenance, operation, national
forest, wildfire, and conservation accounts of the Department of
Interior (DOI) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in fiscal year 2019 as
outlined below. We thank you for your extraordinary efforts in
developing a deal to eliminate the budget caps, and provide a much-
needed increase in maintenance and infrastructure accounts along with
continuing youth-focused efforts in fiscal year 2018.
As you craft the fiscal year 2019 Interior Appropriations Bill, we
encourage you to continue this focus, and make additional investments
in addressing backlog maintenance, necessary infrastructure and
conservation projects, and engaging the next generation of youth and
veteran outdoor stewards, entrepreneurs, recreationists, and sportsmen
and women. In addition, we encourage your attention to ongoing
challenges related to Interior's financial assistance agreement review
of projects over $50,000 that was implemented in December of 2017 and
has had a significant impact on Interior's ability to accomplish
projects with appropriated funds.
Corps of The Corps Network support DOI and USFS accounts for youth,
repair and rehabilitation, trials, maintenance, and forest conservation
which are used to partner with Corps and our youth and veteran
Corpsmembers on important projects; funding for Wildland Fire hazardous
fuels remediation through both DOI and USFS; and language encouraging
new hiring authority for USFS, a continued focus on Corps partnerships,
and expressing concern around the implementation of a new, more
cumbersome financial assistance review process. By partnering with
Corps, agencies achieve more with their budgets and accomplish cost-
effective projects to help address the multi-billion-dollar maintenance
backlog; remediate wildfires and invasive species; improve access to
public lands; build and maintain multi-use trails and increase
recreation opportunities; and ensure productive fish and wildlife
habitat for enthusiasts, hunters, and fishers.
Thank you again for your efforts to ensure most of these accounts
were strong in fiscal year 2018. With thd additional support included
in the fiscal year 2018 bill, Corps will help accomplish millions in
critical projects while also further leveraging Federal funds. For
example, Corps have utilized around $150 million in project funding
from DOI and USFS over the past 3 years and turned that into at least
$37 million more in match and service projects, with the added benefit
of engaging youth and veterans in meaningful work experiences to
develop in-demand skills on the path to careers while building respect
for our country, hard work, and the outdoors. Corps bring at least 25
percent match to these projects, making Federal funds go further than
they otherwise would.
Corps provide youth and veterans the opportunity to serve their
country, advance their education and obtain in-demand skills. Serving
in crews and individual placements, Corpsmembers perform important
conservation, recreation, infrastructure, wildfire, disaster response,
and community development service projects on public lands and in rural
and urban communities. Corps enroll over 25,000 youth and veterans
annually in all 50 States and DC, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.
Corps engage an additional 100,000 volunteers, and complete thousands
of service projects valuing hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
Recently, our Corps around the country accomplished: 1.6 million
acres of wildlife habitat improved and made accessible; 1.5 million
trees planted; 365,000 acres of invasive species removed; 32,000 acres
of fire fuel reduced; 22,000 miles of multi-use trails constructed and
improved; 16,000 recreation facilities improved; 8,200 acres of
erosion, landslide, and flood prevention; 2,600 miles of fish and
waterway habitat restored; 500 wildfires and disasters responded to;
and 190 historic structures preserved. Project sponsors consistently
express a high degree of satisfaction with the quality of work and
productivity of Corps. Virtually all Federal project partners (99.6
percent) say they would work with Corps again and an independent study
commissioned by the National Park Service found a 50-80 percent cost
savings in using Corps on maintenance projects.
These accounts also support the 21st Century Conservation Service
Corps (21CSC) initiative, which has received bipartisan support in
Congress from Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Michael Bennet (D-CO),
Reps. Martha McSally (R-AZ) and Seth Moulton (D-MA). Supporters also
include Army General (Ret.) Stanley McChrystal and President Bush's
Domestic Policy Advisor, John Bridgeland and the past five Secretaries
of the Interior (two Republicans and three Democrats). The 21CSC
initiative has private sector support from Coca-Cola, the North Face,
American Eagle Outfitters, Thule, and KEEN.
Fiscal Year 2019 Interior & Environment Appropriations Priorities:
The Corps Network respectfully urges the Committee to support these
fiscal year 2019 programs, language requests, and authorities that will
allow public land management agencies to engage Corps:
--Department of the Interior--Guidance for Financial Assistance
Actions Report Language.--``The Committee is aware the
Department has implemented a requirement that all cooperative
agreements and grants above $50,000 for certain non-profit
entities receive additional scrutiny to ensure their alignment
with the Secretary of Interior's priorities. The Committee is
concerned with the implementation of this review, the
Department's failure to develop guidance to field staff in a
timely manner, along with a lack of capacity to process these
grants and agreements through the new review process
efficiently and effectively. We are also concerned the review
may lead to a reduction in the obligation of funds for projects
as appropriated by Congress and that given the seasonal nature
of many projects, they will simply not be accomplished, further
leading to an increase in the maintenance backlog. We urge the
Department to ensure a timely review of these grants and
agreements in order to ensure the mission and goals of the
Department are being met, and inform the Committee of how long
this review will remain in place, and what the effect has been
of this review in comparison to last fiscal year with respect
to accomplishing projects through appropriated accounts.''
--U.S. Forest Service--National Forest System.--$1.9 billion in
fiscal year 2019;
--U.S. Forest Service--Capital Improvement and Maintenance--Trails.--
$79 million in fiscal year 2019;
--U.S. Forest Service--Wildland Fire Management.--$1.2 billion in
fiscal year 2019;
--Department of Interior--Wildland Fire Management--Suppression.--
$958 million in fiscal year 2019;
--National Park Service--Operation--Facilities Operation &
Maintenance.--$842 million in fiscal year 2019;
--National Park Service--Operation--Visitor Services.--$276 million
in fiscal year 2019;
--Fish and Wildlife Service--Resource Management.--$1.3 billion in
fiscal year 2019;
--Bureau of Land Management--Management of Lands and Resources.--$1
billion in fiscal year 2019;
--Bureau of Reclamation--Water & Related Resources.--$1.2 billion in
fiscal year 2019;
--Bureau of Indian Affairs--Natural Resource Management.--$215
million in fiscal year 2019;
--U.S. Forest Service--Direct Hire Authority.--``SEC. 425. (a) For
fiscal year 2019, the Secretary of Agriculture may appoint,
without regard to the provisions of subchapter I of chapter 33
of title 5, United States Code, other than sections 3303 and
3328 of such title, a qualified candidate described in
subsection (b) directly to a position with the United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service for which the
candidate meets Office of Personnel Management qualification
standards.
--(a) Subsection (a) applies to a former resource assistant (as
defined in section 203 of the Public Land Corps Act (16
U.S.C. 1722)) who completed a rigorous undergraduate or
graduate summer internship with a land managing agency,
such as the Forest Service Resource Assistant Program
successfully fulfilled the requirements of the internship
program; and subsequently earned an undergraduate or
graduate degree from an accredited institution of higher
education.
--(b) The direct hire authority under this section may not be
exercised with respect to a specific qualified candidate
after the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date on
which the candidate completed the undergraduate or graduate
degree, as the case may be.''
Since the 1950's and through today, Corps have been a major partner
of DOI and the USFS in accomplishing needed maintenance, conservation,
recreation, and wildfire remediation projects in a cost-effective
manner. We are concerned with the impact a new financial assistance
agreement review for projects over $50,000 is having on our ability to
partner with DOI, and the impact it is having on Interior being able to
obligate funding in a timely manner for projects for which Congress
appropriated funds in fiscal year 2018.
Given the short window many States, like Alaska and Montana for
example, have for the work season, delays and uncertainty are
particularly concerning along with the lead time, commitment, tools and
supplies needed from Corps and our youth and veteran Corpsmembers to
accomplish these projects. For this reason, we hope the Committee will
seek clarification from the Department about this review and the impact
it may be having on accomplishing its mission, and in partnering with
non-profit and volunteer groups, who dedicate significant amounts of
private energy and resources to helping meet public land management
needs, and keep taxpayer-supported public lands in good condition.
All these programs listed above help Corps leverage limited Federal
dollars to accomplish more projects than land management agencies
normally would, while engaging thousands of youth and veterans in
improving and restoring our Nation's lands, water, and recreation
assets. The maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, visitor services,
and forestry accounts are important as they are Corps' main source of
partnerships, and help the agencies address their backlog and needed
projects to ensure continued access and recreation on our Nation's
public lands. Corps also partner with both DOI and USFS to address
wildfire remediation needs, and more specifically help with hazardous
fuels and invasive species reduction, which is a major need to prevent
larger and more deadly fires.
Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2019 budget proposes to
make cuts to many of these important areas similar to the fiscal year
2018 budget. We appreciate the Committee's bipartisan efforts to ensure
these accounts were supported and in many cases increased in the fiscal
year 2018 Omnibus. For Department of the Interior, we are particularly
concerned with proposed cuts to the repair/rehabilitation, youth, and
volunteer programs for NPS and FWS; and cuts to conservation,
wilderness, and wildlife management accounts along with maintenance and
resource planning accounts at BLM. These accounts are all important for
continued functioning of our Nation's public lands and ensuring access
to recreation, along with engaging the next generation of outdoor
stewards, while managing our lands for their best use.
For the U.S. Forest Service, thank you for your attention to
addressing backlog maintenance by increasing funding for the Capital
Improvement & Maintenance--Trails account in fiscal year 2018. The USFS
manages the largest trails system in the country, which is important
for continued access to recreation and hunting and fishing in many
areas. We urge additional funding be provided trails, but also the
National Forest System, and in particular the recreation, vegetation,
wildlife and hazardous fuels management accounts, all of which were cut
in fiscal year 2018 except for hazardous fuels. Unfortunately the
President's budget proposes a massive cut to the trails account, along
with a cut to the National Forest System, and a cut to Hazardous Fuels
Management.
As you can see, our Corps partner with DOI and USFS in a critical
capacities while providing high quality work experiences to engage
thousands of youths and veterans in stewardship of the Great Outdoors.
We understand there are difficult choices that need to be made in the
bill, which is why ensuring continued projects and opportunities for
our cost-effective public private partnerships is more important than
ever. We again respectfully urge your support for these programs,
certainty around the agreement process, and increases in funding in
these important areas. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Mary Ellen Sprenkel
President & CEO
______
Prepared Statement of the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments
The Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (CATG) is a consortium
of 10 Tribal governments located along the Yukon River and its
tributaries in northeastern Alaska. Our organization provides a variety
of services to the Tribal citizens of our region, including full
healthcare services at the Yukon Flats Health Center and village-based
clinics in four of our Villages. We have Self-Governance agreements
with the Fish and Wildlife Service and with the Bureau of Land
Management.
CATG requests the following considerations be implemented in the
fiscal year 2019 Appropriations cycle:
--Telecommunications Subsidies: Support elimination of the arbitrary
cap on Internet subsidies for critical telecommunications
connectivity.
--Section 105(l) Leases: Support funding for healthcare facility
leases under Section 105(l) of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA).
--Budget Increases: Support behavioral health increases to the IHS
and BIA budgets.
--Advance Appropriations for IHS: Support advance funding for the
IHS.
--Contract Support Cost (CSC) Funding: Support continued full and
mandatory CSC funding for the IHS and BIA.
--Expand Self-Governance: Expand Self-Governance and fully fund
Annual Funding Agreements.
telecommunications subsidies
CATG is aware that the subcommittees do not directly control
funding subsidies of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and
Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC); however, we would like
to inform you of our serious concerns with recent development to
telecommunications subsidies. Due to a funding cap, the USAC recently
implemented a pro-rata reduction in Rural Health Care funding that
subsidizes the extremely high costs of Internet connectivity and
telecommunications in Alaska. Internet connectivity is critical to
providing healthcare services to our remote villages. The funding cap
has resulted in $50 million in cuts nationally, and for this year
alone, Tribal health programs in Alaska will undergo an unplanned $18.1
million shortfall for connectivity. CATG has been told to expect more
than twice that impact next year, which could exceed $35 million for
Alaska Tribal health programs. As such, we request the subcommittees'
full support and engagement in eliminating the arbitrary cap and
reinstating the full USAC subsidies to Tribal health programs
throughout the State of Alaska.
section 105(l) leases
Tribes and Tribal organizations increasingly rely on section 105(l)
leases to address chronically underfunded facilities operation,
maintenance, and replacement costs. Section 105(l) of the Indian Self
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) provides for fully
funded leases that are used by Tribes and Tribal organizations to carry
out services under ISDEAA agreements. The funding is critical to being
able to operate and maintain health clinics, which have historically
been so severely underfunded that many clinics without Section 105(l)
leases are either dangerous or unfit for the delivery of health
services. The Federal court's decision in Maniilaq Association v.
Burwell, 170 F. Supp. 3d 243 (D.D.C. 2016) identified a key source of
funding to help remedy the problem of severely underfunded clinics. The
court determined that Section 105(l) of the ISDEAA provides a just
entitlement to full compensation for leases of Tribal facilities being
used to carry out ISDEAA agreements. Rather than supporting the court's
solution, the administration requested to amend the law in order to
avoid full compensation for leases. Thankfully, Congress declined to
include such a provision in the fiscal year 2018 IHS appropriation
bill. The administration has once again proposed bill language intended
to overrule the Maniilaq decision. The proposed language would exclude
section 105(l) of the ISDEAA as a source of entitlement to funding for
Section 105(l) leases, leaving it entirely within the discretion of the
IHS. We request the subcommittees treat the administration's flawed
proposal the same way it did in the fiscal year 2018 IHS appropriations
bill and decline to include the language in the fiscal year 2019 bill.
budget increases
CATG's communities in rural Alaska have extreme rates of suicide,
alcohol and substance abuse; issues that contribute to a multitude of
other adverse problems such as crime, domestic violence, child abuse
and neglect. Frequently, Tribes in Alaska have difficulty working
through the State of Alaska to provide behavioral and social services,
which adds burdensome layers and undue regulation. CATG believes that
Tribes and Tribal organizations should receive behavioral funds
directly, because programs that implement traditional cultural values
have proven to be far more successful than those that do not. We ask
for your support in this effort. CATG also asks for support in
expanding the Generations Indigenous (Gen-I) initiative, which provides
increased resources for Tribes to address youth behavioral, mental
health and substance abuse issues, as well as expansion of the Tiwahe
Initiative, designed to address the inter-related problems of poverty,
violence and substance abuse faced by Native communities.
advance appropriations for ihs
CATG again requests your support in placing the IHS budget on an
advance appropriation basis as Congress has done for the Veterans
Administration health accounts since fiscal year 2010. IHS healthcare
is similar to Veterans healthcare in that both the VA and the IHS
provide direct medical care and both are the result of Federal
policies. Predictability, continuity, and certainty are essential for
providing stable quality healthcare. This issue continues to be
important to Alaska Native and American Indian patients, particularly
in a budget climate of seemingly endless Continuing Resolutions (CR).
When IHS funding is subject to a CR, as it has been repeatedly over
many years, Tribal healthcare providers receive only a portion of
funding at a time, making it particularly difficult to implement long-
range planning and to effectively use and leverage limited resources.
Partial funding also requires the same processing and manpower for each
incomplete payment as one full apportionment. Having advance notice of
funding levels would greatly aid CATG and other Tribal health providers
in program planning, recruitment and retention of essential healthcare
professionals. Under advance appropriations, we would know a year in
advance what the budget would be and it would resolve much of the
uncertainty we have experienced because full appropriations were not
enacted at the first of the Federal fiscal year. The IHS budget should
be afforded the same status consideration as VA health programs.
contract support cost (csc) funding
CATG would like to thank the House and Senate Subcommittees for
their leadership and commitment to fully funding CSC for IHS and BIA
ISDEAA agreements. We appreciate the full funding of CSC over the past
few fiscal years, that the funding is indefinite (``such sums as may be
necessary'', and that the funding is in separate accounts in the IHS
and BIA budgets. We request that the subcommittees continue to fully
fund CSC. Such action is crucial to strengthening the ability of Tribal
governments' to successfully exercise their rights and responsibilities
as sovereign nations.
expand self-governance
CATG is proud to be one of the first Tribal consortiums in the
country to develop non-BIA DOI Self-Governance Annual Funding
Agreements (AFA). However, we remain concerned that Contract Support
Costs (CSC) for the AFA's to manage programs, functions, services, and
activities, remain underfunded. We are also concerned that DOI scopes
of work are being limited and the original intent and practice of Self-
Governance, which is to build Tribal capacity to take on increasing
levels of responsibility, is not being properly carried out. We request
your support in fully funding AFA CSC and to expand Self-Governance
practice and agreements beyond BIA.
conclusion
CATG greatly appreciates your consideration of our requests
outlined in this testimony. On behalf of our organization and all of
the people we serve, I would be happy to provide any other additional
information as requested by the subcommittees.
______
Prepared Statement of Dance/USA
Madam Chairman and distinguished Members of the subcommittee, I am
grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of Dance/
USA, its Board of Directors and its 500 members. We strongly urge the
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies in the
Committee on Appropriations to designate a total of $155 million to the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2019. This
testimony and the funding examples described below are intended to
highlight the importance of Federal investment in the arts, which are
critical to sustaining a vibrant cultural community throughout the
country.
The NEA is a great investment in in the economic growth of every
community. The NEA was established in 1965 with the mission to
``strengthen the creative capacity of our communities by providing all
Americans with diverse opportunities for arts participation.'' It has
continued to meet this mission for over 50 years, recommending more
than 2,400 grants in every Congressional District in the country in
fiscal year 2017. Sixty-five percent of direct grants went to small
(budgets under $500,000) and medium sized (budgets between $500,000 and
$2 million) organizations. Additionally, 40 percent of NEA-supported
activities took place in high-poverty neighborhoods and 36 percent of
NEA grants reached underserved populations, such as people with
disabilities and veterans. Between 2012 and 2015, NEA-supported
programs reached 24.2 million adults and 3.4 children on average each
year through 80,603 live events.
Funding from the NEA continues to support arts organizations and
their communities by providing a high return on investment. The ratio
of private and other public funds matching every NEA grant dollar is
approaching 9:1, generating more than $500 million in matching
supporting.
Before the establishment of the NEA, funding for the arts was
mostly limited to larger cities. The NEA is the only arts funder in
America, public or private, that supports the arts in all 50 States,
the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. Additionally, 40
percent of the NEA's program funds are distributed through State arts
agencies, reaching tens of thousands throughout the U.S. NEA funding
provides access to the arts in regions with histories of
inaccessibility due to economic or geographic limitations.
At the national level, the arts and cultural sector contributed
$763.6 billion to the U.S. economy in 2015, 4.2 percent of the GDP, and
counted 4.9 million workers who earned $372 billion in total
compensation. The tax-exempt performing arts organizations contributed
$9 billion to the U.S. economy and employed 90,000 workers, who earned
$5.6 billion in total compensation. Consumers spent $31.6 billion on
admissions to performing arts events.
Dance companies make communities healthier and more vibrant.
Audiences across the U.S. have the opportunity to experience in many
aspects of life. Professional not-for-profit dance is highly diverse in
its artistic forms, covering genres and styles that include aerial,
ballet, burlesque, capoeira, flamenco, hip hop, hula, jazz, kathak,
liturgical, modern, physically integrated, and tap dance, in addition
to fusions of these genres and styles and the incorporation into other
artistic disciplines. Dance artists work with performing arts centers,
businesses, park districts, community centers, schools, religious
institutions, and many other groups to ensure this wealth of creative
activity is widely accessible to the public.
Established in 1982 as the national service organizations for the
professional dance field, Dance/USA's membership currently consists of
more than 400 dance companies, dance service and presenting
organizations, individuals, and related organizations.
--Economic Impact: Not-for-profit dance regularly generates more than
$700 million in economic activity across the country. In fiscal
year 2014, reported annual expense budgets totaled $755.5
million. Ensembles that reported expenses for wages and
benefits on their 990s paid a total of $372.4 million, which
approximates to half (50.9 percent) of total aggregated
expenses for these ensembles.
According to data compiled by the NEA and the Bureau of Economic
Analysis' U.S. Arts and Culture Production Satellite Account,
the gross output from not-for-profit dance companies totaled
$972 million, while the value added to the GDP by dance
companies is $573 million.
Not-for-profit dance ensembles employed over 15,900 individuals
in a mix of full-time and part time positions in fiscal year
2014. These ensembles were further supported by more than
22,800 volunteers.
--Communities Served: According to the Survey of Public Participation
in the Arts (SPPA), social dancing is the most common way
Americans performed art in 2012. African Americans are the
race/ethnic group more likely to dance formally and Hispanics
are the group most likely to dance socially. The rates of dance
participation are highest for younger adults (18-34). Dance
(other than ballet) is the only performing arts activity for
which U.S. attendance rates at performances did not fall
between 2002 and 2012.
--Dance Works: According to research conducted by Dance/USA, the
dominant motivation for attending dance performances,
representing 50 percent of those surveyed, is to be inspired or
uplifted. Not-for-profit dance performances have the
opportunity to bring communities together, supporting social
and emotional needs of audience members.
nea grants at work
NEA grants are awarded to dance organizations through its core
programs: Art Works; Challenge America Fast Track Grants; and Federal/
State Partnerships. In fiscal year 2017, the NEA awarded 166 grants to
the dance field through the Art Works category, totaling $4,160,000.
Dance/USA's members continue to explore and research methods for
engaging audiences. Dance groups continue to demonstrate the value and
impact dance has on communities and audiences. Below are just a few
examples of the excellent initiatives that Dance/USA members are
engaged in, supporting the audiences and communities they serve. (Each
organization referenced also received an NEA grant in fiscal year
2017.)
Alabama Dance Council
Birmingham, Alabama
Through the Community Forum Series, Alabama Dance Council explores
cultural perspectives in Birmingham, Montgomery, and Atmore, Alabama.
The initiative involves five guest artists and 10 local artists.
Ananya Dance Theatre
Minneapolis, Minnesota
This company is hosting dialogues, workshops, dance trainings,
performance installations, and audience improvisation. The company will
expand its social just work with communities of color across the Twin
Cities.
Cleo Parker Robinson Dance
Denver, Colorado
ArtBursts is an issue-specific program for the African American
community in the Five Points neighborhood of Denver. Working with a
social forecast team, artists will use issues affecting neighborhoods
as springboards for new work, reflecting community stories, and
performed in both public and private spaces.
CONTRA-TIEMPO
Culver City, California
This year-long initiative with the Community Coalition in South Los
Angeles will include classes and choreographic labs, leading to the
production of a new work, joyUS. The labs will be organized around
social justice themes that are important to the South LA community.
Fresh Meat Productions
San Francisco, California
Sean Dorsey Dance's Generations Positive will expand to include
audience engagement activities with transgender and gender non-
conforming dance audiences. The initiative will include community
forums and Dance Your Story workshops. Engagement will take place
during the tour of The Missing Generation, a dance work about longtime
survivors of the AIDS epidemic, in conjunction with partners who serve
the trans community.
conclusion
Dance/USA is grateful for the $3 million increase to the NEA in
fiscal year 2018. The continued bipartisan support for the agency has
continued to support artists and audiences, allowing opera and the arts
to address critical issues, making communities healthier and more
vibrant.
We urge you to continue toward restoration and increase the NEA
funding allocation to $155 million for fiscal year 2019.
On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request.
[This statement was submitted by Amy Fitterer, executive director.]
______
Prepared Statement of Defenders of Wildlife
Madam 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 1.8 million members and
supporters and is dedicated to the conservation of wild animals and
plants in their natural communities.
The President's fiscal year 2019 budget proposes draconian cuts to
Federal wildlife and public lands programs that will likely cause
irreparable harm to vulnerable species and habitat. We also note that
throughout the budget, cuts are justified by claiming that funding will
be focused on other higher priorities without ever identifying those
priorities. We urge you to reject these destructive cuts. Defenders is
also extremely skeptical about a plan by Secretary Zinke to entirely
reorganize the Department of the Interior by consolidating authority
for administering diverse Interior agencies under the control of 13
regional czars. The purpose and result of this proposal would be to
reduce or eliminate the relative independence of agencies to manage and
conserve land, waters, and wildlife in accordance with their individual
statutory and policy mandates. It would be detrimental to transparent
and balanced decisionmaking and conservation of our natural resources.
Relocating central offices to various western locales also would make
them more prone to capture by development and resource extraction
industries. We urge you to reject this proposal.
Riders that threatened to undermine protections for imperiled
species and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and sound management of
our national forests, including the Tongass National Forest in Alaska,
were inserted into the Chairmen's mark of the fiscal year 2018 Senate
Interior appropriations bill. We strongly opposed these riders, and we
appreciate that almost all were stricken or mitigated in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. We also are extremely grateful
for funding increases provided for many programs in the final bill and
that Congress agreed to a comprehensive wildfire funding solution.
fish and wildlife service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is our Nation's premier
wildlife conservation agency, yet the request proposes a 23 percent cut
overall to its budget. We urge no less than the fiscal year 2018
enacted level of $1.6 billion to support FWS in recovering threatened
and endangered species; protecting migratory birds and fish, species of
global conservation concern and other trust species; and stopping or
preventing wildlife crimes.
Ecological Services
The request proposes a 14.6 percent cut. Defenders supports no less
than the fiscal year 2018 level of $247.8 million for Ecological
Services so that high-priority work to protect imperiled species can
continue:
--Listing: The request cuts the listing budget by an unacceptable 42
percent. Defenders was also concerned that the fiscal year 2018
bill cut the listing budget by $1.7 million below the enacted
level. We urge restoration to the fiscal year 2017 level of
$20.5 million so that the agency can continue to make progress
with its broadly supported seven-year listing workplan that
allows the agency to prioritize over 300 species for listing
decisions. Species due for decisions in fiscal year 2019
include the tufted puffin, Penasco least chipmunk, and monarch
butterfly.
--Recovery: The request cuts recovery by 11.2 percent. Defenders
supports the creation of new Recovery Challenge matching grants
in the fiscal year 2018 bill, and we urge no less than the
fiscal year 2018 level of $91 million for fiscal year 2019.
Currently, approximately 380 listed U.S. species do not have
final recovery plans. FWS receives less than 25 percent of the
funding needed each year to implement all recovery actions
identified in recovery plans.
--Planning and Consultation: The request cuts planning and
consultation by 6.4 percent. Defenders urges no less than the
fiscal year 2018 level of $105.6 million for fiscal year 2019.
This continued level of funding is needed to support crucial
Section 7 consultations under the ESA so that projects can move
forward while minimizing harm to listed species. This program
already operates on an inadequate budget. Resources to monitor
permit compliance are almost nonexistent.
--Conservation and Restoration: The request cuts conservation and
restoration by an enormous 34.6 percent. Defenders urges no
less than the fiscal year 2018 level of $32.4 million to
support continued conservation for candidate species as they
await listing and to support work with stakeholders on a
variety of efforts that benefit trust resources.
--Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Program: The request eliminates
all funding for this program that assists livestock owners co-
existing with wolves. We urge continued funding at no less than
$1 million.
National Wildlife Refuge System
Our National Wildlife Refuge System is the largest network of
public lands and water in the Nation dedicated to wildlife
conservation. The administration's request cuts the Refuge System
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) budget by 2.8 percent. The current
$486.8 million for O&M is now $93 million below the level needed to
keep pace with inflation and salary increases relative to the fiscal
year 2010 level of $503.2 million. The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement, a coalition of 23 hunting, fishing, conservation and
scientific organizations recommends $586 million for O&M for fiscal
year 2019. Defenders also was concerned that neither the
administration's request to address hurricane and fire damages nor the
supplemental appropriations enacted last year included funding for
needed habitat restoration on refuges; we urge the subcommittee to
include that funding in the regular fiscal year 2019 bill.
Migratory Bird Management
A just-issued report \1\ has found that one in eight bird species
is threatened with global extinction, yet the request cuts this program
by 4.3 percent. Defenders supports continued funding at no less than
the fiscal year 2018 level of $48.4 million to support crucial survey
and monitoring programs and for building resilience of bird species and
their habitats. We also oppose the administration's recent decision not
to prosecute negligent killing of birds listed under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.birdlife.org/sites/default/files/attachments/
BL_ReportENG_V11_spreads.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Law Enforcement (OLE)
The request cuts OLE by 9.9 percent. We are extremely grateful for
the new funding provided in the fiscal year 2018 bill to support
inspectors at ports currently without personnel and we hope it can be
maintained. Defenders supports no less than the fiscal year 2018 level
of $77.1 million to help OLE continue to address the crisis in the
illegal global wildlife trade.
International Affairs
The request cuts this program by 8.2 percent. Defenders urges
continued funding at no less than the fiscal year 2018 level of $15.8
million which is crucial in continuing to combat illegal wildlife trade
and to build capacity in range countries.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Science Support
The request again unwisely zeroes out funding for these two crucial
scientific programs. Defenders thanks the subcommittee for restoring
funding. We urge funding at no less than the fiscal year 2018 levels of
$13 million and $17.3 million respectively so that FWS can continue to
work to address complex challenges, such as climate change, across
large landscapes and otherwise address scientific questions key to
conservation of trust species.
Key Grant Programs
The request makes draconian cuts to important grant programs,
including zeroing out funding for the Cooperative Endangered Species
Fund. Defenders supports no less than the fiscal year 2018 levels for
the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, the Multinational Species
Conservation Fund, the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, and State
and Tribal Wildlife Grants.
forest service and bureau of land management
The U.S. Forest Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) are essential to the conservation of wildlife and habitat in the
U.S., yet the request makes significant and damaging cuts to key
scientific, conservation and management programs. Defenders is
particularly disturbed by the apparent shell-game being played in the
request with key BLM programs, especially with the Wildlife and
Fisheries and Threatened and Endangered Species Activities, through the
administration's proposal to consolidate these programs and provide
significantly less support and transparency, while greatly increasing
funding for the development of fossil fuels. We urge the subcommittee
to retain the current budget structure for BLM programs.
BLM Wildlife and Fisheries Management
Defenders opposes the elimination of this program in the request as
well as the $22.9 million decrease for the Sagebrush Conservation
Implementation Strategy. Defenders supports no less than the fiscal
year 2018 level of $115.8 million, which includes $60 million for
greater sage-grouse and sage steppe conservation activities. In
addition, we oppose the current effort to revise and weaken the
National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy.
BLM Threatened and Endangered Species Management
Defenders opposes the elimination of this program in the request.
Funding for this program has been far below the level needed for the
work the agency is required to do to recover the 430 ESA listed species
on BLM lands: more than 5,000 tasks assigned to BLM in approved
recovery plans. Defenders supports $22.6 million for the program, an
increase of $1 million over fiscal year 2018, which restores the budget
to the fiscal year 2010 level.
BLM Renewable Energy
The request cuts this program by 43.5 percent. Defenders supports
funding at no less than the fiscal year 2017 level of $29.1 million to
allow BLM to continue facilitating renewable energy development on
public lands, while avoiding areas with natural resource conflicts,
including sensitive wildlife species.
BLM Resource Management Planning, Assessment and Monitoring
The request cuts this program by 39.9 percent. We urge continued
funding at no less than the fiscal year 2018 level of $60.1 million to
support new high-priority planning efforts, data collection and
monitoring crucial to the sage-grouse conservation strategy and other
key initiatives to better monitor ecological conditions and trends on
the landscape.
FS Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management
The request cuts this program by 12.9 percent, and while this and
other FS programs benefitted from the removal of Cost-Pool 9, Wildlife
and Fisheries Habitat Management has been essentially flat-funded since
fiscal year 2014. We support restoring funding to at least the fiscal
year 2010 level of $143 million to carry out critical conservation and
recovery activities for the nearly 470 threatened and endangered
species and 3,100 sensitive species that depend on FS lands and to help
address the loss of biologists that has occurred in recent years.
FS Land Management Planning, Assessment and Monitoring
The request cuts this program by 12.5 percent. Despite the removal
of Cost-Pool 9, Defenders supports maintaining funding at no less than
the fiscal year 2017 level of $182.9 million. Numerous out-of-date
forest plans lack contemporary conservation strategies for at-risk
species and funding is crucial in developing updated ecological, social
and economic assessments to inform the forest planning process and
needed monitoring to validate that forest plans are being effectively
implemented.
FS Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
The request zeroes out funding. We support continued funding at the
fiscal year 2018 level of $40 million for this cost-effective program,
which was established to restore forest and watershed health, improve
wildlife habitat, and reduce the costs of fire suppression in overgrown
forests and the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires.
FS Forest and Rangeland Research (FS R&D)
The request cuts R&D by 22.2 percent. We urge a return to the
fiscal year 2015 level of $226 million which included $27.1 million for
Wildlife and Fish R&D. Adequate funding for this program is crucial in
providing relevant tools and information to support sustainable
management of National Forest System lands as well as non-Federal
forest lands. Generally, we are concerned that the FS may lack adequate
applied scientific capacity both in R&D and the National Forest System
to implement critical conservation and management actions.
u.s. geological survey
The U.S. Geological Survey provides the basic science for
conservation of wildlife and habitat.
National and Regional Climate Science Centers
The request again proposes to consolidate the 8 regional Climate
Science Centers and cut funding by 48.6 percent. Defenders appreciates
that the fiscal year 2018 bill rejected consolidating the centers and
maintained funding at $25.3 million. We urge the subcommittee to retain
the current structure of the national and 8 regional climate science
centers and funding at no less than the fiscal year 2018 level to
support scientific needs in planning for climate change adaptation and
building resiliency of ecosystems.
Ecosystems
The request cuts this program by 39.1 percent. Defenders urges
continued funding at no less than the fiscal year 2017 level of $159.7
million to help support development of crucial scientific information
for sound management of our Nation's biological resources.
land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
The request slashes funding by 98 percent. Defenders appreciates
the $25 million increase for LWCF in the final fiscal year 2018 bill.
We support funding at no less than the fiscal year 2018 level of $425
million to help to save some of the 6,000 acres of open space,
including wildlife habitat, that are lost each day in the United
States.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/coop_across_boudaries.html.
[This statement was submitted by Mary Beth Beetham, Director of
Legislative Affairs.]
______
Prepared Statement of DieselEmissionsReductionAct deg.
Prepared Statement of U.S. Senators in Support of the Environmental
Protection Agency's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program (DERA)
______
Prepared Statement of the Dine Grant Schools Association
The Dine Grant Schools Association (DGSA) is comprised of the
school boards of eight Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)-funded schools
which are operated pursuant to the Tribally Controlled Schools Act
(Public Law 100-297) or to Public Law 93-638 and located on the Navajo
Nation in Arizona and New Mexico. These schools are: Chilchinbeto
Community School; Hunters Point Boarding School; Lukachukai Community
School; Pinon Community School; Alamo Navajo School; Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-
Hle Community Grant School; Pine Hill Schools (Ramah Navajo School
Board, Inc.); and Shiprock Associated Schools.
Success Through Language, Culture, Community Involvement, and High
Standards
As Tribal school boards, we have both the greater freedom and the
tremendous responsibility to ensure that our students receive the kind
of world-class, culturally relevant education that will help them reach
their fullest potential. We believe that successful students know who
they are, that they are valued, and that great things are expected of
them. Our schools incorporate Navajo language and culture into our
curricula. We set rigorous standards that our students must strive to
meet and give them a sense of accomplishment at their achievements.
Why Federal Funding Matters
It is difficult to concentrate on lessons if you are too cold or
the roof is leaking or the water pipes don't work. It is difficult to
take Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers
(PARCC) online practice tests or take distance learning Advanced
Placement classes on dial up speed Internet connections. It is
difficult to ride the bus, sometimes on unimproved roads, to a
crumbling school that has lingered on a replacement list because of
lack of funding. These challenges to learning are prevalent throughout
Indian Country. What has been different these past several years is a
wholesale change in understanding the extent of these challenges and a
bipartisan resolve to address them. For this, we are deeply grateful.
As we work to provide a world-class education and bright future for our
students, we consider Members of Congress to be our partners in this
endeavor.
Our highest funding priorities are: ISEP formula funds; Tribal
Grant Support Costs; Facilities Operations and Maintenance; and the
FACE Program in the BIE budget as well as Education Construction and
Repair and Road Maintenance in the BIA budget. These programs make the
greatest difference in our ability to educate our students.
indian school equalization program (isep) formula funds
The Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Formula is the core
budget account for Educational and Residential programs of the BIE
elementary and secondary schools and dormitories. These funds are used
for instructional programs at BIE-funded schools and include salaries
of teachers, educational technicians, and principals. For years, the
amount appropriated for ISEP formula funds increased barely enough to
cover fixed costs. We appreciate that Congress once again began
providing program increases in fiscal years 2016, 2017 and 2018.
Impact
For most BIE-funded schools, the chronic shortfall in the other key
school accounts has a negative impact on ISEP Formula funding, because
ISEP Formula funds are often diverted to make up the shortfalls in
other accounts, such as Facilities Operations and Maintenance, when a
Tribe or Tribal school board has no other source of funding to satisfy
those shortfalls. This means fewer funds are available for
instructional activities. We are tremendously grateful that Congress
has increased funding for these critical accounts so ISEP Formula funds
can be used for their intended purpose.
Request
The $2.6 million program increase for a total of $402.9 million
that Congress provided in fiscal year 2018 will be very helpful;
however, it still does not acknowledge the shortfalls that have been
building for years. We respectfully request a total of $431 million.
tribal grant support costs
Since the 1988 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
reauthorization, tribally-operated elementary and secondary schools
have received funding for the administrative expenses incurred for the
operation of BIE-funded schools through an Administrative Cost Grant,
now called Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC). Tribal Grant Support
Costs are the Contract Support Costs for tribally controlled schools.
These funds are used for essential services such as contract/grant
administration; program planning and development; human resources;
insurance; fiscal, procurement, and property management; required
annual audits; recordkeeping; and legal, security and other overhead
services.
Impact
In fiscal year 2016, Tribal Grant Support Costs were fully funded
for the first time. Thereafter, both the Obama and Trump
administrations have requested and Congress has provided full funding
for Tribal Grant Support Costs.
Request
We would like to express our sincere appreciation for this
bipartisan commitment to fully fund Tribal Grant Support Costs and
express support for its continuation.
early childhood or ``face'' program
The Early Childhood and Family Development budget category commonly
referred to as the ``FACE'' program is designed to (1) strengthen
family-school-community relations, (2) increase parent participation in
education, and (3) support parents in their role as a child's first and
most important teacher. Many of DGSA's Member schools run successful
FACE programs so we were shocked to see that the administration's
proposes to zero this out.
Impact
The FACE program teaches essential skills to children that help
make them kindergarten-ready, such as how to hold a pencil, color and
write their name. There is a marked difference in outcomes for those
children who have access to a FACE-funded program and those who do not.
Further, these programs strengthen families and communities and help
increase parent engagement. Families are another critical factor in
whether children succeed academically.
Request
We respectfully ask that the subcommittees reject the
administration's proposal to zero out this important program.
facilities operations and maintenance
Facilities Operations funding is for the ongoing operational
necessities such as electricity, heating fuels, custodial services,
communications, refuse collection and water and sewer service.
Facilities Maintenance funds are intended to provide for the
preventative, routine, and unscheduled maintenance for all school
buildings, equipment, utility systems, and ground structures. We
appreciate that these budget categories have seen some increases in
fiscal years 2016, 2017 and 2018. Unfortunately, the administration's
proposal is to cut $5.5 and $5 million, respectively. While the recent
increases for these two budget categories are important improvements;
we note that the fiscal year 2017 budget justification states that the
$66.2 million requested for Facilities Operations and the $59 million
requested for Facilities Maintenance would fund 78 percent of
calculated Facilities Operations and Maintenance need across BIE-funded
schools. Neither the fiscal year 2018 budget justification nor the
fiscal year 2019 budget justification bothered to provide an estimate
for what full funding would look like but we suspect that it would not
be a $10.5 million cut. We also note that Facilities Operations and
Facilities Maintenance are some of the last budget categories for
primary and secondary schools that are still funded on a fiscal year
schedule, rather than a forward funded (school year) basis. Continuing
Resolutions and government shut-downs can wreak havoc when trying to
carry out these activities.
Backlog. The fiscal year 2019 budget justification provides a
``projection'' that by fiscal year 2018, ``68 percent of school
facilities will be in good or fair condition''. This ``projection''
still leaves 32 percent behind in ``poor'' condition. We also note that
the fiscal year 2019 budget justification states that as of the first
quarter of fiscal year 2018, there were ``$634 million dollars of
deferred maintenance across BIE-school facilities and grounds.''
Frustratingly, many schools are being written up for health and safety
violations but have no money to make the needed changes. Part of the
maintenance problem will be solved by replacing aging, deteriorated
schools, but Federal resources for maintenance are needed to preserve
that investment and to ensure our schools' facilities remain fully
functional learning environments throughout the length of their design
life.
Proposed Public Lands Infrastructure Fund. We sincerely appreciate
that BIE-funded schools are included among the national parks and
national wildlife refuges as eligible for repairs and improvement
funding from the proposed Public Lands Infrastructure Fund, however, we
do have a number of questions and concerns, including the following:
(1) It is uncertain whether the Public Lands Infrastructure Fund will
garner Congressional support in order to move forward; (2) Assuming
that the Fund gains such support, revenue projections are unpredictable
and would require significant increases in energy leases and
development on public lands to achieve the projected revenue streams;
and (3) Royalty rates from energy leases are decreasing, making it
unlikely that revenue will increase above the fiscal year 2018 baseline
in the near future. Please be assured, we are grateful to be included
in this proposal--provided that it is a supplement to Congress
appropriating adequate and consistent maintenance and repair funding
each fiscal year.
Impact
There are numerous studies which attest to the fact that there is a
close correlation between poor or inadequate facility conditions and
poor student and staff performance. Since we cannot delay paying our
utilities or avoid taking actions that would impact student safety, we
often have to resort to using our other education or academic program
monies--just like what happened when Tribal Grant Support Costs were
not fully funded.
Request
We respectfully ask that the subcommittee provide full, consistent
funding for Facilities Operations and Facilities Maintenance and
transition these two budget categories to a forward funded (school
year) budget cycle, just like the other core education accounts. Should
additional funds become available from the proposed Public Lands
Infrastructure Fund to address the $634 million maintenance backlog, we
do not object.
education construction and repair
This funding category within the BIA Construction budget includes
Replacement School Construction; Facilities Component Replacement;
Facilities Improvement and Repair; and Employee Housing Repair.
According to the Department of the Interior, the current backlog of
construction projects is estimated to be as high as $1.3 billion. The
BIE has stated that its ``next-step'' is to ``develop a long-term
school construction funding plan that will address the needs of all BIE
funded schools determined to be in poor condition.'' We were encouraged
by the important increases that the subcommittees provided for
Education Construction in fiscal year 2016 and then maintained in
fiscal year 2017, and followed by the game changing increase in fiscal
year 2018 for which we are very grateful. Two DGSA Member schools are
on the National Review Committee's 2016 Replacement List: Dzilth-Na-O-
Dith-Hle Community Grant School has just completed the planning phase
and is waiting on design phase funds while Lukachukai Community School
has submitted it Program of Requirements (the final step of the
planning phase) and is awaiting BIA approval. Given the state of school
facilities across the BIE system, we were shocked to once again see the
administration propose to zero out Replacement School Construction and
Facilities Component Replacement.
Impact
Facilities within the BIE system are woefully outdated and, in some
cases, dangerous for students and staff. Each year that the Facilities
Improvement and Repair budget is underfunded, our facilities
deteriorate more quickly. The lack of an appropriate learning
environment in many BIE system schools puts Native students at an
unfair disadvantage.
Request
We respectfully request that Congress and the administration
consult with Tribes and Tribal school boards when developing this long-
term school replacement and repair plan. Further, we ask that once
developed, Congress implement this plan by providing consistent funding
for Education Construction and Repair each fiscal year.
road maintenance
For several years, the subcommittees have highlighted the poor
conditions of unpaved roads and bridges used by school buses
transporting students and called on the BIA to implement the GAO's
recommendations--to little avail. We would like to thank the
subcommittees for attempting to hold the BIA accountable and for
providing additional funding directed to these dangerous school bus
routes.
Request
We respectfully request that the subcommittees continue funding
increases directed to these school bus routes and continue your efforts
to hold the BIA accountable.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on these
critical matters. Please contact President Lula Jackson with any
questions.
[This statement was submitted by President Lula Jackson.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community School
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community School (DCS) on the Navajo Reservation
in Bloomfield, New Mexico. Our school, which has been in continuous
service since 1968, operates a K-8 educational program and a dormitory
program for students in grades 1-12, serving around 260 students in
both programs. DCS is a tribally controlled grant school and is located
approximately 170 miles northwest of Albuquerque. DCS is primarily
funded through appropriations received from the Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE), and pass-through funding from the Department of
Education.
The DCS goal is to make a difference in the educational progress of
our students. We believe that all of our students are capable of
achieving academic success and are capable of contributing their
communities. It is with these values in mind that our all-Navajo Board
operates the DCS through a Grant issued by the BIE under the Tribally
Controlled Schools Act (Public Law 110-297). In years past, we have
worked under very difficult conditions to help our students reach their
potential. Going into fiscal year 2019, we continue to face many
challenges that are the result of years of flat lined and eroded
budgets but we would like to thank the subcommittees for providing
several game-changing funding increases these past several fiscal
years. These increases are helping Indian Country turn the tide of
dismal headlines and poor outcomes and are making real and measureable
positive impacts for our students.
status of dcs school replacement process and the importance of suitable
facilities
DCS was overjoyed to be one of the 10 schools chosen for the 2016
Replacement School list. As you are aware, those on the list receive
funding first for planning and then, upon successful completion of the
planning phase and upon availability of funds, receive funding for
design and construction. I am proud to report that our school
accomplished our objectives and completed the planning phase operating
within tight budget constraints and timelines. Several weeks ago, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) notified DCS that we are fourth on the
queue of schools eligible for design phase funding.
We cannot emphasize enough how critical school replacement
construction funds are. We are so grateful for the recent increases the
subcommittees have provided for school replacement construction,
particularly in fiscal year 2018. These increases can help turn the
tide on years of neglect and will absolutely make a difference in the
lives and educational outcomes of our students. As we and other schools
on the 2016 Replacement list work through the different project phases,
we note that there are still many more school waiting behind us.
Given the vital importance of school replacement construction
funding, we were shocked to learn that for fiscal year 2019, the
administration once again called attention to the poor condition of
BIE-funded schools but then proposed to completely zero out finding for
school replacement construction. We simply cannot believe this
disregard for our students, our teachers and our communities and we ask
that these subcommittees again reject the administration's proposal.
As an example of why our school was placed on the 2016 Replacement
List, we would like to describe the present state of our facilities.
DCS's school facilities have a Facilities Condition Index rating of
``Poor.'' Our building systems are obsolete and the conditions are
hazardous to the health of our students and staff. For example:
--our outdated sewage system frequently backs up and emits foul and
disease laden odors;
--our water pipes are corroded and filled with sediment;
--there is no ventilation system, which contributes to a comprised
air quality, resulting in headaches and other health concerns
for our students and staff;
--our heating and cooling systems are obsolete; and
--other features, such as our windows and doors, are out of
compliance with fire codes.
All students deserve to attend a school that is safe, sanitary and
fully operational. DCS believes that our to-be designed new school
facility will help our students not only achieve necessary educational
benchmarks, but will also help our students to thrive in their
educational pursuits. However, these improved outcomes will only be
possible through the subcommittees' continued commitment to school
replacement construction funding in fiscal year 2019 and beyond.
school facilities health and safety inspections
On a related matter, DCS would like to unfortunately express our
frustration with health and safety inspections conducted by BIE and BIA
staff. We deeply appreciate the subcommittees' concern and focus on the
health and safety of school facilities, including report language
urging the BIE and BIA to address the alarming findings set forth in
recent GAO reports. Unfortunately, some of this focus is having
unintended consequences, particularly for schools like DCS on the 2016
Replacement List. Recently, a health and safety inspection was
conducted at our school, and we were ordered to conduct major
structural upgrades despite a lack of funding for the upgrades. As
demonstrated above, DCS is keenly aware of the inadequate conditions
existing at our school, which is precisely why we were selected for the
2016 Replacement List in the first place and why we feel such urgency
to ensure the completion of each project phase in a timely fashion.
Further, from a cost perspective, it would be illogical to expend
funds, which do not exist, on a school facility that is on the brink of
replacement. We ask that the subcommittees craft terms for this year's
report language that provides a logical amount of leeway for us and for
other schools in our position.
fiscal year 2019 proposed public lands infrastructure fund
DCS has closely reviewed the administration's fiscal year 2019
budget proposal, particularly regarding the Public Lands Infrastructure
Fund. We extend our appreciation for the administration's
identification of the BIE funded schools' $634 million repair and
maintenance backlog as an issue to be addressed. We also appreciate the
fact that the administration has included BIE-funded schools among the
national parks and national wildlife refuges as eligible for repairs
and improvement funding from the proposed Public Lands Infrastructure
Fund, however, we do have a number of questions and concerns, including
the following:
--It is uncertain whether the Public Lands Infrastructure Fund will
garner Congressional support in order to move forward;
--Assuming that the Fund gains such support, revenue projections are
unpredictable and would require significant increases in energy
leases and development on public lands to achieve the projected
revenue streams; and
--Royalty rates from energy leases are decreasing, making it unlikely
that revenue will increase above the fiscal year 2018 baseline
in the near future.
Please be assured, we are grateful to be included in this
proposal--provided that it is a supplement to Congress appropriating
adequate and consistent maintenance and repair funding each fiscal
year. If a portion of these appropriations are offset by increases in
royalties, we do not object to it but we are very nervous about a
scenario whereby we would be forced to solely rely on variable
royalties to provide these critical yearly maintenance and repair
funds. On this note, we would like to extend our gratitude to the
subcommittees for the substantial increase in the Facilities
Improvement and Repair account for fiscal year 2018. This increase will
absolutely make a difference.
conclusion
In closing, Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community School thanks the
subcommittees for the important increases that have been provided and
urges the subcommittees to ensure that direct, consistent Federal
funding for school replacement construction and school maintenance and
repair continues in fiscal year 2019 at levels consistent with or
higher than those appropriated fiscal year 2018. Direct, consistent
funding is crucially important to achieve the timely completion of
construction of schools on the 2016 Replacement List and to properly
maintain these important Federal investments for our children's future.
DCS is thankful for the opportunity to provide this testimony and
looks forward to working with the subcommittees on furthering the needs
of our school and our students. Please contact Faye BlueEyes at:
[email protected] if you have any questions.
[This statement was submitted by Ervin Chavez, School Board
President and Faye BlueEyes, Administrative Services Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Ecological Society of America
The Ecological Society of America (ESA) appreciates the opportunity
to provide testimony in support of fiscal year 2019 appropriations for
the Environmental Protection Agency. ESA is the Nation's largest
society of professional ecologists, representing over 9,000 members
across the country. We write to urge you to support robust funding for
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal year 2019,
specifically at least $715 million for Science and Technology within
EPA.
The EPA is vital to protecting both the environment and human
health, and the agency's Science and Technology programs are critically
important to its ability to successfully address environmental
problems. Without adequate funding, the EPA cannot fulfill its core
mission and responsibilities. Strong investments in the EPA are thus
essential to ensuring the health of our Nation's citizens and
environment.
epa science and technology programs reduce environmental risks facing
americans
Since its formation in 1970, the EPA has reduced environmental risk
to Americans, enforced laws safeguarding human health and the
environment, and helped the Nation serve as a leader in protecting the
environment.
Science and Technology funding supports programs and research that
contribute to clean air, clean water, sustainable communities, homeland
security, and human health. Through the Office of Research and
Development (ORD), the EPA conducts cutting-edge research programs,
including important ecological research and monitoring, that provide
the scientific foundation for the agency's decisionmaking and other
programs. These research and monitoring programs also provide essential
data and information on which State and local governments depend, with
environmental monitoring data collected and maintained by the EPA
helping to ensure healthy communities across the country. EPA research
projects focus on issues of national significance and help to solve
complex environmental problems--often with public health implications--
with new scientific understanding and technologies. From detecting and
addressing harmful algal blooms to helping communities rehabilitate
contaminated sites, EPA research funded by Science and Technology
appropriations delivers solution-oriented results with broad and
lasting impact.
proposed cuts would have consequences for human and environmental
health
ESA is very concerned with the administration's proposed cuts to
the EPA in fiscal year 2019. The proposed reductions, reflective of
those suggested in the president's fiscal year 2018 budget, would have
far-reaching and damaging effects on public and environmental health
and economic growth that depends on healthy communities. The
President's budget proposal requests only $6.1 billion for the agency,
a reduction of 24 percent from enacted fiscal year 2017 funding of $8.1
billion, which would leave the EPA with its lowest inflation-adjusted
budget since the 1970s. This significant cut would be achieved by
continuing to eliminate agency jobs, cutting an additional 2,574 agency
jobs by fiscal year 2019 and leaving the agency with its smallest
workforce since the 1980s. Furthermore, the proposal would completely
eliminate 50 agency programs that benefit the American people,
including categorical grant programs, regional environmental programs,
water programs, climate and climate science research programs,
voluntary partnership programs, and special initiatives that focus on
everything from lead risk reduction to waste minimization to small
minority business assistance. The proposed budget would essentially
eliminate, by way of drastic cuts, several other important geographic
programs, including the Great Lakes Restoration and Chesapeake Bay
programs.
The administration's budget also proposes to reduce funding for EPA
Science and Technology considerably to only $449 million, a 36 percent
cut from fiscal year 2017 funding. Sound science is the foundation of
everything the agency does. EPA research programs support clean air,
healthy neighborhoods, safer chemicals, and clean water, and it helps
develop solutions to environmental problems. EPA science meets the
highest standards for peer review, transparency, ethics, and integrity,
and it is essential to maintain strong support for science and research
at the EPA. Cuts, particularly cuts of the magnitude proposed in the
President's budget, would dangerously hinder the EPA's ability to
fulfill its mission and responsibility to the American people and would
have serious impacts on the local, State, and national levels.
ESA is extremely troubled by the proposed budget for the EPA and
the devastating impacts the funding cuts would have on the agency's
ability to fulfill its mission and conduct the scientific research
necessary to inform its operations and decisions. We appreciate your
past support for the EPA and your preservation of the agency's budget
for fiscal year 2018. We urge you to once again reject cuts to EPA
programs and research as you proceed with fiscal year 2019
appropriations.
strong investments in the epa protect our citizens and our ecosystems
The EPA is an essential agency that plays a key role in addressing
ecological problems and other environmental issues that affect public
health. We appreciate your past support for this critical agency, and
we urge you, in the interest of ensuring the health of our Nation's
citizens and ecosystems, to continue this support and provide robust
funding for the EPA in fiscal year 2019, in particular $715 million for
EPA Science and Technology.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
[This statement was submitted by Richard Pouyat, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Entomological Society of America
The Entomological Society of America (ESA) respectfully submits
this statement for the official record in support of funding for
entomology-related activities at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service,
the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), and the Institute of Museum and
Library Services (IMLS). For fiscal year 2019, ESA recommends $8.267
billion for EPA, including support for Pesticides Licensing Program
Area activities within its Science & Technology and Environmental
Program & Management budgets, and continued support for State & Tribal
Assistance Grants for Pesticide Program Implementation. ESA strongly
supports EPA's commitment to work with other Federal agencies to
monitor and improve pollinator health, including involvement by EPA to
examine the potential impact of pesticides on pollinator health. In
addition, ESA requests the Forest Service be funded at least at the
fiscal year 2018 enacted level of $5.93 billion in discretionary funds.
Within the Forest Service, ESA requests the Forest and Rangeland
Research budget be supported at $297 million to preserve valuable
invasive species research and development. The Society also supports
continued investment in Forest Health Management programs across the
Forest Service in fiscal year 2019. ESA also recommends that DOI
continue to support the important work of the National Invasive Species
Council (NISC), which coordinates efforts across agencies to respond to
the threats posed by invasive species, to be funded at no less than the
fiscal year 2018 level of $1.202 million. Finally, ESA requests funding
support for IMLS at no less than the fiscal year 2018 enacted level of
$240 million, which supports research, collections, and training
capabilities for U.S. libraries and museums.
Advances in forestry and environmental sciences, including the
field of entomology, help to protect our ecosystems and communities
from threats impacting our Nation's economy, public health, and
agricultural productivity and safety. Through improved understanding of
invasive insect pests and the development of biological approaches to
pest management, entomology plays a critical role in reducing and
preventing the spread of infestation and diseases harmful to national
forests and grasslands. The study of entomology also contributes to the
development of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques, which use
science-based, environmentally conscious, comprehensive methods to take
preventative action against pests, often resulting in lower costs and a
more targeted use of pesticides. In addition, entomology improves our
knowledge of pollinator biology and the factors affecting pollinator
health and populations, helping to ensure safe, reliable crop
production that meets the needs of a growing world population.
EPA carries out its mission of protecting human health and the
environment by developing and enforcing regulations, awarding grants
for research and other projects, conducting studies on environmental
issues, facilitating partnerships, and providing information through
public outreach. Through these efforts, EPA strives to ensure that our
Nation enjoys clean water, clean air, a safe food supply, and
communities free from pollution and harmful chemicals.
EPA's Pesticides Licensing Program Area, supported by EPA's Science
& Technology and Environmental Program & Management budgets, serves to
evaluate and regulate new pesticides to ensure safe and proper usage by
consumers. Through the mandate of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA utilizes scientific expertise and
data, including knowledge gained from entomological sciences, to set
maximum tolerated residue levels and to register pesticide products as
effective and safe. By controlling insects that act as vectors of
diseases of humans and domesticated animals, and invasive insect
species that endanger our environment, pesticides registered by EPA
help protect public health and the Nation's food supply. EPA's
activities in this area also include the development of educational
information and outreach to encourage the use of IPM and other reduced-
risk methods of controlling pests. For example, EPA continues to
support work protecting children from pesticide exposure used in and
around schools, helping to promote cost-effective strategies that
reduce student exposure to pesticides and pests. IPM strategies used in
schools reduce student exposure to pesticides as well as allergens from
pests themselves. Therefore, ESA supports continuing the activities in
the Pesticides Licensing Program Area as well as the modest funding
that EPA has invested in school IPM.
Among EPA's State & Tribal Assistance Grants, categorical grants in
the area of Pesticides Program Implementation help to facilitate the
translation of national pesticide regulatory information into real-
world approaches that work for local communities. For example, these
grants fund efforts to reduce health and environmental risks associated
with pesticide use by promoting, facilitating, and evaluating IPM
techniques and other potentially safer alternatives to conventional
pest control methods. ESA requests that the subcommittee support a
modest increase for Pesticides Program Implementation grants in fiscal
year 2019.
ESA is in favor of increased funding for scientifically-based
studies of pollinator populations and health. Pollinators play a vital
role in our Nation's agriculture industry; for example, bees pollinate
more than 90 crops in the United States and are essential for the
production of an estimated 70 percent of all the food we eat or export,
contributing over $17 billion in annual crop and seed production in the
U.S. alone. To ensure a healthy bee population, more research is needed
to fully understand the complexities of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD)
and to examine the diverse factors that endanger bee health. Pesticides
represent just one potential risk to bees, but both the risks and
benefits must be balanced, and those risks and benefits will vary among
different crops and different crop-producing regions of the United
States. EPA is well-positioned to help identify methods for protecting
bee health; the agency has previously awarded agricultural grants to
three universities to aid in the development of IPM practices that
lower pesticide risks to bees while protecting valuable crops from
pests. For this reason, ESA supports EPA's participation in multi-
agency efforts to investigate pollinator health and implementing plans
to prevent pollinator population decline.
The U.S. Forest Service sustains the health, diversity, and
productivity of 193 million acres of public lands in national forests
and grasslands across 44 States and territories. Serving as the largest
supporter of forestry research in the world, the agency employs
approximately 30,000 scientists, administrators, and land managers. In
addition to activities at the Federal level, the Forest Service
provides technical expertise and financial assistance to State and
private forestry agency partners.
The Forest Service's Forest and Rangeland Research budget supports
the development and delivery of scientific data and innovative
technological tools to improve the health, use, and management of the
Nation's forests and rangelands. Within Forest and Rangeland Research,
the Invasive Species Strategic Program Area provides scientifically
based approaches to reduce and prevent the introduction, spread, and
impact of non-native invasive species, including destructive insects,
plants, and diseases that can have serious economic and environmental
consequences for our Nation. For example, Forest Service scientists are
working to prevent the devastation of ash trees across North America by
the emerald ash borer, an invasive beetle that was accidentally
introduced from Asia. Emerald ash borer was first detected in 2002 and,
since then, has killed millions of ash trees. This biological invasion
threatens to eliminate all ash trees from North America and is the
costliest invasion from a forest insect to date. Emerald ash borer is
just one of the exponentially growing list of invasive insects and
diseases that harm our Nation's forests and our Nation's economy.
Forest health is also affected by invasive weeds, and those weeds are
often best controlled by beneficial insects used as biological control
agents, resulting in permanent and often spectacular control. ESA
respectfully requests that Forest and Rangeland Research be fully
funded at $297 million for fiscal year 2019.
Also under the purview of the Forest Service is the Forest Health
Management program, which conducts mapping and surveys on public and
private lands to monitor and assess risks from potentially harmful
insects, diseases, and invasive plants. The program also provides
assistance to State and local partners to help prevent and control
outbreaks that threaten forest health. According to a 2011 study,
invasive forest insects cost local governments alone an average of over
$2 billion per year; direct costs to homeowners from property loss,
tree removal, and treatment averages $1.5 billion per year.\1\
Initiatives within the Forest Health Management program can help
control these costly pests. The program's ``Slow the Spread''
activities, for example, have led to a 60 percent reduction in the rate
of the spread of an invasive species known as gypsy moth, resulting in
an estimated benefit-to-cost ratio of 3:1. Without the program, it is
estimated that 50 million additional acres would have been infested by
the moth.\2\ To support these important functions, ESA requests that
the subcommittee oppose any proposed cuts to Forest Health Management
program in fiscal year 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Aukema, J.E.; Leung, B.; Kovacs, K.; [et al.]. 2011. Economic
impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States.
PLoS ONE 6(9): e24587.
\2\ Forest Service Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Overview: http://
www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/FY-2017-FS%20-budget-overview.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central to these efforts to address the threat posed by invasive
species, NISC plays a critical role in coordinating activities across
Federal agencies to safeguard national forests and agricultural
products through the prevention, eradication, and control of invasive
species. NISC provides planning and policy recommendations to the
leadership of 13 Federal agencies as well as Federal inter-agency
bodies and non-Federal stakeholders working on invasive species issues,
playing an integral part in the protection of Federal lands. ESA
respectfully requests that NISC, within the Interior Office of the
Secretary, be funded at least at the fiscal year 2018 levels of $1.202
million.
The services provided by IMLS are critical not only for the
expansion of collections capabilities at American museums, which are
key for the identification and classification of entomological species,
but for the training and education of students, museum professionals,
and the general public. The 21st Century Museum Professionals Program
provides opportunities for diverse and underrepresented populations to
become museum professionals, expanding participation in an industry
with an annual economic contribution of approximately $21 billion.
Museums are an integral part of the Nation's academic infrastructure
and make significant long-term contributions to economic development in
local communities, which is why the Society requests no less than $240
million for IMLS in fiscal year 2019.
ESA, headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, is the largest
organization in the world serving the professional and scientific needs
of entomologists and individuals in related disciplines. Founded in
1889, ESA has over 7,000 members affiliated with educational
institutions, health agencies, private industry, and government.
Members are researchers, teachers, extension service personnel,
administrators, marketing representatives, research technicians,
consultants, students, pest management professionals, and hobbyists.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer the Entomological Society of
America's support for Forest Service and EPA programs. For more
information about the Entomological Society of America, please see
http://www.entsoc.org/.
[This statement was submitted by Michael Parrella, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Environmental Council of the States
March 8, 2018
The Honorable Mitch McConnell The Honorable Paul Ryan
Majority Leader Speaker
U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives
317 Russell Senate Office Building H-232, United States Capitol
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Chuck Schumer The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Minority Leader Minority Leader
U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives
322 Hart Senate Office Building 233 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20501 Washington, DC 20510
Re: Preserving the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated
Risk Information System
Dear Leaders McConnell, Schumer, Ryan, and Pelosi:
The Environmental Council of States (ECOS), the nonpartisan,
national association of State and territorial environmental agency
leaders, writes to urge you to support retaining the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) Program's funding and personnel with the Office of Research and
Development (ORD). The IRIS Program is currently located in U.S. EPA's
National Center for Environmental Assessment in ORD. Retaining IRIS
within ORD will help to ensure that State public health and
environmental protection programs can continue to rely on IRIS'
invaluable and impartial health hazard assessments.
The IRIS Program's identification and characterization of chemical
health hazards plays a vital role in States' efforts to protect their
residents and environments against harmful toxic exposures. Its
assessments provide important information that helps strengthen the
science underlying a broad range of States' health and environmental
protections, including regulating air and water pollution, cleaning up
soil and contaminated drinking water aquifers, and ensuring the safe
and appropriate use of pesticides.
The most recent National Academies of Sciences' review of the IRIS
program recognizes its importance to State agencies and other
organizations in ``setting regulatory standards, establishing exposure
guidelines, and estimating risks to exposed populations.'' (The Nation
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Review of EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process, 3 (2014)). The
review also found that changes the U.S. EPA proposed or implemented to
IRIS constitute ``substantial improvements in the IRIS process.'' (Id.
at 3)
U.S. EPA's Science Advisory Board similarly recognized, in its
September 2017 assessment, that ``IRIS serves the needs of regions,
States and Tribes, who often lack the ability to perform their own
chemical risk assessments.'' (U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board letter to
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Science Advisory Board comments on
EPA's response to recommendations on the Integrated Risk Information
System, 2 (2017)). The Science Advisory Board also commended the Agency
for its significant improvements to IRIS, noting, ``We are optimistic
that the restructured IRIS program will strengthen the scientific
foundations of risk assessment and protect the health and safety of the
American public.'' (Id.)
As the National Academies and the Science Advisory Board observed,
States rely on IRIS for health hazard information to which they
otherwise may not have access. The IRIS Program covers a far greater
number of chemicals than those evaluated by State agencies, and,
consequently, serves as a critical source of toxicity assessments for
chemicals evaluated in our State environmental risk assessments. For
example, without IRIS, States would have less information to develop
protective and scientifically rigorous toxicity assessments used in
toxic waste site cleanups. In addition, the loss of access to IRIS's
database of more than 140 pesticides assessments containing rare
toxicity data for legacy pesticides used in agriculture for decades
would compromise States' ability to review older compounds and close
critical data gaps on human health effects.
Consolidating IRIS with regulatory programs could undercut the
program's foundation in research, which provides the States with
immense value. IRIS's chemical health hazard assessments are now
separate from the regulatory decisions they inform, which often involve
risk management considerations. Maintaining a distinction between the
scientific basis for risk assessments and risk management decisions
helps preserve the integrity of States' health and environmental
protection programs. A transfer of IRIS or its functions to the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) program, for example, would diminish that
separation. It would also subsume IRIS's roughly 500 program chemicals,
which U.S. EPA selects to assist regulatory programs in making
decisions, in TSCA's broader regulation of 80,000 commonly used
chemicals. Further, such a transfer would end the performance of
pesticide assessments, which are excluded from TSCA's jurisdiction.
The IRIS Program provides critical chemical toxicity information
that protects the health of States' residents and their environments.
We urge Congress to retain the program's funding and keep personnel in
its current location within U.S. EPA's Office of Research and
Development to help States continue to protect human health and
environmental quality.
Sincerely,
Todd Parfitt
Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
ECOS President
cc: Senate and House Appropriations Committee Leadership
______
Prepared Statement of the Environmental Council of the States
Dear Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and Members of the
Subcommittee,
The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) is the national
nonprofit, nonpartisan association of State and territorial
environmental agency leaders. We, its undersigned Officers, submit this
testimony on fiscal year 2019 appropriations for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
State environmental agencies are the engines of environmental
progress in our Nation. Under America's system of cooperative
Federalism, agencies like ours normally take the lead in implementing
Federal environmental laws like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act,
Safe Drinking Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Today, States exercise over 90 percent of the delegable authorities
under these and other Federal laws. You can learn more about the
tangible progress the States have delivered on ECOS Results, our newly
launched data visualization portal.
State environmental agencies depend on Federal funding to do their
work; ECOS has documented that the Federal Government provides, on
average, 27 percent of our agencies' budgets. Without that money, State
agencies would find it more challenging to properly administer Federal
environmental laws, improve public health, and protect the environment.
ECOS therefore asks that fiscal year 2019 appropriations provide
sustained support to programs that advance the well-being of our
communities.
Please consider these principles as you deliberate about the fiscal
year 2019 appropriations. Please also consider the following specific
requests:
Increase State and Tribal Assistance (STAG) Categorical Grants
STAG Categorical Grants fund a huge range of work by State
environmental agencies. Much of that work is core implementation
activity such as issuing environmental permits, inspecting facilities
and enforcing the law, setting standards, and managing data. But
categorical grants also fund creative solutions to local problems.
For example, STAG funds issued under Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act recently helped Iowa DNR address nonpoint source pollution that
threatened the habitat of brook trout, a cherished native game fish.
Brook trout thrived in northeast Iowa's spring-fed streams until years
of erosion and polluted runoff harmed their habitat. Iowa's DNR tackled
the problem by using STAG funds to convene communities on two historic
trout creek systems through the Yellow River Headwaters Watershed
Project and the Silver Creek Watershed Project. These groups worked
with DNR Fisheries to restock impaired streams with South Pine brook
trout, and with landowners in the area to protect and improve water
quality. Their efforts, and similar work across northwest Iowa,
increased the number of streams with self-sustaining trout populations
from 6 to 45.
STAG Categorical Grants also help our agencies take on larger
projects that deliver positive economic benefits for communities. For
example, Federal support through the STAG Brownfields Response program
helped the Oklahoma DEQ oversee the closure and resolution of
environmental liability of Bricktown, a former oil field and bulk
petroleum storage area. After soil and groundwater remediation,
property values in Bricktown have soared to $40 million, and area
businesses pay $50 million in annual wages. Projects like these led the
Oklahoma Department of Commerce recently to report that Federal dollars
invested through such programs deliver a 17-fold return on income tax
dollars.
STAG support is critical to the continued creativity and vitality
of State-led environmental regulation. States therefore thank Congress
for preserving STAG Categorical Grants over the past two fiscal years,
and ask that Congress further support the program in the fiscal year
2019 budget.
Continue Funding Environmental Infrastructure via State Revolving Funds
STAG funds also support State-level investments in the
infrastructure that provides our citizens safe drinking water and a
clean aquatic environment. Much of that infrastructure is aging or
inadequate and the States therefore depend on the funding that Congress
provides through the STAG State Revolving Fund (SRF) program. Congress
recently reemphasized its support for State water infrastructure by
delivering $766 million in further funding through Title IV of the
Fiscal Year 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
The reality is that our Nation's water infrastructure needs
continue to grow along with our populations and the advancing age of
our existing facilities. ECOS has documented these needs in reports
such as our State Water and Wastewater Project Inventory, which
describes the top 20 ``shovel-ready'' water and wastewater projects in
each State. States have also shown the impact of these projects on
water quality, and have demonstrated creative infrastructure solutions
from an Ohio workshop series designed to help small, aging wastewater
treatment plants attain regulatory compliance to Pennsylvania's
investment with the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary to grow and
deploy native freshwater mussels in local waterways to address nutrient
and sediment pollution in the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Estuary on a
revenue generating basis. Congress should continue funding projects
like these so that States can continue to serve as the laboratories of
our democracy.
Preserve the STAG Multipurpose Grant Program
Under cooperative Federalism, States gain the authority to allocate
Federal resources in ways that reflect local needs and priorities.
State agencies cannot deliver on this promise unless Congress ensures
flexibility in Federal funding. Funding flexibility also streamlines
joint decisionmaking by EPA and States, and ultimately allows States to
more quickly convert Federal dollars into positive environmental and
public health results.
The history of the STAG Multipurpose Categorical Grant program
demonstrates that States know how to use flexible funding to
efficiently address the most pressing challenges within their borders.
For example, States used 2016 Multipurpose Grant money to fund
activities ranging from implementing the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards to improving electronic data management systems, and to
control everything from water pollution to pesticide overuse. Congress
appropriated money for this program in fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year
2018, and we urge you to do so in fiscal year 2019 as well; making the
Multipurpose Grant program a dependable funding stream would allow
States to deploy that money in ways that maximize the long-term benefit
to their citizens.
Support State-level Business Process Improvement (BPI) Programs
ECOS members have long recognized that we must become more
efficient and cost-effective if we are to meet our obligation to do
more work despite flat or declining budgets. One way we have done so is
by ``leaning'' our business processes and targeting our work to
maximize our impact. For example, the Vermont Department of Natural
Resources conducted a process improvement event designed to address the
way in which public water supply systems obtain permits for drawing
water from new sources. Vermont DNR's work reduced the time it takes to
issue such permits by 32 percent and paved the way for even further
efficiency gains through a new electronic permit submission process.
Although States are well aware that business process improvement
programs deliver long-term value, it can still be challenging for us to
divert staff from core work. We therefore ask Congress to deliver
specific appropriations support for process improvement.
Avoid Rescission and Impoundment of STAG Funds
States work closely with EPA through ECOS' State Grants Subgroup to
speed the distribution of Federal funds and allow on-the-ground work to
begin sooner. Our experiences lead us to urge Congress not to include
rescissions of unobligated STAG funds in future enacted budgets, as
this often results in uncertainty and delays in obligating pass-through
funding. For the same reason, States ask Congress to discourage
impoundment of enacted appropriations.
Conclusion
ECOS appreciates the fact that Congress is considering the views of
State environmental agencies as it prepares the fiscal year 2019
budget. We welcome the opportunity to speak with you about any of these
issues in more detail, or to further explain how Federal funding can
support State-level work to protect human health and the environment.
Todd Parfitt
Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
ECOS President
Becky Keogh
Director, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
ECOS Vice President
Jim Macy
Director, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
ECOS Secretary/Treasurer
John Linc Stine
Commissioner, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
ECOS Past President
______
Prepared Statement of the Far West Public Lands Committee of the Back
Country Horsemen of America
Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee,
I am writing to you representing the Far West Public Lands
Committee of the Back Country Horsemen of America. Our committee
represents Back Country Horsemen of California, Back Country Horsemen
of Nevada, Back Country Horsemen of Oregon and the Back Country
Horsemen of Washington. We are writing to you to encourage a couple of
changes to the Forest Service budget.
First we would like to see a new line item created in the budget
that specifically deals with TRAIL MAINTENANCE. Second we would like to
see that line item be for the amount of 100 million dollars. Currently
the Forest Service funds the trail maintenance out of their recreation
budget. Currently the forest service has that valued at around 70
million dollars. Quite often that money is used other for other things
than trails. That is why we would like to see the line item added to
the budget presented to you. Americas trails are in very poor shape and
are primarily being maintained by volunteer groups. Unfortunately the
volunteer groups cannot do it all. Millions of tax paying, voting
citizens use Americas trails annually and deserve better. I hope you
can see fit to make these changes to the proposed Forest Service
budget.
Thank You,
[This statement was submitted by Jerry Bentz, Chairman.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of State Humanities Councils
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the subcommittee, I thank you for
this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the State humanities
councils, the State affiliates of the National Endowment for the
Humanities, requesting $155 million for the National Endowment for the
Humanities and $48 million for the Federal/State Partnership for fiscal
year 2018.
As partners of the NEH, the State humanities councils receive their
core funding through the Federal/State Partnership line of the NEH
budget, which they use to leverage additional support from foundations,
corporations, private individuals, and State governments. In the past
year, councils leveraged, on average, $4.00 in local contributions for
every dollar of Federal funding awarded through their grants, and they
have further extended their resources in recent years by forming
partnerships with nearly 9,000 organizations throughout their States.
But demand continues to increase. In the past few years, councils
continue to be asked to expand their programs to reach new populations
and meet growing needs in their States.
At the heart of every humanities council discussion is a
fundamental question: How can we make life better for the citizens of
our communities? The varied responses are highlighted through an array
of council programs, conducted in nearly every congressional district
in the Nation. These programs serve families, students, veterans,
educators, rural residents, medical personnel, immigrants and refugees,
and adult new readers, among others. The councils in each of the 50
States, five territories, and in DC work from a deep understanding of
the unique identity of their States and of the needs of their citizens
and communities, creating bridges between academic research and public
citizens hungry for substantive conversation about issues that matter.
Councils steward their modest Federal resources through
partnerships and leveraging other funding, and by studying the civic,
cultural, demographic, and educational profile of their States. Four
areas of council activity offer particularly striking and significant
illustration of the ways lives are changed through council work: (1)
they support and help reintegrate veterans, (2) they provide resources
to underserved rural populations, (3) they strengthen K-12 education,
support teachers, and increase literacy, and (4) they support local
institutions, thereby strengthening the cultural infrastructure of
communities throughout the Nation. The following pages demonstrate the
important work that councils are currently conducting and highlight the
ways additional funds would extend the reach of current programs and
open opportunities to serve new populations and communities.
Supporting veterans and their communities.--For the more than
200,000 veterans returning from active duty each year, the challenges
go well beyond the need to find a job and resume a way of life that has
now become unfamiliar. Returning veterans must also process their
experiences and learn to live among community members who have little
context for comprehending those experiences. Hundreds of organizations
exist to help with the practical and logistical challenges of returning
to civilian life. Others provide assistance with medical and
psychological issues. The State humanities councils offer another kind
of support, using the humanities to link veterans to each other, to
help support each other, through storytelling, conversation, and
writing. Nearly every council has engaged in programs that help
veterans connect with their veteran and civilian communities.
Located in a State where veterans comprise 10 percent of the
population, the Alaska Humanities Forum (AHF) demonstrates the power of
the humanities through its ``Duty Bound'' thematic initiative, which
promotes deepened understanding of those affiliated with the armed
services, tells the stories of Alaska's military personnel and
veterans, and helps infuse the humanities into programs for veterans
and their families. Additionally, for the past 3 years, AHF has
partnered with the Alaska-based organization, 49 Writers, to conduct
``Danger Close: Alaska,'' a multifaceted program that includes an in-
depth veteran/civilian writing workshop, a public panel discussion, and
a small-run publication to bridge the veteran/civilian divide.
The Veterans Writing Workshops supported by Missouri Humanities
enables veterans to tell their stories while developing writing skills
and gaining experience in writing for publication. The council is
currently gathering poetry, fiction, essays, interviews, and
photography to include in the seventh annual publication of Proud to
Be: Writing by American Warriors, an anthology of works by and about
veterans from WWII to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Maryland Humanities, working in a State that is home to eleven
military installations, a distinguished military academy, and an
estimated 400,000 veterans, supports an array of programs for veterans,
including veterans' book groups, veterans' stories on their
``Humanities Connections'' radio program, and veteran-related issues on
their blog. In addition, their Veterans Oral History Project, conducted
since 2015, provides oral history training to a group of Maryland high
school students, who then interview Vietnam War veterans and Vietnamese
immigrants who experienced the war. In partnership with the NEH,
Southern High School, and the Martha Ross Center for Oral History at
the University of Maryland, the council has also produced a virtual
toolkit that provides oral history instruction resources for teachers.
Many other councils also offer veterans' reading groups,
documentaries on the veteran experience, photographic exhibits, and
writing workshops, in addition to community programs such as The
Telling Project, which encourages veterans to share personal stories on
local community stages. These programs affect the lives of hundreds of
veterans and thousands of their community members across the country,
but there are still thousands of unreached veterans in communities
State humanities councils could serve with additional funds, helping to
ease the transition for these veterans and increase the understanding
of those who welcome them home.
Serving rural communities.--America's rural communities are a
national resource too often overlooked, underserved, and misunderstood.
A 2013 report from the National Conference of State Legislatures stated
that at that time, 46.2 million people lived in non-metropolitan
counties (having no urban areas of 50,000 or more) spread across 72
percent of the land area of the United States. These potentially
isolated communities, while possessing a rich and proud history of
their own, often lack access to educational and cultural opportunities
enjoyed by their urban counterparts. The State humanities councils,
with their deep connections to the communities in their States, address
the needs of these communities in ways no other network of
organizations is able to do, providing support and expertise to
strengthen local institutions, contribute to economic development, and
encourage more cohesive communities.
Among the many programs and initiatives councils offer that
acknowledge and add to the assets of rural communities, one standout is
Museum on Main Street (MoMS), the product of the 25-year partnership
between councils and the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition
Service (SITES). MoMS is distinguished for its reach and
sustainability, as well as the model it provides of a public/private
partnership, bringing together the high-quality resources of one of the
Nation's most respected institutions with the grassroots reach and
programming expertise of the State humanities councils. Through such
exhibit themes as ``The Way We Worked,'' ``Hometown Teams: How Sports
Shaped America,'' and ``New Harmonies: Celebrating American Roots
Music,'' the project inspires rural communities to use their 6-week
exhibit tour to encourage exploration of its history and the
contemporary issues each community faces. The exhibition serves not
only as the centerpiece, but also the springboard for communities to
design their own accompanying exhibit and programs, with help from the
council and a project scholar.
More than 1,400 communities with an average population of just over
14,000 have participated in MoMS, for which the national partners
provide marketing tools, training manuals, and lesson plans. When
``Hometown Teams'' arrived at the Mountain Sports Hall of Fame in
Wayland, Kentucky, in March of 2018 to begin its six-community tour,
Wayland Mayor Jerry Fulz described the excitement among the residents
who gathered early in the morning to set up the exhibit. ``Because of
the humanities council and the exhibit, we're going to have folks in
Wayland that would never otherwise be here . . . It's a springboard for
things in the future that can have a positive impact on my little town
and the whole region.''
Humanities Montana offers another model for rural programming that
leaves a legacy of new resources, expertise, and community cooperation.
``Hometown Humanities'' was conceived as a way to provide a sustained
humanities presence in one rural community per year. The council works
with a team of local leaders to offer a year of humanities activity,
drawing on a menu of council programs. The aim of the program is ``to
support the particular cultural interests of a Montana community, and
to explore the capacity of the humanities to enrich lives, foster
inquiry, and stimulate civil and informed conversations about the human
experience.''
These are just a few examples of the many programs councils are
conducting in rural areas; however, a number of communities,
particularly in remote areas, still remain underserved. With additional
funds, councils would be able to reach these communities and fund far
more of the requests they receive through their grant programs.
Providing support for K-12 students, teachers and at-risk
families.--From National History Day to speakers in the schools to
poetry readings and writing workshops, humanities councils have
developed programs to engage K-12 students with the humanities. The New
Mexico Humanities Council, Maryland Humanities, Georgia Humanities, and
the Hawai'i Council for the Humanities all serve as their State
coordinators for National History Day, a program that helps students
acquire useful historical knowledge and perspective while developing
critical thinking and problem-solving skills that have been shown to
improve their academic performance through high school and into
college. Many other councils contribute funding to the program in their
States. Humanities Tennessee offers annual Young Writers' Workshops,
intense one-week residential workshops in which students work one-on-
one or in small groups with experienced writers to improve writing and
public speaking skills, helping them prepare for college or to simply
nurture an interest in writing. Vermont Humanities' summer Humanities
Camps provide at-risk middle and high school students an opportunity to
engage with literature and the humanities in a safe and nurturing
environment.
The teachers who educate and inspire our students are themselves in
frequent need of professional development and inspiration, which
humanities councils provide in a variety of forms. Many councils across
the country offer summer institutes through which humanities teachers
can gain deep knowledge of a specific subject, while also connecting
with colleagues facing the same challenges they deal with throughout
the school year. The Florida Humanities Council has a long history of
providing high-quality week-long residential institutes for teachers.
In 2018, teachers can apply to participate in workshops providing in-
depth learning about the Civil War in the South, challenges presented
by Florida's changing climates, and ethical issues related to
environmental change. This year the North Dakota Humanities Council is
offerings not only a fall workshop on ``The Constitution and Judicial
Decision-Making,'' but also a series of interactive professional
development webinars for teachers.
One group that often falls outside the usual educational structures
are low-income families headed by parents with low reading levels whose
children need a boost to prepare them for school. A number of State
humanities councils, including those in Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska
and elsewhere, participate in PRIME TIME, the long-running and very
successful humanities-focused, outcomes-based program originated by the
Louisiana Endowment for the Humanities in 1991. Evaluations of PRIME
TIME programs, based on partnerships with libraries, schools, and
community service agencies have shown long-term improvements in family
engagement and student academic achievement.
These programs demonstrate the support councils have provided for
teachers and their students from early childhood through high school
graduation, but it is far from sufficient. This support could be at
least doubled and still not accommodate the hundreds of teachers who
crave in-depth professional development or the at-risk families
hungering to give their children a better chance at success. With a
proven record of effective programming in these areas, councils are
perfectly positioned to put additional funding to work on behalf of our
children and generations to come.
Strengthening Local Institutions.--The impact of council work goes
well beyond the specific groups above that benefit so much from their
support. Councils also strengthen communities all across the Nation
through grants awarded to local cultural and educational groups,
programs they support in libraries and museums, book festivals,
Chautauqua, and other programs that educate citizens and stimulate
economic development. At a time when many Americans are concerned about
the growing divisions in our society, a number of councils offer
Community Conversation programs that provide opportunities for people
of diverse views to come together in varying ways to discuss issues
guided by a scholar/facilitator to build bridges of understanding.
We thank you for your past support and for understanding how
crucial the humanities are in nurturing our democracy and how great the
needs are for these programs across our Nation.
[This statement was submitted by Esther Mackintosh, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
On behalf of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, I
would like to thank you for the important work you have done,
especially on fiscal year 2018 appropriations, to make sure that
Federal funds are available to assist Tribes in meeting longstanding
needs. Thank you also for inviting me to testify on fiscal year 2019
appropriations for Indian programs funded through the Interior
Department, Indian Health Service, and Environmental Protection Agency.
As we talk about funding needs in Indian Country, it is essential
to keep in mind that the problems that may face communities nationwide
are far more severe for Indian communities, with Tribes having far
fewer resources to address those problems. An example is the opioid
epidemic. As of 2015, Native Americans in Minnesota were five times
more likely to die from an overdose than white Minnesotans, and ``2016
data show the disparity has continued and worsened. While the white
drug overdose mortality rate increased from 10.1 to 11.7 per 100,000
white residents, the American Indian mortality rate increased from 47.3
per 100,000 residents to 64.6 per 100,000 residents.'' \1\ The opioid
epidemic creates other adverse impacts for Indian communities. It means
that our children are ``7.4 times more likely to be born with neonatal
abstinence syndrome'' which requires specialized treatment and care.\2\
It increases demands on our social service programs for addiction
treatment and counseling, and assistance to growing numbers of at-risk
families, with more children in foster care or the subject of CHIPS
(Child in Need of Protection or Services) proceedings--(an increase of
65 percent since 2015). It increases demands on our school to address
the unique needs of children living in at-risk homes. And it increases
the demands on our law enforcement who respond to ever-growing numbers
of incidents that are drug related.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.health.state.mn.us.
\2\ MDHS, ``Minnesota State Targeted Response to the Opioid
Crisis'' (2017) at https://mn.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have worked, and continue to work, to find solutions for
problems of this kind. With seed money from Federal funds, we have
implemented innovative programs and measures to provide health,
education, social services, public safety and other governmental
services to our 4,200 members and the more than 7,300 Indian people who
live on and near our Reservation. For example, Fond du Lac built the
first-of-its-kind supportive housing programs in Indian Country, and
the first such supportive housing for Veterans. We have undertaken to
implement best practices in healthcare, using a range of programs and
services to aid our people. In so doing, we have found that an
important element to the success of these programs is building on our
traditional cultural practices. To illustrate, hunting, fishing, and
gathering natural resources as our ancestors have done provides both a
foundation for a healthy diet as well as spiritual support. Because of
the importance of these practices, we are active in natural resource
management and environmental protection so our water is safe to drink,
fish are safe to eat, wild rice re-generates, game is plentiful, and
natural resources remain available for cultural and religious practices
that are central to our identity.
We are proud of what we have accomplished, but more remains to be
done. The investment of Federal funds is key to that effort. It allows
us to use Band resources and attract private partners so we can provide
jobs, grow the local economy, educate our children, prevent crime, and
care for our elders and infirm. We urge Congress to continue to fund
these programs.
indian health service
We appreciate Congress's decision to increase by 10 percent above
fiscal year 2017 levels funding for IHS in fiscal year 2018, which is
essential to address the substantial unmet need for healthcare among
Indian people and the increasing costs of medical care due to high
rates of medical inflation. Indians at Fond du Lac, like Indians
throughout the Nation, continue to face severe disparities across a
broad range of health issues. In addition to the extraordinarily high
mortality rates due to the opioid epidemic, Indians in Minnesota are
far more likely to die prematurely than all others in the State, and
suffer from the highest mortality rates for causes of death due to
cancer, heart disease, diabetes, suicide, and unintentional injury.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Minnesota Department of Health, Center for Health Equity,
Populations of Color: Update Birth and Death Statistics (December
2015). http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/raceethn/POC/
POCUpdate2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are working to address these issues every day. We serve over
7,300 Indian people at our clinics, but the current funding level meets
only 33 percent of our healthcare funding needs. To make progress in
reducing the disparities in Indian health, we urge Congress to continue
to increase funding for IHS. We urge an increase of $7 billion in order
to fully fund IHS programs, with the top priorities given to Hospitals
& Health Clinics; Purchased/Referred Care; Mental Health; Alcohol &
Substance Abuse; and Dental Health. Expanded resources for treatment
and community education capacity are especially needed to combat the
epidemic of drug abuse.
We also ask that Congress increase funding for IHS Facilities,
including Sanitation Facilities Construction. We rely on wells for
drinking water, but the quality of the source water on our Reservation
is very poor. It generally cannot be used unless treated, and where the
source water is really poor quality, treatment may leave an
unacceptable level of by-products that also fail to meet water quality
standards. We face this problem now in one of our communities,
affecting 54 homes and a community center. As a short-term solution, we
are providing point-of-use filters. But to eliminate the problem, we
need to drill several new wells to access better quality source water,
but which will still need to be treated. We will also need to build a
new water treatment facility, along with a water tower and new
pipelines to establish redundancy in the system to protect users and to
aid in fire protection. The cost is expected to be $2.5 million, But
the very limited funds for capital work provided to IHS is not
sufficient to meet the need. (In our region, IHS has $1.7 million to
serve 37 Tribes.) Federal appropriations for other potential funding
sources for drinking water infrastructure, like EPA and USDA Rural
Development, should also be increased to aid us and other Tribes to
build the infrastructure needed for safe drinking water.
bureau of indian education
With funding from the BIE and the Department of Education, we
operate the Fond du Lac Ojibwe School serving an average of 230
children from pre-K through 12th grade. More than 90 percent of our
students come from very low-income households, as 96 percent receive
free or reduced-price lunch. We are slowly making progress in improving
the outcomes for our students. For example, high school graduation
rates for American Indians in Minnesota have improved from 37.9 percent
in 2003 to 52.6 percent in 2016, but are still well-below the 2016
State-wide rate of 82.2 percent. We are handicapped by limited
resources. BIE funding has never kept pace with need, which prevents us
from providing the educational services needed for our students.
We appreciate Congress's decision to increase overall BIE funding
for fiscal year 2018 by $23 million above the fiscal year 2017 level.
Because education is so critical to success later in life, we urge
Congress to continue to increase Federal funding for Indian education.
We especially ask that increases be made to each of the following
because of the important role these play in Indian education:
--ISEP which is the primary source of school funding provided through
Interior. It covers salaries for teachers, teacher aides, and
administrative personnel and is essential to our ability to
recruit and retain qualified teachers.
--Tribal Grant Support Costs which helps pay for accounting,
insurance, background checks, legal and record-keeping.
--Student Transportation which allow us to maintain, repair, and
replace buses.
--Early Childhood Development funds (FACE), which is critical to
providing preschoolers with skills to be school-ready.
--Johnson O'Malley, which assists Indian children in public schools.
--School Facility Operations and Maintenance which keeps the building
safe, pays for preventative maintenance, and covers insurance
and utility costs.
bia: public safety and justice
We appreciate Congress's decision to increase funding for BIA's
Public Safety and Justice by $19.7 million above fiscal year 2017
levels, including increased funding for criminal investigations and
police services and to help people affected by opioid addiction. The
largest law enforcement problems we face are due to opioids and other
drugs including methamphetamines and prescription drugs. The large drug
problem has also increased thefts, burglaries, and assaults. In
addition, we find (and the Federal Government has also recognized \4\),
that a disproportionately large number of Native American women are the
victims of sex trafficking. This is a very serious problem for our
community and we are working now to establish a Tribal Task Force to
help combat it. Our law enforcement also responds to many other
matters, including domestic disputes, disturbances, disorderly conduct,
property damage, trespass, suspicious activity, unwanted persons,
medical emergencies, fire, neglected children, missing persons, suicide
threats, and traffic offenses. The demand on law enforcement increases
each year. In 2017, our law enforcement responded to more than 8,376
incidents and calls for service. In past years, the numbers were: 8,200
in 2016; 8,000 in 2015; 6,000 in 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Testimony to Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs, Human Trafficking: Investigations in
Indian Country or Involving Native Americans and Actions Needed to
Better Report on Victims Served (Sept 2017) https://
www.indian.senate.gov/sites/
default/files/upload/Gretta%20Goodwin%20Testimony.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We address law enforcement by a combination of Tribal and available
Federal funds and cooperative agreements with local law enforcement
agencies. We currently have 20 officers, which, in addition to the
Chief Law Enforcement Officer, includes a Lieutenant, one investigator
and 17 officers assigned to patrol or similar duties. To meet need, we
should have 25 full time officers. Five of those officers would be
assigned to investigations, with two investigators dedicated to
narcotics enforcement. We currently have 3 administrative staff, but
should have one more person to gather Intel and manage an intelligence
page linked to other Tribal agencies.
Funding is also needed for training. With an increase in the drug
epidemic and related crimes, our officers need, but are not receiving,
vital training for undercover work, narcotics detection, investigative
procedures, interview and interrogation, use of force, de-escalation,
firearms, and community policing. We also have unmet need for
equipment. Personal protective gear like ballistic shields, masks,
etc., is limited because of current budget restraints. Uniform costs
increase due to contamination from drugs and blood-borne pathogens from
drug users. That includes duty gear and equipment, and patrol vehicles,
which need to be decontaminated more frequently. There is also need for
other basic equipment: binoculars, video cameras and digital recorders.
Our patrol cars are aging and need costlier service repairs. Federal
funding is essential to meet those needs. We urge Congress to increase
funding for Tribal law enforcement.
bia: trust-natural resources management
Congress's decision to increase by $6.7 million funding for BIA
Trust-Natural Resources in fiscal year 2018 was very welcome. We urge
Congress to further increase funding for this program in fiscal year
2019, as past funding levels have never met need. Natural resource
management is vital in Indian Country where the basic subsistence needs
of many Indian people--especially those living in poverty--depend on
natural resources. This is certainly true at Fond du Lac. By Treaties
in 1837, 1842 and 1854, the United States acquired our aboriginal
territory, but to ensure that we could sustain ourselves, expressly
promised that we retained rights to hunt, fish and gather natural
resources within and outside our Reservation. Our members depend on and
exercise these treaty-protected rights to put food on the table and for
ceremonial practices that serve as the foundation for our culture. The
stewardship of those natural resources--through scientific study,
resource management, and enforcement of Band laws that regulate Tribal
members who hunt, fish and gather those resources--are an important
source of employment for many of our members. Full funding for Trust-
Natural Resources Management, including, in particular, increased
funding for Rights, Protection and Implementation, is essential in
allowing us to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources.
Forest resources are an important asset to the Fond du Lac Band,
and the Interior Department has recognized the importance of protecting
forests from wildfire. The fiscal year 2018 increase in funding for
forestry helps, but fire preparedness funding is still below the most
efficient level. Fire preparedness provides jobs in Indian forestry and
protects Indian and non-Indian lands.
national park service: historic preservation funds--tribal grants
We urge Congress to increase funding, as the work of Tribal
Historic Preservation Officers has grown. We have seen this firsthand
at Fond du Lac. Failures on the part of Federal and State officials to
properly review existing records of known sites of historic and
cultural importance to the Band resulted in substantial inadvertent
discoveries of human remains in a known Indian cemetery. This has, in
turn, placed substantial demands on our THPO to ensure proper
delineation of the site to protect the undisturbed portions, and ensure
proper reburial of the remains.
environmental protection agency (epa)
We appreciate that in fiscal year 2018, Congress did not further
reduce Federal funds for EPA, but we ask that funding for EPA in fiscal
year 2019 be increased. We rely on EPA grants to clean up brownfields
and administer clean water and clean air programs. These enable us to
protect the health of our community, so that we have safe water to
drink and can continue to rely on fish, wild rice, and game to put food
on the table.
--State and Tribal Assistances Grants (STAG). We thank Congress for
increasing STAG funding by $35 million in fiscal year 2018 and
urge that support for this program continue.
--Water Quality. We have a federally-approved water quality standards
program that has seen annual funding declines while the need
and Band's responsibilities have increased. Given the current
threats to water resources in our region, we urge that Tribal
section 106 funding be doubled so that we can do the work
needed to protect the water we drink, which is critical to the
fish and game that are central to our and the State's economy.
--Air. We also have a long-standing air monitoring program that has
faced a steady decline in Federal funding. We request that air
quality program funding for Tribes be increased.
--Wetlands. One-half of our reservation is made up of wetlands.
Proper management and restoration of this valuable resource is
impossible without adequate and consistent Federal funding. We
request sustained wetland monitoring and protection program
funding.
--Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The Band fully supports this
initiative, and again asks that it be funded at $500 million,
which is the original funding level suggested for this
initiative. This initiative has broad-reaching benefits to
resources of importance for all stakeholders (State, Tribal and
private) in the Great Lakes region.
Miigwech. Thank you.
[This statement was submitted by Kevin R. Dupuis, Sr., Chairman.]
______
Forest Inventory and Analysis Program deg.
Prepared Statement of Supporters of the Forest Inventory and Analysis
Program
Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall,
The undersigned organizations are strong supporters of the Forest
Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program funded by the USDA Forest Service
(Forest Service). We rely on the inventory data and analysis of
America's forests provided by the program, which make up the backbone
of scientific knowledge on the current state of the Nation's forests.
This critical information is needed to support sound policy and forest
management decisions, both public and private, and is increasingly
important for decisions regarding new and expanding markets. We urge
the Congress to support the FIA program and request funding for the
program in fiscal year 2019 of at least $83 million to move the program
toward providing an accurate and timely inventory of America's forests.
We also urge the inclusion of language ensuring that this funding
would, at minimum, maintain historic remeasurement cycles--every 7
years in the east and every 10 years in the west--as referenced by the
administration.
The data and information collected by FIA serves as the basis for:
identifying trends in forest ownership; measuring carbon stocks;
assessing fish and wildlife habitat; evaluating wildfire, insect, and
disease risk; predicting the spread of invasive species; determining
capital investment in existing forest products facilities and selecting
locations for new forest product facilities; and identifying and
responding to priorities identified in State Forest Action Plans.
The FIA program is utilized by a large set of diverse stakeholders
interested in the state of America's forests. These include forest
resource managers at mills, land managers, conservation groups,
university students and faculty, and State and Federal agencies, such
as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The undersigned organizations would like to work with Congress to
further explore program potential. An annual funding level of $83
million would support a 7 year annualized program in the east, and a 10
year program in the west as recommended in the Forest Service's 2007
FIA Strategic Plan. In 2015 the Forest Service released an updated FIA
Strategic Plan, which outlines a variety of potential program
deliverables at funding levels. While we are supportive of at least $83
million in funding for fiscal year 2019, the 2015 Strategic Plan calls
for $103 million to implement the 5 year annualized program called for
in the 1998 Farm Bill. This reduction in cycle length would provide
more accurate data to support important forest resource decisions. As
engaged partners, we are interested in working with Congress and the
Forest Service to make program delivery as efficient as possible and to
support additional Federal investment to implement many of the useful
tools outlined in the new FIA Strategic Plan--including full urban
inventory, increased plot density, and improved carbon and biomass
estimates.
There is a need to make FIA data more robust and more useful for
emerging uses, such as accurate information regarding carbon stocks,
forest sustainability monitoring, wildlife habitat assessments, and
much more. Given the increasing pressures facing our forests--from
wildfire, insects and disease and development--the FIA program is more
important now than ever before. Funding the FIA program at $83 million
for fiscal year 2019 would move toward providing for our growing data
needs.
Sincerely,
Alabama Forestry Association
Aldo Leopold Foundation, Inc.
American Forest & Paper Association
American Forest Foundation
American Forests
American Wood Council
American Woodcock Society
Arkansas Forestry Association
Association of Consulting Foresters of America
Center for Invasive Species Prevention
Connecticut Forest & Park Association
Conservation Northwest
Conservation Resource Partners, LLC
Empire State Forest Products Association
Environmental Defense Fund
Enviva
Florida Forestry Association
Forest Business Network LLC
Forest Industry National Labor Management Committee
Forest Resources Association
Forestry Association of South Carolina
Green Forests Work
Indiana Forestry & Woodland Owners Association
International Paper
Kansas Tree Farm Committee
Kentucky Forest Industries Association
Louisiana Pacific
Michigan Forest Association
Minnesota Forestry Association
Mississippi Forestry Association
National Alliance of Forest Owners
National Association of Forest Service Retirees
National Association of State Foresters
National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association
National Wild Turkey Federation
National Wooden Pallet and Container Association
Ohio Forestry Association, Inc.
Rayonier
Ruffed Grouse Society
Rural & Agriculture Council of America
Society for Range Management
Society for the Protection of NH Forests
Society of American Foresters
Sonen Capital
Texas Forestry Association
The American Chestnut Foundation
The Hardwood Federation
The Pennsylvania Forestry Association
The Westervelt Company
Treated Wood Council
Trees Forever
Vermont Woodlands Association
Virginia Forestry Association
Washington Farm Forestry Association
Washington Forest Protection Association
Western Wood Preservers Institute
Wisconsin Paper Council
______
Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America
summary
The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges Congress to provide
$1.2 billion for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in fiscal year 2019.
We thank Congress for the investments made in fiscal year 2018 and
encourage a path of sustainable growth forward. As one of our Nation's
key science agencies, the USGS plays a vital role in understanding and
documenting mineral and energy resources that underpin economic growth;
researching and monitoring potential natural hazards that threaten U.S.
and international security; and determining and assessing water quality
and availability. Approximately two thirds of the USGS budget is
allocated for research and development. In addition to underpinning the
science activities and decisions of the Department of the Interior,
this research is used by communities across the Nation to make informed
decisions in land-use planning, emergency response, natural resource
management, engineering, and education. Despite the critical role
played by the USGS, funding for the agency 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, contribute to
national security, and enhance the quality of life, GSA believes that
growth in funding for the Survey is necessary for the future of our
Nation and urges Congress to reject the cuts proposed in the
administration's fiscal year 2019 request.
The Geological Society of America (GSA) is a global professional
society with a growing membership of more than 26,000 individuals in
115 countries. GSA provides access to elements that are essential to
the professional growth of Earth scientists at all levels of expertise
and from all sectors: academic, government, business, and industry. The
Society unites thousands of earth scientists from every corner of the
globe in a common purpose to study the mysteries of our planet (and
beyond) and share scientific findings.
The Geological Society of America (GSA) appreciates the increase to
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) budget in the fiscal year 2018
omnibus and thanks the Committee for recognizing the importance of the
work of the agency to protect lives, property, and national security.
GSA urges Congress to provide USGS $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2019.
GSA strongly opposes the administration's fiscal year 2019 budget
request that includes cuts to nearly every program at the USGS,
including the elimination of valuable programs such as the Geomagnetism
Program, Earthquake Early Warning, Environmental Health, and Water
Resources Research Act Program.
u.s. geological survey contributions to national security, health, and
welfare
The USGS is one of the Nation's premier science agencies.
Approximately two thirds of the USGS budget is allocated for research
and development. In addition to underpinning the science activities and
decisions of the Department of the Interior, this research is used by
communities and businesses across the Nation to make informed decisions
regarding land use planning, emergency response, natural resource
management, engineering, and education. Increased funding will be
critical to implement the recommendations of the National Academy of
Sciences' Earth Science and Applications from Space (ESAS) Decadal
Survey report released earlier this year. The report notes,
``Earth science and applications are a key part of the Nation's
information infrastructure, warranting a U.S. program of Earth
observations from space that is robust, resilient, and
appropriately balanced.''
USGS research addresses many of society's greatest challenges for
national security, health, and welfare. Several are highlighted below.
--Natural hazards--including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic
eruptions, wildfires, and landslides--are a major cause of
fatalities and economic losses. Recent natural disasters
provide unmistakable evidence that the United States remains
vulnerable to staggering losses. Landslides, which occur in
every State, cause more than $3 billion in damage each year. An
improved scientific understanding of geologic hazards will
reduce future losses by informing effective planning and
mitigation.
Decision makers in many sectors rely upon USGS data to respond to
natural disasters. For example, USGS volcano monitoring provides key
data to enable decisions on aviation safety. Data from the USGS network
of stream gages is used by the National Weather Service to issue flood
and drought warnings. Earth and space observations provide data
necessary to predict severe space weather events, which affect the
electric power grid, satellite communications and information, and
space-based position, navigation, and timing systems. GSA urges
Congress to support efforts for USGS to modernize and upgrade its
natural hazards monitoring and warning systems to protect communities
from the devastating personal and economic effects of natural
disasters, including additional 3-D elevation mapping and earthquake
early warning systems.
--On December 20, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order
entitled ``A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable
Supplies of Critical Minerals'', that finds,
``The United States is heavily reliant on imports of certain mineral
commodities that are vital to the Nation's security and economic
prosperity. This dependency of the United States on foreign sources
creates a strategic vulnerability for both its economy and military to
adverse foreign government action, natural disaster, and other events
that can disrupt supply of these key minerals.''
GSA supports increases in minerals science, research, information,
data collection and analysis that will allow for more economic and
environmental management and utilization of minerals. In addition, GSA
supports increases in funding supporting research to better understand
domestic sources of energy, including conventional and unconventional
oil and gas and renewables. The new Three Dimensional mapping and
Economic Empowerment Program (3DEEP) program will provide new resources
and leverage current data by building on the existing and successful
3DEP and National Cooperative Geological Mapping Program to accelerate
geological and geophysical mapping, identify critical mineral sites for
further scientific review, and provide a host of additional benefits to
local, State, and Federal entities for safety, security, scientific,
and industrial uses.
--The quality and quality of surface water and groundwater have a
direct impact on the wellbeing of societies and ecosystems, as
evidenced by flooding and drought impacts experienced across
the U.S. during the past year. Greater scientific understanding
of these resources through monitoring and research by the USGS
is necessary to ensure adequate and safe water resources for
the health and welfare of society.
--USGS research on climate impacts is used by local policymakers and
resource managers to make sound decisions based on the best
possible science. The Climate Adaptation Science Centers, for
example, provide scientific information necessary to
anticipate, monitor, and adapt to the effects of climate change
at regional and local levels, allowing communities to make
smart, cost-effective decisions.
--The Landsat satellites have amassed the largest archive of remotely
sensed land data in the world, a tremendously important
resource for natural resource exploration, land use planning,
and assessing water resources, the impacts of natural
disasters, and global agriculture production. GSA supports
interagency efforts to plan a path forward for future support
of Landsat.
Activities from hazard monitoring to mineral forecasts are
supported by the Core System Sciences, Facilities, and Science Support.
These programs and services, such as geologic mapping and data
preservation, provide critical information, data, and infrastructure
that underpin the research of the USGS. Increased funding is
particularly needed in Facilities to address many deferred maintenance
issues.
Knowledge of the earth sciences is essential to scientific literacy
and to meeting the environmental and resource challenges of the twenty-
first century. It is also fundamental to training the next generation
of Earth science professionals. GSA is very concerned that cuts in
Earth science funding will cause students and young professionals to
leave the field, potentially leading to a lost generation of
professionals in areas that are already facing worker shortages.
Investments in these areas could lead to job growth, as demand for
these professionals now and in the future is assessed to be high.
Emerging Workforce Trends in the Energy and Mining Industries: A
Call to Action, found, ``In mining (nonfuel and coal) a personnel
crisis for professionals and workers is pending and it already exists
for faculty.'' Another recent study by the American Geosciences
Institute, Status of the Geoscience Workforce Report 2016, found an
expected deficit of approximately 90,000 geoscientists by 2024. Strong
investments in geoscience research are needed to prepare citizens for
these job opportunities.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about the U.S.
Geological Survey. For additional information or to learn more about
the Geological Society of America--including GSA Position Statements on
water resources, mineral and energy resources, natural hazards, and
public investment in Earth science research--please visit
www.geosociety.org or contact GSA's Director for Geoscience Policy
Kasey White at [email protected].
[This statement was submitted by Kasey White, Director for
Geoscience Policy Regarding the U.S. Geological Survey.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission (GLIFWC)
1. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, OPERATION OF
INDIAN PROGRAMS
a. Trust-Natural Resources Management, Rights Protection
Implementation (RPI).--At least the $40,161,000 provided in fiscal year
2018 and a proportionate share for Great Lakes Area Resource
Management.
b. Trust-Natural Resources Management, Tribal Management/
Development Program (TM/DP).--At least the $11,652,000 provided in
fiscal year 2018 and the TM/DP requests of GLIFWC's member Tribes.
c. Trust-Natural Resources Management, Invasive Species.--At
least $6,724,000, the amount estimated in fiscal year 2018.
d. Tribal Government, Contract Support.--Full funding, estimated
to be at least $241,600,000, as provided in fiscal year 2018.
Funding Authorizations: Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. s. 13; Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act, (Public Law 93-638), 25
U.S.C. ss. 450f and 450h; and the treaties between the United States
and GLIFWC's member Ojibwe Tribes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Specifically, the Treaty of 1836, 7 Stat. 491, Treaty of 1837,
7 Stat. 536, Treaty of 1842, 7 Stat. 591, and Treaty of 1854, 10 Stat.
1109. The rights guaranteed by these treaties have been affirmed by
various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
a. Environmental Programs and Management, Geographic Programs,
Great Lakes Restoration.--The historical allocation of $300,000,000
including a Tribal program of no less than $15,000,000.
b. State and Tribal Assistance Grants, Categorical Grants, Tribal
General Assistance Program.--At least the fiscal year 2018 amount of
$65,476,000.
Funding Authorizations: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. s. 1268(c);
Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, Public Law 114-
322 s. 5005; and treaties cited above.
Funding through these programs fulfills Federal treaty, trust and
contract obligations to GLIFWC's member Tribes, providing vital
resources to sustain their governmental programs. We ask that Congress
maintain these programs and provide funding at no less than fiscal year
2018 levels.
GLIFWC'S FISCAL YEAR 2019 FUNDING REQUEST HIGHLIGHTS
1. GLIFWC would be pleased to accept an allocation of appropriated RPI
funding that is in the same proportion as it has currently been
receiving.
2. Full restoration of Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding to
its historical $300,000,000 level, with a total Tribal set-aside of no
less than $15,000,000.
3. Full funding for contract support costs, as required by the ISDEA
Act.
4. Sufficient funding in the Tribal Management and Development line
item for GLIFWC's member Tribes to fulfill their needs for reservation-
based natural resource programs and to fund the Circle of Flight
wetlands program.
GLIFWC'S GOAL--A SECURE FUNDING BASE TO FULFILL TREATY PURPOSES AND
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS
For more than 30 years, Congress has funded GLIFWC to implement
comprehensive conservation, natural resource protection, and law
enforcement programs that: (1) protect public safety; (2) ensure member
Tribes are able to implement their treaty reserved rights to hunt,
fish, and gather throughout the ceded territories; (2) ensure a healthy
and sustainable natural resource base to support those rights; and (3)
promote healthy, safe communities. These programs also provide a wide
range of public benefits, and facilitate participation in management
partnerships in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota.
GLIFWC'S PROGRAMS--PROMOTING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND EDUCATING TRIBAL
MEMBERS THROUGH TREATY RIGHTS EXERCISE
Established in 1984, GLIFWC is a natural resources management
agency of 11 member Ojibwe Tribes with resource management
responsibilities over their ceded territory (off-reservation) hunting,
fishing and gathering treaty rights. These ceded territories extend
over a 60,000 square mile area in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan.\2\ GLIFWC employs over 80 full-time staff, including natural
resource scientists, technicians, conservation enforcement officers,
policy specialists, and public information specialists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GLIFWC's programs do not duplicate those of the Chippewa-Ottawa
Resource Authority or the 1854 Treaty Authority. GLIFWC also
coordinates with its member Tribes with respect to Tribal treaty
fishing that extends beyond reservation boundaries by virtue of the
Treaty of 1854 and the reservations' locations on Lake Superior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLIFWC strives to implement its programs in a holistic, integrated
manner consistent with the culture and values of its member Tribes,
especially in light of Tribal lifeways that the exercise of treaty
rights supports. This means not only ensuring that Tribal members can
legally exercise their rights, but supporting community efforts to
educate them about the benefits (physical, spiritual, and cultural) of
harvesting and consuming a more traditional diet, as well as promoting
inter-generational learning and the transmission of traditional
cultural and management practices. These programs, in turn, promote
safe and healthy communities by encouraging healthy lifestyles,
intergenerational connections, and cultural education.
GLIFWC and its member Tribes thank Congress, and particularly this
subcommittee, for its continuing support of these treaty obligations
and its recognition of the ongoing success of these programs. There are
two main elements of this fiscal year 2019 funding request:
BIA Great Lakes Area Management (Within the RPI Line Item): A
proportionate share of the $40,161,000 provided in 2018 for the RPI
line item. The fiscal year 2018 increase of $500,000 is greatly
appreciated. GLIFWC continues to support allocating increases to the
RPI line item in the historically proportionate amounts.
There is a long history of Federal funding for treaty rights
protection and implementation programs. For more than 30 years,
Congress and each administration have appropriated funding for these
programs. GLIFWC has testified about the fact that the need is
consistently greater than RPI funding, and the impacts that
underfunding has on treaty rights programs. The Federal Government, as
a treaty signatory, is required to uphold treaty rights. It has
appropriately chosen to invest in our programs as efficient, cost-
effective service delivery mechanisms at the appropriate governmental
level to implement Federal court orders and to protect and restore the
natural resources on which the treaty rights are based.
Tribes can only protect the resources that support their rights if
they undertake relevant scientific and technical analyses that inform
the design and implementation of adaptive natural resource management
activities. To this end, maximum flexibility should be provided to
GLIFWC and its Tribes to define for themselves the science and research
activities best suited to the needs of their member Tribes and the
particular issues within their region. GLIFWC would gladly accept funds
in proportion to overall RPI funding, as provided in fiscal year 2018.
EPA Environmental Programs and Management: $300,000,000. GLIFWC
supports continued funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
(GLRI) as an important non-regulatory program that enhances and ensures
coordinated governance in the Great Lakes, fulfillment of international
agreements, and substantive natural resource protection and restoration
projects. GLIFWC supports consistent funding for the GLRI at $300
million, the level that has been provided and received unwavering
bipartisan support since 2011.
GLIFWC appreciates the directive in the fiscal year 2018
Consolidated Appropriations Act's explanatory statement that EPA should
work with Tribes and the BIA to develop a proposal for a distinct
Tribal program within the GLRI. GLIFWC is working with those agencies
to develop such a program, and recommends that the program be funded at
no less than $15 million to ensure that it allows Tribes the
flexibility to develop the programs that are of the highest priorities
to their communities, fulfills the spirit of self-determination, meets
treaty obligations, and carries out Federal trust responsibilities.
Sustained funding for the GLRI allows GLIFWC to maintain its
participation in interjurisdictional governance structures, including
the implementation of the revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA). With GLRI funding, GLIFWC has been able to provide active
support on numerous implementing Annexes, including the Lakewide Action
and Management Plan, Aquatic Invasive Species, and Chemicals of Mutual
Concern Annexes.
Sustained GLRI funding also allows GLIFWC to augment and leverage
its current natural resource protection and enhancement activities.
This includes enhancing GLIFWC's participation in interagency efforts
to assess the impacts of mining waste (stamp sands) on an important
whitefish and lake trout spawning reef in Lake Superior, and to explore
remediation options and strategies.
RESULTS AND BENEFITS OF GLIFWC'S PROGRAMS
1. Maintain the Requisite Capability To Meet Legal Obligations, To
Conserve Natural Resources and To Regulate Treaty Harvests: While more
funding would increase program comprehensiveness, sustained funding at
the fiscal year 2018 level supports Tribal compliance with various
court decrees and intergovernmental agreements that govern the Tribes'
treaty-reserved hunting, fishing and gathering rights. Funding for
science and research enhances GLIFWC's capability to undertake work and
participate in relevant partnerships to address ecosystem threats that
harm treaty natural resources, including those related to climate
change.
2. Remain a Trusted Management and Law Enforcement Partner, and
Scientific Contributor in the Great Lakes Region: GLIFWC has become a
respected and integral part of management and law enforcement
partnerships that conserve natural resources and protect public safety.
It brings a Tribal perspective to interjurisdictional Great Lakes
management fora and would use its scientific expertise to study issues
and geographic areas that are important to its member Tribes but that
others may not be examining.
3. Maintain the Overall Public Benefits That Derive From Its Programs:
Over the years, GLIFWC has become a recognized and valued partner in
natural resource management. Because of its institutional experience
and staff expertise, GLIFWC has built and maintained numerous
partnerships that: (i) provide accurate information and data to counter
social misconceptions about Tribal treaty harvests and the status of
ceded territory natural resources; (ii) maximize each partner's
financial resources and avoid duplication of effort and costs; (iii)
engender cooperation rather than competition; and (iv) undertake
projects that achieve public benefits that no one partner could
accomplish alone.
4. Encourage and Contribute to Healthy Tribal Communities: GLIFWC
works with its member Tribes' communities to promote the benefits of
treaty rights exercise. These include the health benefits associated
with a more traditional diet and the intergenerational learning that
takes place when elders teach youth. In addition, GLIFWC sponsors a
camp each summer where Tribal youth build leadership skills, strengthen
connections to the outdoors, and learn about treaty rights and careers
in natural resource fields.
[This statement was submitted by Michael J. Isham Jr., Executive
Administrator.]
______
Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Steppe Habitat deg.
Prepared Statement of Supporters of the Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-
Steppe Habitat in the American West
Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of sportsmen and women,
conservationists and outdoor recreation enthusiasts represented by our
organizations, we are writing to request your support for robust levels
of fiscal year 2019 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
Appropriations funding for several key programs benefitting the greater
sage-grouse and sage-steppe habitat in the American West. We have also
included three subcommittee report language requests for your
consideration as a companion to our funding requests. We would like to
thank this subcommittee for your tremendous leadership on sage grouse
priorities through a series of recent budget cycles and encourage your
continued commitment to the following important priorities:
BLM Resource Protection and Maintenance.--We support stable levels
of fiscal year 2019 funding consistent with the final fiscal year 2018
level and additional funding if available for the BLM Resource
Protection and Maintenance account. The Resource Protection and
Maintenance account supports BLM land use planning and compliance
activities as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and ensures public
land conservation and environmentally sensitive resources, such as the
greater sage-grouse, are fully considered during the land use planning
process.
BLM Resource Management Planning.--The BLM is guided by the Greater
Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy which is the largest landscape-level
conservation and restoration effort in contemporary U.S. history, and
is unprecedented in geographic scale and complexity. As BLM continues
implementing the 98 sage grouse plans, new information and challenges
have identified further needed investments to keep plan implementation
effective and on schedule. We support strong fiscal year 2019 funding
consistent with the final fiscal year 2018 funding levels for the BLM's
focus on sage-grouse conservation. Greater sage-grouse habitat has
experienced a precipitous decline across the West, and ongoing
collaboration across public and private lands is needed to ensure this
species remains off the Endangered Species list. These efforts also
benefit other game species such as mule deer and support recreational
hunting and associated rural jobs across much of the West.
We wish to thank the subcommittee for your support for increased
fiscal year 2018 levels of funding for the Resource Management Planning
subactivity and encourage the subcommittee to again recommend specific
funding under this budget for greater sage-grouse, sage-steppe and
other high priority conservation efforts. This activity includes
funding for BLM's high priority planning efforts including the
initiation of new resource management plans, plan evaluations and
implementation strategies. Ensuring BLM has the resources necessary to
integrate the most recent State and Federal fish and wildlife data;
current trends in outdoor recreation and land use activities; and
ongoing energy development within the planning process is paramount for
ensuring the agency is achieving desired conditions across the more
than 247 million acres of BLM-managed public lands. We support the BLM
Land Use Planning function and its focus on collaboration with local
communities and State and Tribal governments, as well as on science-
based analysis.
BLM Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) Program.--The BLM
Resource Management Planning sub-activity includes the AIM Program
account. The AIM Program is built around a strategy designed to reach
across programs, jurisdictions, stakeholders and agencies to provide a
framework for consistent data and information valuable to
decisionmakers. The AIM Program has been important in ongoing DOI and
BLM sage-grouse partnership efforts and we support maintaining this
program consistent with final fiscal year 2018 funding.
BLM Wildlife and Fisheries Management.--We support strong funding
levels consistent with final fiscal year 2018 levels and increases if
available for the BLM Wildlife and Fisheries Management account and the
agency's work through this account to support the maintenance,
restoration, and enhancement of fish, wildlife and their habitats on
public lands throughout the BLM system. Important BLM activities such
as conducting inventories of fish and wildlife resources and developing
cooperative management plans while providing for responsible recreation
and commercial uses are critically important for BLM's ongoing work
with State fish and wildlife agencies and local communities across the
West. A BLM Wildlife Management program increase would primarily
support more on-the-ground vegetative treatments to protect, improve,
or restore sage steppe habitat and other high priority habitats. Funds
also would assist States in implementing greater sage-grouse
conservation plans. In addition to strong annual levels of funding for
this account, we support specifically identifying annual funding within
this account for sage-grouse conservation efforts.
BLM National Seed Strategy.--The BLM's efforts to implement the
Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy are reliant upon successful
execution of the National Seed Strategy, which is integral to the
Administration's wildland fire rehabilitation efforts and the success
of the DOI Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy. Congress
approved a $5.0 million program increase in fiscal year 2017 within the
Wildlife Management account to more aggressively implement the National
Seed Strategy and develop much needed nationwide networks of native
seed collectors, researchers developing wildland seed into commercial
crops, farmers and growers increasing native seed supplies, and
nurseries and storage facilities providing sufficient amounts of
appropriate seed. Restoration ecologists will identify the appropriate
timing and placement for seed and plant material to optimize treatment
results. The seed materials and knowledge gained from BLM's investment
in the National Seed Strategy will focus on restoring the sage-steppe
landscape in the near term, with all BLM land rehabilitation and
restoration efforts benefitting over the long-term. We support a level
of funding consistent with fiscal year 2017 and final fiscal year 2018
levels for the National Seed Strategy.
BLM Office of Wildland Fire.--We support no less than $30 million
in funding for the Resilient Landscapes program and increases
consistent with fiscal year 2018 final funding and spend plans within
the Office of Wildland Fire to allow the BLM to continue to support
resilience work in the sagebrush ecosystem.
USFWS Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation.--We support several
important programs within the USFWS budget to support greater sage-
grouse conservation including the Conservation and Restoration;
Wildlife and Habitat Management; and Partners for Fish and Wildlife
accounts. Consistent with earlier recommendations, we support the
subcommittee's focus on sage-grouse within these budgets and encourage
the subcommittee to continue to identify funding within the Candidate
Conservation account for the sagebrush steppe ecosystem. Similarly, the
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program coordinates closely with BLM and
NRCS to work with private landowners on voluntary, non-regulatory
partnerships to advance sage-grouse conservation across the West. We
strongly support this program and urge the subcommittee to consider an
increase to support the work of program staff and their ongoing efforts
to advance on-the-ground sage grouse conservation in close coordination
with the Nation's ranching and agricultural communities.
USGS Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation.--We support funding
consistent with fiscal year 2018 levels in fiscal year 2019 to provide
the resources necessary for USGS engagement on sage grouse science,
data collection and technical assistance.
USFS Greater-Sage Grouse Conservation.--The USFS is a key Federal
partner along with DOI and its agencies in on-the-ground collaboration
on sage grouse conservation. In addition to USFS sage-grouse forest
planning activities, the agency has been engaged in the Greater Sage
Grouse Conservation Engagement Strategy and has established a national
position to coordinate on sage grouse issues as well as new State
liaisons responsible for transferring information to the States. We
support this USFS engagement role and the resources necessary to ensure
this coordination remains a priority.
interior, environment and related agencies language requests
1. We thank the subcommittee for your work to oppose new greater sage-
grouse language in the final Fiscal Year 2018 Omnibus Appropriations
Act. In addition to continued support for BLM sage-grouse funding, we
continue to encourage this subcommittee to oppose efforts to attach
sage-grouse rider language during the fiscal year 2019 appropriations
process.
2. We have concerns regarding recent indications the BLM is shifting
funding away from the Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring (AIM)
strategy and its focus on the greater sage-grouse and data coordination
activities. AIM is funded by both the BLM Wildlife Management and
Planning subactivities. We strongly support maintaining this account
consistent with fiscal year 2018 funding and ensuring sage-grouse
remains a priority activity for this program.
Recommended language: As many of the greater sage-grouse plan
decisions operate across multiple BLM field offices and jurisdictional
boundaries, it is critical that BLM field offices have a shared
understanding of the commitments in the greater sage-grouse plans and a
common approach to implementing them. BLM's development of the
Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) strategy has been critical
in this effort and the Committee supports funding for AIM consistent
with fiscal year 2018 levels.
3. We have concerns regarding recent indications the BLM is shifting
funding from resource programs designed to do proactive work (resource
program subactivities: Cultural; Wildlife; Soil/Water/Air) to support
oil and gas plan amendments. This has been a long-standing issue
between programs at BLM. BLM Planning has long pushed the other BLM
resource programs to use their funding to support oil and gas plans,
planning amendments, and project assessments to help analyze how these
proposed actions impact their resources (e.g., directing the BLM
Wildlife Program to spend money studying how oil/gas amendments impact
wildlife). Justifiably, we understand and support the resource programs
using their funding for beneficial activities for their designated
resources, but not for analyzing impacts from planning or project
proposals from other programs.
Recommended language: The Committee has concerns regarding BLM
funding shifts from BLM resource program subactivities such as
cultural, wildlife, and soil/air/water for use by BLM to analyze
impacts to designated resources of proposed projects or plans. All
proposed project assessments or planning should come from funding
within the planning program or within the sub-activity that is the
primary beneficiary of the project or plan rather than from other non-
planning, supporting resource program sub-activities.
Thank you for your consideration of these appropriations and
language requests and we look forward to working with you and your
staff as the fiscal year 2019 budget process moves forward this year.
Sincerely,
Archery Trade Association
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
California Waterfowl
Fly Fishers International
National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative
National Deer Alliance
National Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Refuge Association
Pheasants Forever
Pope and Young Club
Quail Forever
Quality Deer Management Association
Snook and Gamefish Foundation
The Nature Conservancy
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Wildlife Management Institute
______
Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States, Humane
Society Legislative Fund, and Doris Day Animal League
Thank you for this opportunity to offer testimony on matters of
importance to our organizations. We urge the subcommittee to address
the following requests in the fiscal year 2019 Department of Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies budget:
--EPA, CompTox Program: increase over President's request
--BLM, Wild Horse and Burro Program: (1) $135,000,000, contingent on
immediate implementation of a management program based on four
prongs detailed below; (2) fiscal year 2018 enacted language to
protect wild horses and burros from slaughter; (3) fiscal year
2018 enacted language regarding transfer of wild horses and
burros.
--FWS, Multinational Species Conservation Fund: $11,061,000 (fiscal
year 2018 enacted level), with no funds from conservation
programs to promote trophy hunting, trade in animal parts, or
other consumptive uses of wildlife.
--FWS, Office of International Affairs: $15,816,000 (fiscal year 2018
enacted level)
--FWS, Office of Law Enforcement: $77,053,000 (fiscal year 2018
enacted level)
We also request that the budget exclude any language that would in
any way: impede efforts to combat wildlife trafficking; relax
regulations on imports of sport-hunted trophies; or undermine the
Endangered Species Act.
environmental protection agency--comptox program
Thousands of chemicals are currently used, and hundreds of new ones
are introduced each year, for which EPA needs to conduct toxicity
assessments. EPA is also tasked with evaluating and registering
pesticides and, more recently, evaluating chemicals for possible
endocrine activity. To address these needs, EPA established the
National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT) to predict hazard
and prioritize chemicals for further screening and testing, developing
and using high-throughput assays and predictive tools which are less
expensive and time consuming and more predictive of relevant biological
pathways.
Through EPA's CompTox program, EPA has screened more than 2,000
chemicals (for industrial applications, food additives, pesticides, and
consumer products) and evaluated them in more than 700 high-throughput
assays. Additionally, EPA is using ToxCast data to prioritize chemicals
for evaluation in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Tox21, a
collaboration among EPA, the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and
the Food and Drug Administration, is currently screening 10,000
chemicals to improve the effectiveness of drug development. NCCT also
works with other divisions of EPA's Office of Research and Development
to develop predictive tools and systems biology databases. These
projects are reducing animal use while improving the speed and accuracy
of chemical evaluation relevant to several programs. With the passage
in 2016 of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century
Act, there is a marked need to ensure these tools are augmented and
taken up by the agency.
Congress appropriated increases for the program's budget in fiscal
years 2016, 2017 and 2018. However, the President's budget has
significantly slashed this progress. We support an increase over and
above the President's budget to reinstate the CompTox program in fiscal
year 2019. This will increase the likelihood of realizing the goals
presented in the CompTox program, and assure a more predictable and
relevant chemicals safety assessment.
bureau of land management--wild horse and burro program
The HSUS is one of the leading advocates for the protection and
welfare of wild horses and burros in the United States, with a long
history of working collaboratively with BLM--the agency mandated to
protect America's wild horses and burros--on the development of
effective and humane management techniques.
For years, The HSUS has strongly cautioned against continuing to
gather large numbers of wild horses and burros from our rangelands
annually without implementing any program for suppressing population
growth. This approach has led BLM into a continuous cycle of roundups
and removals, even as long-term, cost-efficient, and humane management
strategies, such as fertility control, are readily available.
Because of this strategy, BLM has long removed many more wild
horses and burros from the range than it could expect to adopt, while
simultaneously being unable to stabilize on range populations.
Consequently, the cost of the wild horse and burro program has
continued to grow, without any benefit to wild horses, the government,
or our public rangelands.
To move the agency away from this failed paradigm, Appropriations
language in the past few years has requested that BLM create a long-
term, humane, and financially sustainable management path that
incorporates fertility control tools. This approach is supported by the
NAS report, which called for increased use of on-the-range management
tools, including the fertility control vaccine Porcine Zona Pellucida
(PZP). Further, studies have shown that incorporating fertility control
into the management of wild horses and burros would significantly lower
the program's carrying costs. A 2008 paper determined that on-the-range
contraception could reduce total wild horse and burro management costs
by 14 percent, saving $6.1 million per year. In addition, the results
of a paper describing an economic model commissioned by The HSUS
indicates that treating wild horses on one hypothetical Herd Management
Area (HMA) with PZP could save BLM approximately $5 million dollars
over 12 years, while achieving and maintaining Appropriate Management
Levels of 874 horses. Since BLM estimates that more than 72,000 wild
horses roam in the United States, PZP use could save tens of millions
of dollars if applied broadly across all HMAs.
However, instead of pursuing Congressional recommendations to
increase the use of fertility control tools, BLM has consistently
failed to implement any humane management plan. In fact, in 2017 the
agency treated with fertility control only 777 horses from the
estimated rangeland population of 72,000--only slightly more than 1
percent of the population.
Now, the President's fiscal year 2019 budget calls for the agency
to further reduce its use of fertility control and requests the ability
for the agency to send wild horses and burros to slaughter. This will
not solve rangeland population conflicts; rather, it will simply repeat
the past failures of attempting to lower rangeland populations by
removing animals. Twenty years of history has shown that this does not
maintain stable populations. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the
American public opposes horse slaughter, and will not accept this as a
solution for managing our wild horses.
Additionally, BLM submitted a report to Congress entitled,
``Management Options for a Sustainable Wild Horse and Burro Program,''
which includes four management options. We firmly believe that a
sustainable management program would include four prongs:
1. Conduct targeted gathers and removals at densely populated HMAs
to reduce herd size in the short term.
2. Treat gathered horses with fertility control prior to returning
to the range. This program should continue until 90 percent of the
mares on the range have been treated and continued consistent fertility
control is implemented.
3. Relocate horses in holding facilities, and those taken off the
range to large cost-effective pasture facilities funded through public-
private partnerships.
4. Promote adoptions in order to reduce captive populations and
costs.
While BLM's report did not include an option with these four
prongs, it is imperative, for the health of the horses and the
rangeland, that immediate action be taken to implement a plan with
these four prongs.
For these reasons, we ask that you fund the BLM Wild Horse and
Burro Program at $135,000,000, contingent on the agency's immediate
implementation of a management program that is based on the four prongs
listed above.
We also request inclusion of the same language barring wild horses
and burros from being sent to slaughter that figured in the fiscal year
2018 omnibus: ``Appropriations herein made shall not be available for
the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros that
results in their destruction for processing into commercial products,''
(Division G, p. 729, lines 17-22).
We also request inclusion of the same protections for wild horses
and burros transferred to other agencies that were included in the
fiscal year 2018 omnibus, ensuring that transferred wild horses and
burros shall not be: destroyed in a way that results in their
destruction into commercial products; sold or otherwise transferred in
a way that results in their destruction for processing into commercial
products; or euthanized except upon the recommendation of a licensed
veterinarian, in cases of severe injury, illness, or advanced age
(Division G, p. 782, lines 1-21).
fish and wildlife service--multinational species conservation fund
The President's budget for FWS's MSCF is $6 million--a staggering
cut of more than 45 percent from the $11,061,000 appropriated in fiscal
year 2018. We urge the subcommittee to restore the $5,061,000 in
funding and appropriate MSCF at its fiscal year 2018 enacted level.
The MSCF supports critical conservation programs for some of our
world's most iconic species: African and Asian elephants, rhinos,
tigers, great apes, and sea turtles. One recent project MSCF has helped
support is aerial surveillance for anti-poaching and wildlife
management in Zakouma National Park in Chad.
The HSUS joins a broad coalition of organizations in support of
MSCF, while asking that the sales of semi-postal stamps benefiting this
program remain supplementary to annually appropriated levels.
While we wholeheartedly support continued funding for MSCF, we are
concerned about past incidents and oppose any future use of funds from
these conservation programs to promote trophy hunting, trade in animal
parts, and other consumptive uses--including live capture for trade,
captive breeding, entertainment, or for the public display industry--
under the guise of conservation. The use of MSCF grants must be
consistent with the spirit of its authorizing law.
fish and wildlife service--office of international affairs
In fiscal year 2018, the subcommittee provided $15,816,000 to the
FWS OIA. The President's budget provides $14.5 million; we request that
you add at least $1,316,000 to that amount in fiscal year 2019 to match
or exceed the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. OIA programs provide
critical resources to help stakeholders on the ground fight wildlife
trafficking and poaching. In particular, funds will be used for
comprehensive and holistic solutions in other countries to mitigate the
threats of wildlife poaching and trafficking--including community
engagement, law enforcement, reducing consumer demand for trafficked
wildlife, and international collaboration.
In the past year, the American public has reacted with dismay and
disapproval to the administration's actions to allow increased imports
of sport-hunted trophies into the United States. We ask that the
subcommittee exclude any language from the Appropriations bill that
would relax regulations on imports of such trophies. We also request
the subcommittee to urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to refrain from
relaxing regulations on imports of such trophies.
fish and wildlife service--office of law enforcement
The President's budget provides $69.5 million for FWS OLE, a
decrease of almost 10 percent from the $77,053,000 in fiscal year 2018
enacted. We urge the subcommittee to continue funding OLE at the fiscal
year 2018 level. The United States is among the world's largest
consumers of illegal wildlife, underscoring the importance of OLE's
work fighting transnational and domestic wildlife crime.
Accomplishments from the past year illustrate how OLE has
capitalized on past investments to make progress toward these goals.
The OLE has ongoing operations to combat the illegal trade of elephant
ivory, glass eels, and other wildlife products. Operation Crash, aimed
at rhino horn trafficking, secured the September 2017 conviction of a
California man for selling rhino horn. In January 2018, another
investigation yielded the conviction of two Florida men for stealing
more than 650 sea turtle eggs from their nests.
In addition, we ask that the bill exclude language to weaken the
enforcement or implementation of the June 6, 2016 rule combating ivory
trade in the United States (81 Fed. Reg. 36387).
endangered species act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is fundamental to the protection
of our planet's most imperiled animals. This law, which is supported by
90 percent of American voters, has prevented the extinction of 99
percent of the species under its care, including the bald eagle. Under
the ESA, the responsibility to list and delist species lies with
Federal agencies, which must make these listing decisions based on the
best available science. The authority to make these science-based
management decisions should remain with Federal agencies.
We ask that the fiscal year 2019 budget exclude any language that
prevents Federal agencies from making listing or delisting decisions
based on sound science, or that otherwise undermines the ESA.
______
Prepared Statement of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission
My name is Thomas L. Clarke and I serve as Executive Director of
the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. I appreciate the opportunity
to present this statement to the subcommittee regarding the views of
the Interstate Mining Compact Commission's 26 member States on the
fiscal year 2019 budget request for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) within the U.S. Department of the
Interior. In its proposed budget, OSMRE is requesting $52.4 million to
fund Title V grants to States for the implementation of their
regulatory programs, a reduction of $16.1 million below the fiscal year
2018 enacted level.
The Compact is comprised of 26 States that together produce some 95
percent of the Nation's coal, as well as other important 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.
OSMRE has projected an amount of $52.4 million for Title V grants
to States in fiscal year 2019, an amount which is matched by the
States. These grants support the implementation of State regulatory
programs under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)
and as such are essential to the full and effective operation of those
programs.\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OSMRE recognizes the significant role played by the States in
its budget justification document on page 42 where it notes that
``primacy 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 have
the capabilities and knowledge to regulate the lands within their
borders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 2018, Congress approved $68.590 million for State
and Tribal Title V grants pursuant to the Omnibus Appropriations Bill.
This continued a much-needed trend whereby the amount appropriated for
these regulatory grants aligned with the demonstrated needs of the
States. The States are greatly encouraged by the amount approved by
Congress for Title V grant funding over the past several fiscal years.
These grants had been stagnant for many 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 other costs
beyond the control of the States, thus undermining State efforts to
realize needed program improvements and enhancements and jeopardizing
their efforts to minimize the potential adverse impacts of coal
extraction operations on people and the environment. OSMRE acknowledges
the importance of this funding on page 41 of its budget justification
document where the agency explains that ``primacy States will continue
to need a diverse and multidisciplinary cadre of personnel skilled in
scientific and engineering areas to review mine permits, determine
whether performance bond coverage and amounts are sufficient to ensure
reclamation, conduct mine inspections and implement enforcement actions
when necessary.''
In past budget requests, OSMRE displayed a pattern of proposing
inadequate funding for State Title V regulatory programs. Congress
consistently rejected the proposed reductions and funded the programs
at amounts that more closely aligned with the States' projected needs.
OSMRE's fiscal year 2019 budget proposal once again moves the grants
marker in the wrong direction with a cut in regulatory grants that is
double what it had proposed (and that Congress rejected) in fiscal year
2018. OSMRE States that ``this request fully funds the projected 2019
activity requirements, based on a downward trend in State grant
execution and an historical return of unexecuted appropriated funds at
the end of the grant cycle each year.''
What OSMRE fails to note in its analysis is that, given fiscal
constraints on State budgets, some States have only recently been able
to move beyond hiring and salary freezes and restrictions on equipment
and vehicle purchases, all of which have inhibited the ability of some
States to spend the full amount of their Federal grant money in some
years. With many States now recovering enough to utilize their full
grant amount, it is imperative that funding be maintained at a level
that meets the States' estimates of program needs. Those estimates
reflect the ongoing work associated with State program implementation
including permit reviews, inspections and enforcement at all
inspectable units. Even with the downturn in coal production, the
States' workload has not decreased--and in some cases has increased
given the tenuous condition of some coal companies. In the latter
situation, higher levels of vigilance are necessary to insure
contemporaneous reclamation and abatement of violations.
OSMRE goes on to note that it will ``continue to support State
regulatory grant requests by re-distributing the available prior year
funds as needed.'' We believe this plan to be shortsighted in that it
fails to consider the improving fiscal conditions in many States and
the damaging precedent set by appropriating suboptimal grant amounts.
Our analysis of State program funding needs for fiscal year 2019 based
on recent estimates indicate that a full Federal appropriation of $68.6
million will be required. In some States, additional matching Federal
funds may be necessary to meet program needs.
Furthermore, there is no guarantee that these carryover funds will
be available into the future or that they would not be reprogrammed for
other purposes. Congress should specifically mandate through report
language that all carryover funds from past fiscal years can only be
used to fund State regulatory program needs. It would also be
beneficial to State program implementation if OSMRE was authorized to
utilize these carryover funds for State program enhancement activities
(without matching requirements) for such critical program topics as
electronic permitting, mine mapping, and benchmarking workshops.
We acknowledge that the amount of carryover funding specifically
targeted for State regulatory grants has increased over the years, to
approximately $20 million according to OSMRE's estimates. This is the
result of two factors: (1) the fact that appropriations for State
regulatory grants are treated as 2-year money, thereby providing
flexibility for the use of these moneys and (2) a few tough years where
States faced particular challenges in obtaining State share match
moneys and/or expending grant funding before the end of the Federal
fiscal year. With an improving economy and the ability to better manage
State program expenditures (especially in years like fiscal year 2018
where grant funds are received so late in the fiscal year), States are
expending almost all of what they receive. Furthermore, having a
cushion of available carryover funding from year to year provides the
certainty and confidence that both OSMRE and the States require in
managing funding for these critical programs.
Clear indications from Congress that reliable, consistent funding
will continue into the future has done much to stimulate support for
these programs by State legislatures and budget officers who, in the
face of difficult fiscal climates and constraints, have had to deal
with the challenge of matching Federal grant dollars with State funds.
This is particularly true for those States whose match is partially
based on permit fees from the mining industry, where significant
reductions in permitting activity translate to fewer permit fees (but
not in the amount of regulatory work for State regulatory agencies).
Recall that any cut in Federal funding generally translates to an
additional cut of an equal amount for overall program funding for many
States, especially those without Federal lands, since these States can
generally only match what they receive in Federal money.
We are encouraged with language in OSMRE's budget justification
document that ``in furtherance of cooperative Federalism, OSMRE will
create an oversight steering committee with State Regulatory
Authorities to discuss impediments to meaningful and effective
oversight including revising current OSMRE oversight directions
[sic].'' IMCC approached OSMRE in September of 2017 to pursue these and
other programmatic concerns, including the processing of State program
amendments, NEPA requirements and funding protocols. Since that time,
the States have engaged in a series of meetings with OSMRE to advance
our common goals under SMCRA. However, the proof is in actual
implementation of these laudable goals. Based on our experience with
program operations, some of the very areas OSMRE identifies as reasons
for its oversight activity are either dependent on State involvement
(training) or have seen little in the way of progress over the years
(State program amendment review and approval). We are hopeful that our
recent engagement with OSMRE on these critical program elements will
come to fruition, unlike past efforts which either stalled or lacked
leadership support.
The overall performance of the States as detailed in OSMRE's annual
State program evaluation reports, together with the fact that
nationwide, 90 percent of the sites inspected did not have off-site
impacts, demonstrates that the States are implementing their programs
effectively and in accordance with the purposes and objectives of
SMCRA. In our view, this suggests that OSMRE 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.
To the extent that OSMRE is looking for ways to improve and enhance
the overall implementation of SMCRA at both the State and Federal
level, we urge the agency to move forward with the findings and
recommendations that IMCC has presented to OSMRE to address the
continuing fiscal impacts on program implementation, particularly with
respect to duplicative inspection and enforcement requirements.
For all the above reasons, we urge Congress to approve not less
than $68.6 million for State and Tribal Title V regulatory grants in
fiscal year 2019, the same amount enacted by Congress over the past few
fiscal years. In doing so, Congress will continue its commitment to
ensuring the States have the resources they need to continue their work
on the forefront of environmental protection and preservation of public
health and safety.
OSMRE's proposed budget reduces expenditures for the National
Technical Training Program (NTTP) and the Technical Information and
Professional Service (TIPS) by 8 percent. While there may be room for
some adjustments to these two programs, we caution against cuts that
would impact the effectiveness of these worthwhile programs. The States
rely heavily on the NTTP and TIPS training classes for their new
employees and for refresher courses for more seasoned employees. These
training programs are especially important as States find themselves at
a point where many of their employees are finishing careers and must be
replaced with less experienced people. Any adjustments to these two
programs should involve the States working through the NTTP/TIPS
Steering Committee.
With regard to funding for State Title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
program grants, the States and Tribes should receive the mandatory
appropriation of $327.6 million in fiscal year 2019. In its proposed
fiscal year 2019 budget, OSMRE seeks to eliminate $104 million for the
AML economic development pilot projects due to the fact that this
funding ``overlaps with existing mandatory AML grants''. We believe
that funding for pilot projects is separate and distinct from other AML
funding sources. As the subcommittee noted with regard to the fiscal
year 2018 Omnibus Appropriations bill, this funding is targeted for
economic and community development and reuse goals. We strongly support
continued funding (from the General Fund) for these pilot projects. We
also recommend concerted action to reauthorize fee collection under
Title IV of SMCRA
IMCC also supports a continuation of funding for the watershed
cooperative agreements at $1.5 million. Much valuable work has been
accomplished through this program, especially given the matching funds
that come from other sources besides OSMRE's share for these worthwhile
projects.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement on the
Office of Surface Mining's proposed budget for fiscal year 2019. We
also endorse the statement of the National Association of Abandoned
Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP), which goes into greater detail regarding
the implications of OSMRE's funding for the States and Tribes related
to the AML program. We would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Investment in USDA Forest Service Research and Development deg.
Prepared Statement of Supporters for Investment in USDA Forest Service
Research and Development
Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
Improving the future health and sustainability of the Nation's
forests and grasslands requires a strong investment in USDA Forest
Service Research and Development (R&D), with benefits to forests,
wildlife, and fish. The undersigned organizations and professional
societies urge Congress to increase funding for all Forest Service R&D
to a minimum of $307 million in fiscal year 2019 including all
necessary increases for the Forest Inventory and Analysis program and
at least $224 million for the remaining Forest and Rangeland Research
program areas.
Building on over 100 years of critically important research, Forest
Service R&D programs inform policy and land-management decisions that
improve health and use of the Nation's forests and rangelands,
including aquatic systems. Funding for these important activities is
critical to sustaining the Nation's natural resources. Showing value in
this investment requires R&D leaders and scientists be attuned and
responsive in providing relevant and timely information and support
with an ability to effectively deliver assistance to all users.
The work conducted at experimental forests and ranges, regional
research stations, and the Forest Products Lab, incubates progress on
new products and services; tracks disturbance responses; fosters
greater forest resilience; quantifies contributions to air and water
quality; and drives innovation in renewable energy and product
development. Notable recent Forest Service R&D contributions include:
Using Science to Guide Drought Management Response
Forest Service R&D has been a leader in reviewing impacts of
drought on U.S. forests and rangelands to help better manage for
drought resiliency and adaptation going forward. In 2016 Forest Service
R&D released an assessment report that included management options to
help Federal, State, and private organizations implement strategies to
sustain healthy, resilient ecosystems that continue to produce vital
goods and services, such as forest products and recreational fishing
opportunities. This scientific synthesis of all recent research with
additional research into identifying drought indicators on the
landscape are important to natural resources managers as they consider
how to integrate drought contingencies in planning efforts.
Helping to Identify Pragmatic Solutions for Species at Risk
Through long-term monitoring and collaborative research efforts
with state agencies and other partners, Forest Service R&D generates an
understanding of wildlife-habitat relationships for multiple species
and communities that enables informed land management decisions that
benefit wildlife and people. This includes informing conservation
efforts that have helped to avoid Endangered Species Act listings for
several forest and rangeland wildlife species. The USFS works on the
greater sage-grouse in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management
culminated in two USFS Records of Decision and associated land
management plan amendments to conserve greater sage-grouse and its
habitat on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management-
administered lands.
Improving Smoke and Fire Management Capabilities
The Prescribed Fire Combustion and Atmospheric Dynamics Research
Experiment is a landmark study improving predictions of fire spread and
smoke behavior. This behavior prediction tool with the Blue Sky Smoke
Management Model allows fire managers to better understand where flames
and smoke from wildland fires will go to alert affected communities
sooner and reduce human health effects. These tools also support
decisionmaking for prescribed fires, allowing managers to model a
variety of different scenarios to evaluate potential impacts on air
quality and soil under a variety of conditions. Research scientists
continue to expand on this landmark study by mapping risk assessments
for entire national forests to better determine risk, predict cross
boundary transmission probabilities that aid safe and effective use of
fire as a tool. The desired outcome is increasing forest resiliency to
disturbances, improving forest health, and protecting communities.
Developing Innovative Solutions to Managing Invasive Species
Forest Service R&D also develops innovative solutions to manage
invasive pathogens and species that can decimate native plant and
animal populations. This includes but is not limited to developing a
cost-effective way to quickly identify the presence or absence of
invasive species in an aquatic environment through eDNA technology;
developing trees with a natural resistance to emerald ash borers; and
successfully developing the first nonlethal treatment for white-nose
syndrome (WNS)--a lethal fungal disease that has reduced bat
populations by upwards of 80 percent in certain parts of the country.
As voracious consumers of insect pests, bats reduce the pesticide bill
of the U.S. agricultural industry by over $23 billion annually. Using a
native soil bacterium to inhibit growth of the fungus that causes WNS,
USFS researchers have been able to return previously sick bats to the
wild.
Expanding and Protecting U.S. Market Opportunities for Forest Resources
The Forest Products Laboratory drives innovation and expansion of
commercial applications for forest products. The work at the Lab on
woody biofuels, advanced composites and wood structures, and value-
added wood products promotes healthy forest ecosystems and economies by
creating, enhancing, and protecting markets for forest products. In
partnership with universities, scientists from Research Stations across
the country, and partners in the private sector, the Lab is exploring
potential of mass timber structures by conducting work on building
codes and wood utilization models to increase use of wood in building
construction and potentially invigorate markets for materials that were
previously considered low value or undesirable. The Lab also houses the
leading producer of nanocellulose material in the U.S. and explores
breaking the woody fiber down to the nanoscale and what commercial uses
make sense for this high strength, low weight material that can be
collected from nearly any source. Building on unparalleled
understanding of wood properties, R&D scientists are also able to
combat deforestation and timber and wildlife trafficking by identifying
origin of wood products, thereby protecting U.S. supply chains.
Calculating the Value of Urban Forests and Trees
The publication of Community Tree Guides helps managers calculate
the value of new tree plantings in terms of property value increases,
future energy savings, air pollutant uptake, and storm water runoff
reduction. Credible information quantifying benefits of managed urban
forests helps cities protect and restore environmental quality and
enhance economic opportunity.
Guiding Conservation and Management of Aquatic Species
Using stream temperature and fish data, Forest Service R&D is
developing important tools to inform and enhance management and
conservation of aquatic resources. Climate Shield produces spatially-
precise and user-friendly digital maps to guide conservation efforts in
key watersheds. This tool forecasts specific locations that are most
likely to continue supporting native cutthroat trout and ESA-listed
bull trout allowing managers to make precise predictions about which
streams are most likely to continue supporting native trout species
based on future temperature scenarios.
Quantifying the Role of Forests in Providing Clean Air and Water
This research directly linking trees to clean air and water
underscores the economic value and benefits trees and forests provide
to all residents and communities. Recent R&D work shows that forests,
which make up 26 percent of U.S. land area, are the source of 46
percent of the U.S. water supply--generating far better returns than
other land uses. Forest Service R&D's understanding of how to manage
forested landscapes to enhance production of sustained, low cost clean
water supplies is critically important. Studies are also linking
contributions of plants and trees to improved air quality and human
health benefits. The community benefits that plants provide while
removing pollutants and improving human health is valued at nearly $7
billion every year and is significantly more cost effective than
alternatives.
Advancing forest science is integral to improving the health and
welfare of U.S. forests and citizens, increasing the competitiveness of
U.S. products in the global marketplace, and adapting to unforeseen
future challenges. Continuing the trend of reductions in the R&D budget
will result in significant gaps in the knowledge base and data sets
necessary to address the many threats facing our Nation's forests and
associated wildlife could result in competitive losses in the global
economy. Therefore, our organizations request a funding level of $307
million for USFS R&D with emphasis on research projects uniquely suited
to R&D expertise and the furthering of agency and partner objectives.
Sincerely,
American Fisheries Society
Ecological Society of America
Society for Range Management
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society
______
Investments in Key Federal Programs That Support State and Private
Forestry deg.
Prepared Statement of Organizations That Support Investments in Key
Federal Programs That Support State and Private Forestry
Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall,
As Congress begins the process of crafting a budget for fiscal year
2019, we recognize the tough choices that must be made, especially in
light of the ever-increasing costs of wildfires and the budgetary
conflicts that challenge creates. In these tight budgetary conditions,
maximizing the effectiveness of Federal dollars through partnerships
with State and local actors can play a large role in addressing our
national forest challenges. For this reason, the undersigned
organizations support investments in key Federal programs that support
State and private forestry. A critically important component of the
Forest Service's budget, these programs help tackle some of the most
pressing issues we face in forestry like wildfires, insects, and
diseases while conserving and improving America's forests; enhancing
and protecting our drinking water; contributing to healthy, livable
communities; and encouraging forest product innovation and utilization.
In turn, this helps the nation to foster strong economic growth,
especially in rural communities.
The USDA Forest Service's (USFS) State and Private Forestry Area
(S&PF) serves as a linchpin for the conservation of America's forests.
Providing critical technical and financial assistance to private
landowners and the resource managers responsible for managing more than
60 percent of America's forests helps to increase the pace of work and
on-the-ground results, improve the resilience of the Nation's forests,
avoid conversion of forests to other land uses, and protect communities
and the environment from forest pests, invasive species, and wildland
fires.
In fiscal year 2019, funding for the following State and Private
Forestry and related programs will help improve the health of the
Nation's forests and encourage economic growth in a sector that
sustains more than one million jobs in the United States. Our funding
level requests include:
--$29 million for the Forest Stewardship Program \1\
Administered in cooperation with State forestry agencies, this
program plays a fundamental role in keeping forests as forests. Forest
insects, diseases, and wildfire know no bounds between Federal and non-
Federal forests. Assisting some of the 22 million private forest owners
in managing non-Federal forests can help minimize the impacts to
Federal lands saving the Federal taxpayer millions of dollars. A forest
landowner with a forest stewardship plan is almost three times more
likely to actively manage his or her land than one without a plan,
leading to jobs and rural economic stimulus. Those who have stewardship
plans are actively managing their lands for wildlife, clean water, and
forest products. Ninety percent of the Nation's wood supply comes from
private forest lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ President's budget proposes changing name of the Forest
Stewardship Program to Working Forest Lands.
--$107 million for the Forest Health Management Programs--$59 million
Federal Lands and $48 million Cooperative Lands
Pests and disease are national problems affecting private and
public lands. Nationally, their impact is in the tens of billions of
dollars. The USFS Forest Health Management Program supports efforts to
prevent, contain, and eradicate these costly and dangerous pests and
pathogens affecting trees and forests. Support for Forest Health
programs is critical on both public land and private land, as insects
and disease know no boundaries and forest health outcomes on any
landscape depend upon a cross-ownership approach.
--$87 million for State Fire Assistance and $16 million for Volunteer
Fire Assistance Programs \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ President's budget proposes changing the name of these programs
to National Fire Capacity and Rural Fire Capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ninety percent of the Nation's wildfires are human-caused and most
of these fires start on State and private lands, often spreading to
Federal lands. Initial attack is the key to reducing large fire costs
and these programs are critical to these suppression efforts. State and
volunteer fire crews provide much of that initial attack response and
are deployed to assist on Federal fires and other emergency or disaster
situations, in compliance with national safety and training standards.
--$23 million for Landscape Scale Restoration
The USFS works collaboratively with States and other partners using
State Forest Action Plans to target limited resources to the highest
priority forest needs across ownerships to achieve results with
meaningful local, regional, and national impacts. In an era when our
forests are facing an increasing number of challenges, this program
allows for a small Federal investment to be matched and leveraged by
States and put towards the most pressing threats to the forests that
sustain American communities.
--$83 million for Forest Inventory and Analysis
This program is our country's forest census, which has been ongoing
since 1930 across all-ownerships, including the two-thirds of America's
forests which are State or privately owned. FIA enables forest managers
to understand the scope and scale of trends and changes in forest
conditions, sustaining public benefits such as clean air and water,
wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation, jobs and wood products. The
collection and reporting of growth, removal, health, and other critical
forest data in a timely manner is vital for forest industry and others
in planning their future economic investments based on availability of
forest raw materials.
While not specifying suggested budget levels, we want to also call
your attention to the need for funding for programs which support
community forestry programs as well as forestry research, which
provides opportunities to expand forest markets and improve the health
and quality of urban and rural communities. A combination of
responsible forest management combined with healthy forest products
markets will benefit the forest landscape and the communities that live
in and around them.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Alabama Forestry Association
Aldo Leopold Foundation, Inc.
American Forest Foundation
American Forests
American Wood Council
American Woodcock Society
Center for Invasive Species Prevention
Connecticut Forest & Park Association
Conservation Resource Partners, LLC
Empire State Forest Products Association
Environmental Defense Fund
Enviva
Florida Forestry Association
Forest Business Network LLC
Forest Industry National Labor Management Committee
Forest Resources Association
Green Forests Work
Indiana Forestry & Woodland Owners Association
International Paper
Kansas Tree Farm Committee
Kentucky Forest Industries Association
Louisiana Pacific
Michigan Forest Association
Minnesota Forestry Association
Mississippi Forestry Association
National Alliance of Forest Owners
National Association of Forest Service Retirees
National Association of State Foresters
National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association
Ohio Forestry Association, Inc.
Rayonier
Ruffed Grouse Society
Rural & Agriculture Council of America
Society for Range Management
Society for the Protection of NH Forests
Society of American Foresters
Sonen Capital
Texas Forestry Association
The American Chestnut Foundation
The Hardwood Federation
The Pennsylvania Forestry Association
The Westervelt Company
Treated Wood Council
Trees Forever
Vermont Woodlands Association
Virginia Forestry Association
Washington Farm Forestry Association
Washington Forest Protection Association
Western Wood Preservers Institute
Wisconsin Paper Council
______
Joint Fire Science Program deg.
Prepared Statement of Supporters of the Joint Fire Science Program
Dear Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
As researchers, extension unit leaders, and practitioners who work
with the Federal land management agencies on wildland fire, we urge you
to maintain and fully fund the Joint Fire Science Program at historical
levels of $6.914 million annually through the USDA Forest Service's
Wildland Fire Management and $5.9 million annually through the U.S.
Department of Interior Wildland Fire Management. Wildland fire is
occurring over more acres at greater severity than in the past. Fire
seasons are lengthening, exposing communities to greater risk from
fire, post-fire floods, and smoke. The need for science is greater than
ever to support strategic allocation of resources to meet the goals of
the National Cohesive Strategy--restoring and maintaining fire-adapted
landscapes, promoting fire-adapted communities, and fostering safe and
effective response to fire.
The Joint Fire Science Program model for funding critical research,
based on management priorities and with requirements for active science
delivery, makes the program uniquely valuable and the only one of its
kind. No other program offers researchers the opportunity to address
fire management challenges in direct response to manager priorities.
Based on direction from Congress, the program is a partnership of six
Federal land management agencies that work together to identify and
address problems associated with managing wildland fuels, fires, and
fire-impacted ecosystems. Fire and land managers from the USDA Forest
Service and U.S. Department of Interior together identify issues of
critical interest, competitively allocate funding to researchers to
tackle those issues via applied research, and require active delivery
of science to managers and policymakers, linking science to management.
With a relatively limited budget, the Joint Fire Science Program
has improved efficacy and accountability of agency activities by
funding research to address important topics. Past research has focused
on such salient issues as understanding smoke impacts to communities,
overcoming barriers to prescribed fire, identifying how drivers of fire
costs affect decisionmaking, analyzing fire behavior, and understanding
fire effects on resources and communities. The program supports
regional Fire Science Consortia that support science delivery to the
management and practitioner communities. Research and science delivery
under this program have proven valuable for both Federal land managers
and partner organizations working to restore fire-adapted landscapes
and promote fire-adapted communities.
We ask Congress to reject the administration's proposal to cancel
the Joint Fire Science Program and request you maintain the Joint Fire
Science Program at its past funding levels. Further, it is important
that the program remain funded from within the Forest Service's
Wildland Fire budget, rather than from Forest Service Research.
Embedding the program in an already constrained research budget
undercuts this successful model of a management-driven research program
that responds directly to the challenges of wildland fire. We thank
Congress for its past support of the Joint Fire Science Program and ask
you to continue to make a priority of this important science-management
partnership.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
feel free to contact Cassandra Moseley ([email protected]) or
Courtney Schultz ([email protected]).
membership organization and coalition signatories
Coalition of Prescribed Fire Councils
Forest Stewards Guild
National Association of State Foresters
Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition
Society of American Foresters
university academic leadership signatories
John P. Hayes, Dean, Warner College of Natural Resources, Colorado
State University
Mark Paschke, Research Associate Dean, Warner College of Natural
Resources, Colorado State University
Anthony S. Davis, Acting Dean, College of Forestry, Oregon State
University
Ken Smith, Assistant Dean of the Environment, Integrated Program in the
Environment, The University of the South
J. Keith Gilless, Dean, College of Natural Resources, University of
California, Berkeley
Janet E. Nelson, Vice President for Research and Economic Development,
University of Idaho
Martin Main, Associate Dean for Extension, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Thomas H. DeLuca, Dean, W.A. Franke College of Forestry & Conservation,
University of Montana
Cassandra Moseley, Senior Associate Vice President for Research and
Innovation, University of Oregon
Lisa Graumlich, Dean, College of the Environment, University of
Washington
Daniel J. Robison, Dean, Davis College of Agriculture, Natural
Resources and Design, West Virginia University
signatories by state
Alaska
Dawson Foster, Student and Wildland Firefighter, State of Alaska
Division of Forestry, Anchorage
Alison D. York, Researcher, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks
Casey Brown, Post-doctoral Researcher, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
Fairbanks
Bob Christensen, Chief Executive, SEAWEAD, Gustavus
Aaron Ferguson, Sustainability Catalyst, Spruce Root Community
Development, Juneau
Brian Buma, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska, Juneau
Alabama
Nathan Hatch, Consultant Forester, Alabama Prescribed Fire Council,
Auburn
David Curry, Retired, Huntsville
Ted DeVos, Forester/Wildlife Biologist, Bach and DeVos Forestry/Alabama
Prescribed Fire Council-chair 2018, Montgomery
J. Kevin England, Science Instructor/Botanist, Ardmore High School,
Moulton
J. Ryan Mitchell, Outreach and Technical Assistance Coordinator, The
Longleaf Alliance, Stockton
Raien Emery, Undergraduate Research Assistant, University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa
Justin Hart, Associate Professor, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Kevin Willson, Graduate Student, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Arkansas
Kyle Lapham, Fire Manager, The Nature Conservancy, Little Rock
Kenneth Wallen, Assistant Professor, University of Arkansas System,
Monticello
Tiffany Hackler, Human Resources Manager, Rogers
Arizona
Melanie Colavito, Human Dimensions Specialist, Ecological Restoration
Institute, Flagstaff
Andrea Thode, Professor, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff
Clare Aslan, Assistant Professor, Northern Arizona University,
Flagstaff
Scott Goetz, Professor, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff
Stephanie Mueller, Graduate Student, Northern Arizona University,
Flagstaff
Thomas D. Sisk, Olajos-Goslow Chair of Environmental Science and
Policy, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff
Thomas Kolb, Professor, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff
James Allen, Professor and Executive Director, Northern Arizona
University School of Forestry, Flagstaff
Barbara Satink Wolfson, Program Coordinator, Southwest Fire Science
Consortium, Flagstaff
Shere A. Fischer, Phoenix
Julia Rowe, Invasive Species Research Specialist, Arizona-Sonora Desert
Museum, Tucson
Kathy Voth, Publisher, On Pasture, Tucson
Jeffrey Gicklhorn, Program Coordinator, Pima County, Office of
Sustainability and Conservation, Tucson
Christopher Guiterman, Research Associate, University of Arizona,
Tucson
Erica A. Newman, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Arizona, Tucson
Erica Bigio, Research Associate, University of Arizona, Tucson
Thomas W. Swetnam, Regents Professor Emeritus, University of Arizona,
Tucson
Jeffrey Rapp, Tucson
California
Gary Lauben, Project Manager, Western Shasta Resource Conservation
District, Anderson
Connie Stewart, Executive Director, California Center for Rural Policy,
Arcata
Leonard H. Rios, Fire Ecology Graduate Student, Humboldt State
Univeristy, Arcata
David Greene, Chair, Forestry Department, Humboldt State University,
Arcata
Harold Zald, Assistant Professor, Humboldt State University, Arcata
Jeffrey Kane, Associate Professor, Humboldt State University, Arcata
Yvonne Everett, Professor, Humboldt State University, Arcata
Sasha Berleman, Fire Ecologist, FirePoppy Consulting, Berkeley
Allison Shiozaki, Land Steward and Director, Hooves, Hands, & Hearts
Camp, Berkeley
Jacob Farris, Owner, Soil Life Consultant, Berkeley
J. Keith Gilless, Dean, College of Natural Resources, University of
California, Berkeley
Carmen Tubbesing, PhD Candidate, University of California, Berkeley
Daniel Foster, Master of Forestry Student, University of California,
Berkeley
Dr. Scott Stephens, Professor of Fire Science, University of
California, Berkeley
Gabrielle Boisrame, Visiting Researcher, University of California,
Berkeley
Jens Stevens, Postdoctoral Scholar, University of California, Berkeley
Jodi N Axelson, Cooperative Extension Specialist, University of
California, Berkeley
Rich Dean, Deputy Fire Marshal, University of California, Berkeley
Stacey Frederick, California Fire Science Consortium Coordinator,
University of California, Berkeley
Jean-Louis Carmona, Director, Van Duzen Watershed Fire Safe Council,
Bridgeville
Jennifer E. Fawcett, Extension Associate, North Carolina State
University, Campbell
Joe Rawitzer, Project Coordinator, Central Coast RX Fire Council,
Carmel Valley
Jose Luis Duce Aragues, Fire Training Specialist, Spatial Informatics
Group California, Cogolludo Spain
Andrew Latimer, Associate Professor, Department of Plant Sciences,
University of California, Davis
Chhaya Werner, PhD Candidate, University of California, Davis
Alexandra Weill, Graduate Student Researcher, University of California,
Davis
Allison Simler, PhD Candidate, University of California, Davis
Brian V. Smithers, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of California,
Davis
Carrie Levine, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, Davis
Clark Richter, PhD Candidate, University of California, Davis
Emily Brodie, Graduate Student, University of California, Davis
Jan Ng, PhD Candidate in Ecology, University of California, Davis
Jesse Miller, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of California, Davis
Jonah Weeks, Graduate Student, University of California, Davis
Kevin Welch, Research Scientist, University of California, Davis
Martha Wohlfeil, PhD Student, University of California, Davis
Rebecca Wayman, Associate Specialist, University of California, Davis
Sara Winsemius, Graduate Student, University of California, Davis
Zack Steel, Student, University of California, Davis
Tracy Katelman, Registered Professional Forester, ForEverGreen
Forestry, Eureka
Cybelle Immitt, Senior Planner--FSC Coordinator, Humboldt County Fire
Safe Council, Eureka
Julia Cavalli, Administrative Analyst, Humboldt County Fire Safe
Council, Eureka
Debra Harris, Burn Program Coordinator, North Coast Unified AQMD,
Eureka
Andrew Slack, Forest Fellow, Save the Redwoods League, Eureka
Yana Valachovic, Forest Advisor, University of California, Eureka
Jeffery Stackhouse, Livestock & Natural Resources Advisor, University
of California Cooperative Extension, Eureka
Lenya Quinn-Davidson, Area Fire Advisor, University of California
Cooperative Extension, Eureka
Steve Williams, American citizen, Folsom
Peter Brucker, Retired Program Coordinator, Salmon River Restoration
Council, Forks of Salmon
Lon Winburn, Fire Chief, Fortuna Fire Protection District, Fortuna
Susan Britting, Executive Director, Sierra Forest Legacy, Garden Valley
Karen Schambach, President, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation,
Georgetown
Danny Manning, Assistant Fire Chief GIR, Greenville Rancheria,
Greenville
Katherine Van Pelt, Grants & Agreements Specialist, Watershed Research
& Training Center, Hayfork
Nick Goulette, Executive Director, Watershed Research & Training
Center, Hayfork
Ian Sigman, Chairman, Humboldt County Fire Safe Council, Honeydew
Stephen Underwood, Hydesville
Danny Fry, Wildland Fire Management Coordinator, Natural Communities
Coalition, Irvine
Jake Schweitzer, Senior Ecologist, Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting,
Kensington
Will Emerson, Assistant Chief, Bell Springs Fire Department,
Laytonville
Gary B. Fildes, Retired, US Forest Service, Loma Rica
Christopher Giesige, Fire Researcher, Westcats, Los Angeles
Joe Snipes, Business owner, Forestscapes LLC, Humbots Data & Analysis,
McKinleyville
Liisa Schmoele, Citizen, McKinleyville
Stephen C. Hart, Professor of Ecology, University of California, Merced
Nicholas C. Dove, PhD candidate, University of California, Merced
Jeanne H. Tomascheski, Registered Professional Forester, Independent
Contractor, Millville
Vince Cicero, Senior Environmental Scientist, California State Parks,
Morro Bay
Michael Lake, Fire Chief, Fruitland Ridge Fire, Myers Flat
Judson Fisher, Student, Sierra College, Nevada City
Chris Friedel, Executive Director, Yuba Watershed Institute, Nevada
City
Dee McDonough, DFSC Board Member, Diablo FireSafe Council, Oakland
Dinah Fischbach-Benson, Secretary, Oakland Firesafe Council, Oakland
Robert Sieben, Board member Oakland Firesafe Council, OFSC,
International Association of Fire Chiefs, Oakland
Marc Meyer, Concerned Citizen, Orange
Kimberly Baker, Executive Director, Klamath Forest Alliance, Orleans
Nancy Bailey, Fire and Fuels Co-Director, Mid Klamath Watershed
Council, Orleans
Ellie Cohen, President and CEO, Point Blue Conservation Science,
Petaluma
Erica N. Stavros, Self, Poway
Gabe Miller, Stewardship Director, Feather River Land Trust, Quincy
Hannah Hepner, Coordinator, Fire Safe Council, Quincy
Jack Bramhall, Registered Professional Forester, Retired, Red Bluff
Ricky Satomi, Forest Advisor, University of California, Redding
William Eastwood, President, Southern Humboldt Fire Safe Council,
Redway
Sequoia Kantara, Apprentice Forester, Redway
Owen Warner, Consultant, Berkeley Research Group, Richmond
Marko J. Spasojevic, Assistant Professor, University of California,
Riverside
Karen Converse, Environmental Scientist, California Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Sacramento
David Sapsis, Wildland Fire Scientist, California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento
Greg Suba, Conservation Program Director, California Native Plant
Society, Sacramento
Louis Heinrich, Gen. Partner Heinrich Family Limited Partnership,
Heinrich Property Mgmt., Sacramento
Jamie M Lydersen, Associate Specialist, University of California,
Berkeley, Sacramento
John Fisher, Battalion Chief, San Diego Fire-Rescue, San Diego
Scott Rothberg, Environmental Planner/Geospatial Information Database
Administrator, San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy, San Diego
Laura Lalemand, Forest Fellow, Save the Redwoods League, San Francisco
Paul Beisner, Burn Crew Lead, The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco
Phillip Dye, Owner, Prometheus Fire Consulting, San Jose
Gary Evan Sanchez, Board President, Santa Clara FireSafe Council, San
Jose
Joe Christy, President, Fire Safe Santa Cruz County & Bonny Doon Fire
Safe Council, Santa Cruz
James Gore, County Supervisor, County of Sonoma, Santa Rosa
Jeff Schreiber, Program Development Manager, Sonoma Resource
Conservation District, Santa Rosa
Jennifer Potts, Resource Ecologist, Audubon Canyon Ranch, Sonoma
Patrick Koepele, Executive Director, Tuolumne River Trust, Sonora
Christina Restaino, Forest Health Program Manager, Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency, South Lake Tahoe
Susie Kocher, Forestry Advisor, University of California Cooperative
Extension, South Lake Tahoe
Joseph Restaino, Research Scientist, University of Washington, South
Lake Tahoe
Rosemary Chang, Counsel Member, Sunol Fire Safe Coalition, Sunol
Kyle Rodgers, Social Science Research Associate, Sierra Institute for
Community and Environment, Taylorsville
Charles Ashley, Independent, Tollhouse
Steven Frisch, President, Sierra Business Council, Truckee
Mary Mayeda, Forest Program Manager, Mendocino County RCD, Ukiah
Cathy M. Koos Breazeal, Executive Director (retired), Amador Fire Safe
Council, Volcano
David Jaramillo, Registered Professional Forester, Watershed Research &
Training Center, Weaverville
Colorado
Rodrigo Moraga, Chair -Colorado Prescribed Fire Council, Anchor Point
Group, Boulder
Elise Jones, County Commissioner, Boulder County, Boulder
Seth McKinney, Fire Management Officer, Boulder County Sheriff's
Office, Boulder
John Wold, Natural Resource Specialist, City of Boulder, Boulder
Chris Wanner, Forest Ecologist, City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain
Parks, Boulder
Lynn Riedel, Plant Ecologist, City of Boulder Open Space and Mtn Parks,
Boulder
Arika Virapongse, Research Scholar, Ronin Institute & Middle Path
EcoSolutions, Boulder
Jean Patton, Communications Lead, The Nature Conservancy/LANDFIRE,
Boulder
Emily Troisi, Program Associate, The Watershed Research & Training
Center, Boulder
David A. Sacher, Audio Engineer, University of Colorado, Boulder
Jonathan Salerno, Postdoc, University of Colorado, Boulder
Zachary Wurtzebach, Postdoctoral scholar, Colorado State University,
Carbondale
Sloan Shoemaker, Executive Director, Wilderness Workshop, Carbondale
Casey Cooley, Forest Habitat Coordinator, Colorado Parks and Wildlife,
Colorado Springs
Mike Bablert, Retired, The Nature Conservancy, Crested Butte
Garrett Stephens, Forester, Jefferson Conservation District, Denver
Gregory H. Aplet, Senior Science Director, The Wilderness Society,
Denver
Matthew D. Spinner, Open Space Supervisor, Town of Erie, Denver
Mitch Hart, Concerned citizen, Denver
Devyn Arbogast, Youth and Education Programs Manager, Friends of the
Dillon Ranger District, Dillon
Brad Pietruszka, US citizen and taxpayer, Dolores
Chris Metz, Weed management Technician/equipment operator, Larimer
County, Fort Collins
Daniel Godwin, Wildland Fire Analyst, Center for Environmental
Management of Military Lands, Fort Collins
John P. Hayes, Dean, Warner College of Natural Resources, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins
Mark Paschke, Research Associate Dean, Warner College of Natural
Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Antony Cheng, Professor, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Camille S. Stevens-Rumann, Assistant Professor, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins
Carrie Frickman, MS Student Conservation Leadership, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins
Courtney Schultz, Associate Professor, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins
Erica Fleishman, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Kat Morici, Research Associate, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Katherine Mattor, Research Scientist, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins
Katie Lyon, Research Assistant, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Linda Nagel, Professor and Department Head, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins
Megan Matonis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Miranda Redmond, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins
Monique E. Rocca, Associate Professor, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins
Philip N. Omi, Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins
Sonya Le Febre, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins
Tomas Pickering, PhD candidate, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Wade Tinkham, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins
Merrill R. Kaufmann, Emeritus Fire and Forest Ecology Senior Scientist,
Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins
Peter M. Brown, Director, Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research, Fort
Collins
Laren A. Cyphers, Program Associate, Rural Voices for Conservation
Coalition, Fort Collins
Gloria J. Edwards, Program Coordinator, Southern Rockies Fire Science
Network, Fort Collins
Daniel, Squad Captain, State Agency, Fort Collins
Chad Hoffman, Associate professor of fire science, Colorado State
University, Ft. Collins
Denise Wilson, Botanist, Chicago Botanic Garden, Golden
Hillary King, Research and Grants Coordinator, Jefferson County Open
Space, Golden
Carissa Callison, Graduate Student, Western State Colorado University,
Gunnison
Jonathan Coop, Assistant Professor, Western State Colorado University,
Gunnison
Patrick Magee, Assistant Professor of Wildlife and Conservation
Biology, Western State Colorado University, Gunnison
Steve Orr, Wildfire Mitigation Coordinator, West Metro Fire Rescue,
Lakewood
Seth Ex, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University, Laporte
David Hirt, Natural Resource Specialist, Boulder County Parks & Open
Space, Longmont
Jennifer Muha, Geospatial Sciences Department Lead, Front Range
Community College, Longmont
Annie Oxarart, Administrative Director, Association for Fire Ecology,
Louisville
Amy Seglund, Biologist, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Montrose
Brad Setter, Open Space, Trails, and Rodeo Supervisor, City of
Steamboat Springs, Steamboat Springs
Hilary Cooper, County Commissioner, San Miguel County, Telluride
Connecticut
Helen Poulos, Professor, Wesleyan University, Middletown
Emily Dolhansky, Graduate Teaching Fellow, Yale School of Forestry, New
Haven
Florida
Steven Brinkley, Wildlife Biologist and Land Manager, Florida Fish &
Wildlife Conservation Commission, Brooksville
Anne Blanchard, Wildlife Biologist, State of Florida, Brooksville
Patricia A. Cooke, Retired Master Gardener, Brooksville
Beth Christopher, Forester, Florida Forest Service, Carrabelle
Rosi Mulholland, Land Management Specialist, Burn Boss, St. Johns River
Water Management District, Clermont
Sofia Thordin, Urban Planner, Fort Lauderdale
Scott Crosby, Forester, Crosby Forestry & GIS Services, LLC,
Gainesville
Johanna Freeman, Biological Scientist, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Gainesville
Martin Main, Associate Dean for Extension, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville
Alan J. Long, Professor Emeritus, University of Florida, Gainesville
Alexis Boenker, Graduate Student, University of Florida, Gainesville
Anonymous, University of Florida, Gainesville
Chris Demers, Extension Program Manager, University of Florida,
Gainesville
Eden Schoepflin, Student, University of Florida, Gainesville
Krissy Olson, Environmental Consultant, University of Florida,
Gainesville
Michael Andreu, Associate Professor, University of Florida, Gainesville
Raelene Crandall, Assistant Professor, University of Florida,
Gainesville
Kelly McPherson, Natural Resource Consultant, Workman Forestry,
Gainesville
Bryce Catarelli, Nurse Practitioner, Gainesville
Justin Littlejohn, Research Student, Gainesville
Ryan Kennelly, Ecosystem Restoration Team Lead, Gainesville
Stephen Wasp, Firefighter, Gainesville
Jeremiah Hatcher, Assistant Team Lead, Wildland Restoration
International, Gulf Breeze
Joseph Bell, Wildland Firefighter, Jacksonville
Scotland Talley, Conservation Biologist, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Lake City
Vincent Fioramanti, Wildlife Technician, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Lake Placid
Erik Moretuzzo, Agricultural Conservation Technician, Hillsborough Soil
and Water District, Lithia
Jonathan Baker, Land Management Specialist, Brevard County, Melbourne
Ronald Chicone, Land Management Technician, Brevard County
Environmentally Endangered Lands, Melbourne
Samantha Anderson, Biologist, University of Florida, Melbourne
Alice Matthews, Educator, Merritt Island
Ad Platt, Vice President for Operations, The Longleaf Alliance, Milton
Danielle Deming, Ecosystem Support Team member, The Longleaf Alliance,
Milton
Vernon Compton, Project Director, The Longleaf Alliance, Milton
Jean McCollom, Biologist, Natural Ecosystems LLC, Naples
Michael Duever, Ecologist, Natural Ecosystems LLC, Naples
Sabrina Philipp, University of Florida, Naples
Christina Powell, Parks Manager, Charlotte County, North Port
Deborah Blanco, Environmental Specialist, Sarasota County Government,
North Port
Laurie Dolan, Environmental Specialist II, Florida Dept. of
Environmental Protection, Ocala
Ken Weyrauch, Senior Planner, Ocala
Kristina Baker, Consultant, Orange Park
Christopher Kinslow, Land Management Specialist, St. Johns River Water
Management District, Palatka
Lucas Furman, GIS Support Specialist, Natural Resources Professional,
Pensacola
Donna Vassallo, Wildland Fire Ecologist, The Longleaf Alliance,
Pensacola
Paul Langford, Private Forest Landowner, Pensacola
Jack Smith, Forest Area Supervisor, Florida Forest Service, Perry
John Diaz, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, Plant City
Mike Olson, Firefighter, Port Orange
Catherine Ricketts, Wildlife biologist, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Port Saint Joe
Elysia Dytrych, Biologist II, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, Sebring
Matthew Goode, Biological Scientist, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Sebring
Nathan Bunting, Wildlife Biologist, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Sneads
Paul Strauss, Volunteer Nature Interpreter and Wildland Firefighter,
Stuart
Thomas Christopher, Senior Forester, Florida Forest Service,
Tallahassee
Nicole Zampieri, Field Biologist, Florida Natural Areas Inventory,
Tallahassee
William Butler, Associate Professor, Florida State University,
Tallahassee
John Kevin Hiers, Wildland Fire Scientist, Tall Timbers Research
Station, Tallahassee
Kevin Robertson, Fire Ecology Program Director, Tall Timbers Research
Station, Tallahassee
Scott Pokswinski, Wildland Fire Science Lab Manager, Tall Timbers
Research Station, Tallahassee
David R. Godwin, Coordinator, University of Florida, Tallahassee
Jerrie Lindsey, Citizen, Tallahassee
Margaret Kargel, Private Citizen, Tallahassee
Sarah Godwin, Voter, Tallahassee
Ryan Proly, Recruiter, Tampa
Eric S. Menges, Program Director, Plant Ecology Program, Archbold
Biological Station, Venus
Bradley T Weller, Owner, Kings Birds Zoological, Webster
Kraig Krum, Environmental Program Supervisor, Palm Beach County,
Environmental Resources Management, West Palm Beach
Matthew Hortman, Biological Scientist III, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Wewahitchka
Philip Manor, District Wildlife Biologist, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Wewahitchka
Brian Christ, Wildlife Technician, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation
Commission
Georgia
Stephen Logan, Forest Consultant, F&W Forestry, Albany
Dave Coyle, Regional Forest Health Director, Southern Regional
Extension Forestry, Athens
Holly Campbell, Extension Association, Southern Regional Extension
Forestry, Athens
Leslie Boby, Extension Associate, Southern Regional Extension Forestry,
Athens
Jesse B. Sands, ACN, Atlanta
Mehmet Talat Odman, Principal Research Engineer, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta
Tiffany Woods, Program Manager, Southeast Forestry, National Wildlife
Federation, Atlanta
Brandon Sanford, Research Assistant and Environmental Engineer
Undergraduate, Atlanta
Erick Brown, Fire Manager, Atlanta
Megan Blizzard, LEED Certification Reviewer, Atlanta
Joe Butler, Manager/Owner, Forest Lodge Farms, LLC, Camilla
Andrew Edelman, Associate Professor, University of West Georgia,
Carrollton
Matthew P. Snider, Burn Boss, The Nature Conservancy, Columbus
Mike Worley, Chair Elect, Georgia Prescribed Fire Council, Covington
Mike Worley, President & CEO, Georgia Wildlife Federation, Covington
Theron Menken, Wildlife Biologist, Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, Fort Valley
Peter Whiteside, Insurance Professional, Hinesville
Emily Rushton, Wildlife Biologist, Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, McDonough
Mark A. Melvin, Chair, Coalition of Prescribed Fire Councils, Inc,
Newton
Seth W. Bigelow, Assistant Scientist, Jones Center at Ichauway, Newton
LuAnn Craighton, Environmental Educator, ValleyView Farms, Pine
Mountain Valley
Randy Tate, Fort Stewart/Altamaha Longleaf Partnership Coordinator, The
Longleaf Alliance, Savannah
Wayne Bell, Retired COO, International Forest Company, Valdosta
Reese J. Thompson, Longleaf Tree Farmer, Vidalia
Hawaii
Gantry Andrade, Assistant Fire Chief, Hawaii Fire Department, Hilo
Clay Trauernicht, Assistant Specialist in Wildland Fire Science and
Management, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Honolulu
Creighton M. Litton, Professor, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Honolulu
Pablo Akira Beimler, Community Outreach Coordinator, Hawaii Wildfire
Management Organization, Kamuela
Lance W. Holter, Council Member, US Forestry Research Advisory Council,
Paia
Idaho
Jonathan Oppenheimer, Government Relations Director, Idaho Conservation
League, Boise
April Hulet, Rangeland Extension Specialist, University of Idaho, Boise
Chris Bowman-Prideaux, PhD Candidate, University of Idaho, Boise
Corey L. Gucker, Project Coordinator, University of Nevada, Reno, Boise
John H. Cissel, Retired Fire Scientist and Manager, Boise
Thomas Laird, Wildlife Monitoring Technician, Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Caldwell
Gordon L. Sanders, Idaho Master Forest Steward, Idaho Forest Owners
Association, Idaho Lands Resource Coordinating Counsel, Coeur
d'Alene
Mark Masters, CEO, Chloeta Fire, Idaho Falls
Charles Goebel, Department Head and Professor, Department of Forest,
Rangeland & Fire Sciences, College of Natural Resources, University
of Idaho, Moscow
Dennis Becker, Director, Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho,
Moscow
Aaron Murdock, Student, University of Idaho, Moscow
Adam Young, PhD Candidate, University of Idaho, Moscow
Carrie Minerich, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Idaho,
Moscow
Darcy Hammond, Research Assistant, University of Idaho, Moscow
Eva Strand, Associate Professor, University of Idaho, Moscow
Janet E. Nelson, Vice President for Research and Economic Development,
University of Idaho, Moscow
Josh Hyde, Fire Research Scientist, University of Idaho, Moscow
Katherine Wollstein, Doctoral Research Assistant, University of Idaho,
Moscow
Leda Kobziar, Associate Professor, University of Idaho, Moscow
Luigi Boschetti, Associate Professor, University of Idaho, Moscow
Penny Morgan, Professor, University of Idaho, Moscow
Illinois
Edward Warden, Naturalist, Chicago
Nicole Cavender, Vice President of Science and Conservation, The Morton
Arboretum, Lisle
Linda Premo, R.T., Saint Charles
Jacob Gawlik, Reverend, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,
Sterling
Paul Brewer, Illinois Certified Prescribed Burn Manager, Illinois
Prescribed Fire Council, Toledo
Daniel A. Tortorelli, George B. Grimm Professor, Emeritus, University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana
Indiana
Michael R. Saunders, Associate Professor, Purdue University, West
Lafayette
Kansas
Kyle Schumacher, Graduate Research Assistant, Fort Hays State
University, Hays
Tyler Warner, Rancher, Holton
Jeremy Robert Cox, Fire Fighter Type 2, GH Ranch, Hutchinson
John Blair, University Distinguished Professor, Kansas State
University, Manhattan
Rory O'Connor, PhD candidate, Kansas State University, Manhattan
Vickie Cikanek, Private Lands Biologist, Kansas Department of Wildlife,
Parks, & Tourism, Topeka
Kentucky
Chris Minor, President, Kentucky Prescribed Fire Council, Greenville
Louisiana
William J. Platt, Professor of Biology, Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge
Nathan Yeldell, Biologist, LA Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, Hammond
Ann W. Stuart, Citizen, Lafayette
Julia E. Earl, Assistant Professor, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston
Massachusetts
Cristina Eisenberg, Chief Scientist, Earthwatch Institute, Boston
Bob Bale, President, Wildland Restoration International, Duxbury
Danelle Laflowerm, Research Assistant, Harvard University/Harvard
Forest, Petersham
Jonathan R. Thompson, Senior Ecologist, Harvard University/Harvard
Forest, Petersham
Matthew Duveneck, Research Associate, Harvard University/Harvard
Forest, Petersham
Maryland
Robert R. Schwartz, Forester, Maryland Forest Service, Hagerstown
Sylvia S. Tognetti, Adjunct Professor and Independent Consultant,
University of the District of Columbia Community College, Silver
Spring
Maine
Robert Hyson, Owner, Medomak Construction Inc., Bremen
Susan Conard, Editor in Chief, International Journal of Wildland Fire,
Northport
Michigan
Nancy H.F. French, Senior Scientist, Michigan Tech University Research
Institute, Ann Arbor
Matthew Hamilton, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor
Alexandra Paige Fischer, Assistant Professor, University of Michigan,
School for Environment and Sustainability, Ann Arbor
Madelyn Tucker, PhD candidate, Wayne State University, Detroit
Chase Brooke, Graduate Student, Michigan State University, East Lansing
Jessica R. Miesel, Assistant Professor, Michigan State University, East
Lansing
Kathleen Quigley, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Michigan State
University, East Lansing
Noah Jansen, Conservationist, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa
Indians, Harbor Springs
Gordon Vander Yacht, Equipment Manager, Hope College, Holland
Kathleen E. Halvorsen, Professor of Natural Resource Policy, Michigan
Technological University, Houghton
Rankin Smith, Field Technician, Michigan DNR, Ishpeming
Michele Richards, Wildland Fire Manager, Michigan Army National Guard,
Kalamazoo
Brenda Tiefenthal, Tax Payer, Kalamazoo
Andrew Vander Yacht, PhD, Research Specialist, Michigan State
University, Lansing
Erica Pfleiderer, Wildland Firefighter, Marquette
Darwin Micheal Schultz, Consultant/Fire Ecologist/Student, Oscoda
Christina DeGrush, Rise Kalamazoo, Plainwell
Kim Steinmann, Constituent, MI06, Portage
Minnesota
Craig R. Sterle, President--MN Division Izaak Walton League of America,
Barnum
Katie Zlonis, Plant Resource Director, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Cass
Lake
Melissa Mokry, PhD Candidate, Colorado State University, Duluth
Todd Armbruster, Firewise Coordinator, Cook and Lake County, Duluth
Lane Johnson, Research Forester, University of Minnesota, Cloquet
Forestry Center, Duluth
Matthew Tyler, Forester, Grand Portage, Grand Portage
Tim Miller, Reservation Forester, Grand Portage Tribal Forestry, Grand
Portage
Tony Lenoch, Area Resource Specialist, Minnesota Dept. of Natural
Resources, Grand Rapids
Lori Knosalla, Graduate Student Researcher, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis
Nancy Braker, Arboretum Director, Carleton College, Northfield
Matthew Lasch, Minnesota Contracting Manager, Applied Ecological
Services, Prior Lake
Eli Sagor, Associate Extension Professor, University of Minnesota,
Roseville
Ferin Davis, Environmental Technician, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community Land Department, Shakopee
Annie Hawkinson, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Minnesota,
St. Paul
Rebecca Montgomery, Associate Professor, University of Minnesota, St.
Paul
Missouri
Elizabeth Middleton, Grassland Botanist, Missouri Department of
Conservation, Clinton
Clif Baumer, Member, East Central Prescribed Burn Association, Columbia
Connor Crouch, Graduate Research Assistant, School of Natural
Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia
Benjamin Knapp, Assistant Professor, University of Missouri, Columbia
Joseph Marschall, Senior Research Specialist, University of Missouri,
Columbia
Mary Wachuta, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Missouri,
Columbia
Michael Stambaugh, Research Associate Professor, University of
Missouri, Columbia
Gary Llewellyn, Rancher Retired, SRM, Excelsior Springs
Thomas Fielden, Chairman, Missouri Prescribed Fire Council, Van Buren
Calvin Maginel, Fire Ecologist, Missouri Department of Conservation,
West Plains
Mississippi
Marcus Lashley, Assistant Professor, Mississippi State University,
Mississippi
Montana
David McWethy, Assistant Professor, Montana State University, Bozeman
Todd Erdody, Concerned Citizen, Bozeman
Jon Warwick, Kalispell
Jeffrey Lombardo, Forester, Heirloom Woodlands LLC/Watershed Consulting
LLC, Missoula
Megan Keville, Coordinator, Northern Rockies Fire Science Network,
Missoula
Julie Gilbertson-Day, Senior Spatial Wildfire Analyst, Pyrologix, LLC,
Missoula
Thomas H. DeLuca, Dean, W.A. Franke College of Forestry & Conservation,
University of Montana, Missoula
Alan Tepley, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Montana, Missoula
Andrew Larson, Associate Professor, University of Montana, Missoula
Christopher R. Keyes, Research Professor of Forestry, University of
Montana, Missoula
Eric Rowell, Wildland Fire Scientist, University of Montana, Missoula
Libby Metcalf, Associate Professor, University of Montana, Missoula
Philip Higuera, Associate Professor of Fire Ecology, University of
Montana, Missoula
Solomon Dobrowski, Associate Professor, University of Montana, Missoula
Mark Vander Meer, Forest Ecologist/Soil Scientist, Watershed Consulting
LLC, Missoula
Hannah Johlman, Fire Science Communicator, GPFSE, Wyola
North Carolina
Josh Kelly, Biologist, Mountain True, Asheville
Lauren Reker, Non-native Invasive Species Project Coordinator, Mountain
True, Asheville
Adam Warwick, Stewardship Manager, The Nature Conservancy, Asheville
Mamie Colburn, Stewardship Assistant, The Nature Conservancy, Asheville
Jenna Danckwrt, Concerned Citizen, Asheville
Nic Danckwart, Forestry Technician, Asheville
Richard L. Broadwell, President, Fork Ridge Environmental Consulting,
Bakersville
Alex Finkral, Chief Forester, The Forestland Group, Chapel Hill
Christa Rogers, Natural Resources Manager, Mecklenburg County NC,
Charlotte
Aixi Zhou, Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at
Charlotte, Charlotte
Dan Feola, NC Forest Service Ranger, North Carolina State University,
Columbia
Chet Buell, Technology Support Analyst, North Carolina State
University, Durham
Renee Strnad, Environmental Educator, North Carolina State University,
Durham
Margit Bucher, Fire Manager, The Nature Conservancy, Durham
Meyer Speary, Fire Environment Forester, North Carolina Forest Service,
Edenton
Edgar L. Peck III, Elk Park
Matthew Harrell, Practitioner, NC Prescribed Fire Council, Indian Trail
Colby Lambert, Area Specialized Agent -Forestry, NC Cooperative
Extension, Lillington
Thomas G. Crews, Jr., Retired Fire Management Officer, US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Manteo
Ryan Jacobs, Wildlife Forest Manager, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Marion
Ryan Sparks, Conservation Associate, Foothills Conservancy of NC,
Morganton
Branda Nowell, Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Charles Sanders, Wildlife Biologist, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh
Fernando Garcia Menendez, Assistant Professor, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh
Jennifer Costanza, Research Assistant Professor, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh
Joseph P. Roise, Forester, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Mara Omega, Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Myron Floyd, Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Robert Scheller, Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Ronald Sederoff, Professor Emeritus, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh
Ross Whetten, Professor of Forestry & Environmental Resources, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh
Stephanie Jeffries, Director, Environmental First Year Program, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh
Steven McKeand, Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Toddi Steelman, Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Laurel Kays, Project Manager, Southwestern NC RC&D Council, Waynesville
Ryan Bollinger, Local Implementation Team Consul, The Longleaf
Alliance, Whispering Pines
Kate Williams, Prescribed Fire Technician, The Nature Conservancy,
Wilmington
North Dakota
Betsey York, Research Associate, North Dakota State University, Fargo
Devan Allen McGranahan, Assistant Professor of Range Science, North
Dakota State University, Fargo
Jonathan Spiess, Graduate Student, North Dakota State University, Fargo
Micayla Lakey, Graduate Research Assistant, North Dakota State
University, Fargo
Nebraska
Jeanine Lackey, Director of Research and Stewardship, Fontenelle
Forest, Bellevue
Michelle Foss, Restoration Biologist, Fontenelle Forest, Bellevue
Noah Sundberg, Fontenelle Forest, Bellevue
Tim Dickson, Faculty, University of Nebraska, Omaha, Omaha
Jennifer Hopwood, Senior Pollinator Conservation Specialist, Xerces
Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Omaha
New Jersey
John Cecil, Vice President for Stewardship, New Jersey Audubon, Port
Murray
New Mexico
Matthew Hurteau, Associate Professor, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque
Scott L Collins, Distinguished Professor, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque
Emily Hohman, Executive Director, Chama Peak Land Alliance, Chama
Jeremy Gingerich, Assistant General Manager, Vermejo Park LLC, Raton
John Lissoway, Member, Forest Stewards Guild, Santa Fe
Sam Berry, Project Coordinator, Forest Stewards Guild, Santa Fe
Zander Evans, Executive Director, Forest Stewards Guild, Santa Fe
Mark Meyers, Forester, New Mexico State Land Office, Santa Fe
Tim L. Kirkpatrick, President, East Mountain Interagency Fire
Protection Association (EMIFPA), Tijeras
Nevada
Tim Brown, Research Professor, Desert Research Institute, Reno
Julie Hunter, Chair, Nevada Prescribed Fire Alliance, Reno
Alexandra Urza, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Nevada,
Reno, Reno
Eugenie MontBlanc, Project Manager, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno
Peter Weisberg, Professor, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno
Thomas Dilts, Research Scientist, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno
Carol L. Rice, Senior Wildland Fire Manager, Wildland Resource
Management, Inc., Reno
April Smith, Stay at Home Mother, Reno
New York
Kurt Gielow, Student, Homer
Sarah A. Moss, Accounting Staff Specialist, Saint Christopher's Inn,
Inc., Poughkeepsie
David Newman, Professor, SUNY College of Environmental Science and
Forestry, Syracuse
Robert W. Malmsheimer, Interim Chair and Professor of Forest Policy and
Law, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse
Ben Zimmerman, Branch Manager, Managing Ecologist, Applied Ecological
Services, Waterloo
Ohio
Alia Dietsch, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University, Columbus
Claire Rapp, Graduate Researcher, The Ohio State University, Columbus
Elizabeth Myers Toman, Visiting Assistant Professor, The Ohio State
University, Columbus
Eric Toman, Associate Professor, The Ohio State University, Columbus
G. Matt Davies, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University,
Columbus
Rachel Gabor, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University, Columbus
Robyn Wilson, Associate Professor of Risk Analysis and Decision
Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus
Roger A. Williams, Associate Professor, The Ohio State University,
Columbus
Virginia Rich, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University, Columbus
Oklahoma
Jack Waymire, Senior Biologist, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
Conservation, Clayton
Evan Tanner, Postdoctoral Fellow, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater
John Weir, Research Associate, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater
Oregon
Pat Uhtoff, Forester, Pat Uhtoff Forestry, Ashland
George McKinley, Executive Director, Southern Oregon Forest Restoration
Collaborative, Ashland
Carolyn Hunsaker, Retired Research Ecologist, US Forest Service,
Ashland
Karl J. Findling, Member, Steens Mountain Advisory Council, Bend
Michael O'Casey, Stewardship Coordinator, Bend
Kirk R. Metzger, Retired Wildland Hazardous Fuels Manager, US Forest
Service, Camp Sherman
Max Bennett, Extension Forestry & Natural Resources Faculty, Oregon
State University, Central Point
Kevin Vogler, Spatial Wildfire Analyst, Oregon State University,
Corvallis
Anthony S. Davis, Acting Dean, College of Forestry, Oregon State
University
Al Pancoast, Graduate Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Anna Talucci, Graduate Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Audrey Maclennan, Graduate Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Audrey Riddell, Graduate Research Assistant, Oregon State University,
Corvallis
Becky Miller, Graduate Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Bruce Shindler, Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Carrie Berger, Extension, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Chad Kooistra, Researcher, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Christal Johnson, PhD Student in Fire Science, Oregon State University,
Corvallis
Christine Olsen, Instructor, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Christopher J. Dunn, Research Associate, Oregon State University,
Corvallis
Claire Tortorelli, Graduate Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Clayton Sodergren, PhD Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Danielle Jackson, Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
David Blunck, Assistant Professor, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Gabe, Graduate Research Assistant, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Janean Creighton, Associate Professor, Oregon State University,
Corvallis
Kayla Johnston, Graduate Teaching Assistant, Oregon State University,
Corvallis
Lisa Ellsworth, Assistant Professor, Senior Research, Oregon State
University, Corvallis
Lizz Schuyler, Doctoral Researcher, Oregon State University, Corvallis
M. E. Braun, Acquisitions Editor, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Meg Krawchuk, Assistant Professor, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Patricia Muir, Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Rachel Houtman, Faculty Research Assistant, Oregon State University,
Corvallis
Stephen Fitzgerald, Professor, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Timothy Facemire, Graduate Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Tom Spies, Courtesy Professor, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Will Downing, Fire Ecologist, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Lisa M. Ganio, Associate Professor, Oregon State University, College of
Forestry, Corvallis
David Shaw, Associate Professor, Forest Health Specialist, Oregon State
University, Corvallis
Neil Williams, Researcher, Corvallis
Lance Sargent, Citizen, Eagle Point
Allison Rossman, Botanist, The Nature Conservancy, Enterprise
Heron Brae, Botanist and Natural History Educator, Columbines School of
Botanical Studies, Eugene
Timothy Ingalsbee, Executive Director, Firefighters United for Safety,
Ethics, and Ecology (FUSEE), Eugene
Autumn Ellison, Research Faculty, University of Oregon, Eugene
Bart Johnson, Professor, University of Oregon, Eugene
Cassandra Moseley, Director, Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of
Oregon, Eugene
Heidi Huber-Stearns, Assistant Research Professor, University of
Oregon, Eugene
Jesse Abrams, Research Associate, University of Oregon, Eugene
John Koenig, South Willamette Forest Collaborative, Eugene
Mike Brinkley, Citizen, SW Fire Science Consortium, Eugene
Amanda Stamper, Fire Manager, The Nature Conservancy, Eugene
Alexis Engelbrecht, Volunteer & Outreach Coordinator, Walama
Restoration Project, Eugene
Alan Stearns, Teacher, Eugene
Janelle Cossey, Forestry Technician, Eugene
Leslie Dietz, Volunteer, Eugene
Louisa Evers, US Citizen, Gresham
Jack Shipley, Board Chair, Applegate Partnership and Watershed Council,
Jacksonville
Daniel Leavell, Assistant Professor of Practice/Forest Agent, OSU
College of Forestry Extension, Klamath Falls
Gene Rogers, President, Wildland Fire Technologies, Inc., Klamath Falls
James K. Walls, Executive Director, Lake County Resources Initiative,
Lakeview
Audrey Squires, Restoration Projects Manager, Middle Fork Willamette
Watershed Council, Lowell
Derek Anderson, Oregon State University, Monmouth
Mark Webb, Executive Director, Blue Mountains Forest Partners, Mt.
Vernon
Joan Lawrence, Prescribed Fire Practitioner, Interagency Wildland Fire,
North Bend
Paula Hebert, Member, Southern Willamette Forest Collaboration,
Oakridge
Sarah Altemus-Pope, Coordinator, Southern Willamette Forest
Collaborative, Oakridge
Susan Knudsen Obermeyer, Private Citizen, Southern Willamette Forest
Collaborative, Oakridge
Loren E. Hogue, Retired Board Member, SW Fire Science Consortium,
Oakridge
Megan Creutzburg, Faculty Research Associate, Institute for Natural
Resources, Oregon State University, Portland
Andres Holz, Assistant Professor, Portland State University, Portland
Cody Evers, PhD Student, Portland State University, Portland
Max Nielsen-Pincus, Assistant Professor of Environmental Management,
Portland State University, Portland
Melissa Lucash, Research Assistant Professor, Portland State
University, Portland
Greg Block, President, Sustainable Northwest, Portland
Kendal Martel, Forest Program Associate, Sustainable Northwest,
Portland
Susan Jane Brown, Wildlands Program Director & Staff Attorney, Western
Environmental Law Center, Portland
Kerry Kemp, Forest Ecologist, The Nature Conservancy, Prairie City
Alison E. Dean, Fire Effects Monitoring Coordinator, Central Oregon
Fire Management Service, Prineville
Nick Yonker, Oregon Smoke Management Program Manager, Oregon Department
of Forestry, Salem
Susanne Ranseen, Ecologist, Oregon State University, Salem
Cristina Horton, Student, Oregon State University, Salem
Robbye Lanier, Environmental Technician, Lane Regional Air Protection
Agency, Springfield
Emily Jane Davis, Assistant Professor, Oregon State University, The
Dalles
Teresa Zena Alcock, Fire Data and Geospatial Analyst, Oregon Department
of Forestry, Tualatin
Pennsylvania
Robert J. Fleming, President, Danamere Farms, Inc., Philadelphia
Alice Puchalsky, Student, Temple University, Philadelphia
Emily Booth, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Temple University,
Philadelphia
Alan Taylor, Professor Department of Geography and Ecology,
Pennsylvania State University, State College
Warren Reed, PhD Candidate, Pennsylvania State University, State
College
Melissa M. Kreye, Assistant Professor of Forest Resources Management,
Pennsylvania State University, State College
South Carolina
Charles Babb, Longleaf Implementation Team Coordinator, Sandhills
Longleaf Pine Conservation Partnership, Chesterfield
Bridget Lorraine Blood, PhD Research Assistant, Clemson University,
Clemson
Dr. Donald L. Hagan, Assistant Professor of Forest Ecology, Clemson
University, Clemson
Emily Oakman, Masters Student, Clemson University, Clemson
Jenifer Bunty, Public Information Coordinator, Clemson University,
Clemson
Matthew Vaughan, PhD Student, Clemson University, Clemson
Darryl Jones, Forest Protection Chief, South Carolina Forestry
Commission, Columbia
Sudie Thomas, Member, South Carolina Native Plant Society, South
Carolina Exotic Pest Plant Council, Conway
Dylan Scott, Prescribed Fire Practitioner, Goose Creek
Thomas A. Waldrop, President, TomGen Forestry, Seneca
Brad McKelvy, Retired Fed FireFighter 38 Years USFS, US Forest Service,
Warrenvile
Tennessee
Steven Hromada, Adjunct Instructor, Austin Peay State University,
Clarksville
Trisha Johnson, Biologist, Cookeville
Jef Hodges, Grassland Coordinator, National Bobwhite Conservation
Initiative, Knoxville
Savannah Collins-Key, Graduate Teaching Assistant, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville
Tyler Gifford, Student, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Courtney Madson, Associate Producer, Knoxville
Mark Gudlin, Assistant. Chief, Wildlife & Forestry, TN Wildlife
Resources Agency, Nashville
Ken Smith, Assistant Dean of the Environment, Integrated Program in the
Environment, The University of the South, Sewanee
Shannon Allen, Natural Resources Planner, Alabama and Tennessee Chapter
of the Wildlife Society, Sewanee
Texas
J. Kelly Hoffman, Environmental Scientist, Texas A&M University, Austin
Theron Tate, Property Owner, Beaumont
Aaron D. Stottlemyer, Forest Resource Analyst, Texas A&M University,
College Station
Alexandra Lodge, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Texas A&M University,
College Station
Charles Lafon, Professor, Texas A&M University, Dept. of Geography,
College Station
Christopher Roos, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Southern
Methodist University, Dallas
William Mobley, Postdoctoral Researcher, Texas A&M University, Fort
Worth
Dylan Schwilk, Associate Professor of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock
Robin M. Verble, Associate Professor, Texas Tech University, Lubbock
Xiulin Gao, PhD Student, Texas Tech University, Biological Science,
Lubbock
Rebecca Kidd, Assistant Professor, Stephen F. Austin State University,
Nacogdoches
Morgan Russell, Assistant Professor and Range Extension Specialist,
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, San Angelo
Rob Galbraith, Director of Underwriting Research, USAA, San Antonio
Cynthia L. Dinwiddie, Principal Scientist, San Antonio
Utah
Sara Germain, Canine Search Specialist, FEMA, Logan
Alexander Howe, PhD Fellow, Utah State University, Logan
Erika Blomdahl, Graduate Student Researcher, Utah State University,
Logan
Gwendwr Meredith, PhD Student, Utah State University, Logan
Kendall Becker, USU Science Writing Center Assistant Director, Utah
State University, Logan
Lisa Green, Project Coordinator, Utah State University, Logan
Mark Brunson, Professor, Utah State University, Logan
Tucker Furniss, PhD Student, Utah State University, Logan
Jessica Kirby, Open Space Management Supervisor, Snyderville Basin
Special Recreation District, Park City
Bruce A. Roundy, Professor, Brigham Young University, Provo
Erin Banwell, Fire Ecology Program Coordinator, Gravitas Peak Wildland
Fire Module, Provo
Marjie Brown, Wildfire Communications Specialist, ScienceFire
Solutions, Inc., Salt Lake City
Maxfield Carlin, Biologist, Tracy Aviary, Salt Lake City
Virginia
Isa Bryant, Researcher, Arlington
Adam Coates, Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg
Andrew Johnson, Student, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg
Anne-Lise Velez, Collegiate Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg
George Hahn III, NCRF 1826, PhD Research Assistant, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg
Marc Stern, Associate Professor, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg
Harold Burkhart, Professor, Virginia Tech, Forestry, Blacksburg
Howard Epstein, Professor, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Nikole Simmons, Restoration Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy, Hot
Springs
Anne M. Jewell, Fire Management Specialist, Forester, Center for
Environmental Management of Military Lands, Mechaniscville
Allison Jolley, Communications Manager, Fire Adapted Communities
Learning Network, Richmond
Stacey S. Frederick, Science Outreach, Richmond
Laurel Schablein, Private Citizen, Vesuvius
Vermont
Anthony D'Amato, Associate Professor, University of Vermont, Burlington
Kim Coleman, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Vermont, Burlington
Cecilia Danks, Associate Professor and Gund Fellow, University of
Vermont, Burlington
Washington
Ray Guse, Principal, Smoked Goose Consulting, LLC, Cove
Rose Shriner, Natural Resources Project Manager, Kittitas County
Conservation District, Ellensburg
Brooke A. Cassell, Research Assistant, Portland State University,
Everett
Jon K. Culp, Secretary, Washington Prescribed Fire Council, Okanogan
Sarah Hamman, Restoration Ecologist, Center for Natural Lands
Management, Olympia
Tim Shearman, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of
Washington, Olympia
David Wilderman, Natural Resource Scientist, Washington Dept of Natural
Resources, Olympia
Sarah Hart, Assistant Professor, Washington State University, Pullman
Keala Hagmann, Research Ecologist, Applegate Forestry, LLC, Seattle
Diana Olson, FRAMES Project Manager, University of Idaho, Seattle
Michael Tjoelker, Content Specialist, University of Idaho, Seattle
Lisa Graumlich, Dean, College of the Environment, University of
Washington, Seattle
Charles Halpern, Research Professor, University of Washington, Seattle
Claire Wainwright, Postdoctoral Ecologist, University of Washington,
Seattle
Ernesto Alvarado, Research Associate Professor, University of
Washington, Seattle
James K. Agee, Professor Emeritus, University of Washington, Seattle
Jonathan Bakker, Associate Professor, University of Washington, Seattle
Kara M Yedinak, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of
Washington, Seattle
Michelle Agne, PhD Student, University of Washington, Seattle
Paige C Eagle, Research Consultant, University of Washington, Seattle
Saba Saberi, Graduate Student, University of Washington, Seattle
Paul F. Hessburg, Research Ecologist, College of the Environment,
University of Washington, Seattle
Brian J. Harvey, Assistant Professor, School of Environmental and
Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle
Rae Morris, Community Coordinator, Tonasket
Dave Werntz, Science and Conservation Director, Conservation Northwest,
Twisp
Joel Dubowy, Software Engineer, University of Washington, Winthrop
Susan Prichard, Research Scientist, University of Washington, Winthrop
Reese Lolley, Director, Forest Restoration and Fire, The Nature
Conservancy, Washington Prescribed Fire Council, Yakima
Hilary Lundgren, Washington Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network
Coordinator, Washington Resource Conservation and Development
Council, Yakima
Wisconsin
Sarah Johnson, Associate Professor, Northland College, Ashland
Carl Cotter, Stewardship Coordinator, Aldo Leopold Foundation, Baraboo
Curt Meine, Senior Fellow, Aldo Leopold Foundation, Baraboo
Steven Swenson, Director of Conservation, Aldo Leopold Foundation,
Baraboo
Josh LaPointe, Regional Manager Ecosystem Restoration, Applied
Ecological Services, Brodhead
Josh Kraemer, Project Manager, Wisconsin Prescribed Fire Council,
Brodhead
Fred Wollenburg, Landowner, The Prairie Enthusiasts, Dalton
Stacey Marion, Restoration Ecologist, Adaptive Restoration, Madison
Mark Horn, Owner, Conservation Media LLC, Madison
Gary Werner, Volunteer Burn Boss, Dane County Chapter Ice Age Trail
Alliance, Madison
Jacob Griffin, Associate Professor of Biology; Director of
Environmental Studies, Edgewood College, Madison
Joe Lacy, Concerned Citizen, Prairie Enthusiasts, Madison
Hannah Spaul, Fire Manager, The Nature Conservancy, Madison
Thomas Pierce, The Prairie Enthusiasts, Madison
Ankur Desai, Professor, University of Wisconsin, Madison
H. Anu Kramer, Research Associate, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Adena Rissman, Associate Professor, Human Dimensions of Ecosystem
Management, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Madison
Laura Ladwig, Research Ecologist, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
Madison
Monica G. Turner, Odum Professor of Ecology and Vilas Research
Professor, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Madison
Paul H. Zedler, Professor of Environmental Studies, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, Madison
Tyler J. Hoecker, Graduate Researcher, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Madison
Winslow D Hansen, PhD Candidate, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
Madison
Zakary Ratajczak, Postdoctoral Student, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Madison
Amelia Fass, Student, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, Madison
Keith Phelps, Conservation Worker, University System, Madison
Megan Sebasky, Research Scientist, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Madison
Adam Gundlach, Board of Directors Chair, Wisconsin Prescribed Fire
Council, Madison
Jan Ketelle, Wisconsin Prescribed Fire Council, Mineral Point
Yari Johnson, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Platteville,
Mount Horeb
Curtis Wayka, Prescribed Fire/Fuels Technician, Menominee Tribal
Enterprises, Neopit
Angus Mossman, Student, University of Wisconsin, Madison, North Freedom
Evan Larson, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Wisconsin-
Platteville, Platteville
Matthew Smith, Land Manager, Riveredge Nature Center, Saukville
Jeb Barzen, Founder, Private Lands Conservation LLC, Spring Green
Isabel Moritz, Fire Crew, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Jacob Barkalow, Student of Fire, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Julie Dickson, College Student, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Korey Badeau, Student, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Logan Wimme, Undergraduate Forest Management, University of Wisconsin,
Stevens Point
Max Richards, Student, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Nick Bielski, Student, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Dylan Wenker, Student, Stevens Point
Kelley Harkins, Undergraduate Wildland Fire Science Student, University
of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Nathan Holoubek, Research Scientist, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Sun Prairie
Theran Stautz, Ecologist, Sun Prairie
Richard A. Hansen, Private land owner, Wautoma
West Virginia
Daniel J. Robison, Dean, Davis College of Agriculture, Natural
Resources and Design, West Virginia University
Nicholas Jeros, Supervisory Fire Engine Operator, Central Apps Fire
Learning Network, Davis
Adele Fenwick, Fire Instructor and Practitioner, Morgantown
Wyoming
Daniel Laughlin, Associate Professor, University of Wyoming, Laramie
Kristina Hufford, Associate Professor, University of Wyoming, Laramie
Alex Spannuth, Fire Effects Monitor, Wyoming
______
Prepared Statement of the Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians
My name is Joseph Wildcat, I am the President of the Lac du
Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, located in Vilas,
Oneida and Iron Counties Wisconsin. Our Tribe of 3,400 members is the
largest employer in Vilas County. Together with Tribal enterprises, the
Tribe employs 800 individuals, with nearly 25 percent or 190 employees
paid in full or in part with appropriations made under this
subcommittee's jurisdiction. Our reservation has one of the densest
concentrations of fresh water in the country and our lands and waters
are sacred to the Band and its members. Within our 86,600-acre
reservation, there are 260 lakes, 71 miles of streams and rivers,
approximately 42,000 acres of forested land and roughly 42,000 acres of
water and wetlands. We are working hard to build and maintain a stable,
healthy Tribal community, amid many challenges. Like many rural areas,
we are dealing with opioid abuse and the challenges of creating and
maintaining jobs for our citizens and residents.
My testimony today addresses IHS, BIA and EPA programs that are
vital to the Lac du Flambeau Band. The Tribe thanks the subcommittee
for its leadership and commitment to Indian Tribes which honors the
Nation's trust responsibility to the Indian people. The Tribe
appreciates that Congress provided increased funds in fiscal year 2018
for BIA, IHS and EPA programs and the other programs across the Federal
Government.
Please recognize the interconnectedness of IHS, BIA and EPA
programs which help promote healthy Tribal members and healthy
communities; essential building blocks for stable communities where
Tribal parents can raise Native youth in safety and security so that
they may realize their fullest potential and contribute to their
community's and the Nation's future.
I. INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE PROGRAMS
The Tribe recognizes the increase Congress provided for fiscal year
2018 for the IHS. With that being said, the I.H.S. funding only cover
32 percent of our financial need! The Tribe operates the Peter
Christensen Health Center, Dental Program, a Family Resource Center,
and an In-patient Treatment Center with a total annual operating budget
in excess of $24 million. The Tribe's annual funding for fiscal year
2018 is $7.7 million. These programs are vital to ensuring the support
and preservation of family life and wellbeing by providing such
services as outpatient mental health, inpatient & outpatient alcohol
and other drug abuse, and psychological consults. The Health Center
provides quality healthcare and offers a full range of family medical
services by Board Certified family physicians, advanced practice nurse
practitioner and physician-assistants serving 5,500 patients and
providing 48,000 patient appointments annually. Together, our Tribal
Health Program employs a staff of 150 individuals. The Tribe asks that
Congress increase IHS funding in 2019.
Our rationale for this funding increase is borne of necessity. We
are seeing how important proactive and preventive health services are
for our community. In particular, like the rest of the Nation, our
community is in the throws of the opioid epidemic. It has tragically
claimed the lives of numerous Lac Du Flambeau members, with
approximately 100 members overdosing on opioids. Approximately 60
percent of the Tribe's annual births result in opioid-addicted babies.
In 2017 alone, 48 of the Tribe's 80 births resulted in opioid-addicted
babies. Early treatment is critical. We urge the subcommittee to
increase funds for preventive health programs such as Drug Endangered
Children (D.E.C.) and Drug Endangered Elders (D.E.E.). These programs
can save lives and empower our Tribe to help our citizens address
addictions and mental health issues, especially targeting our Tribal
youth. Please continue to prioritize increases in fiscal year 2019 IHS
funding for Hospitals and Clinics, mental health, substance abuse
treatment and P/RC funds so that we can take a proactive stance by
investing wisely in preventive health services.
II. NATURAL RESOURCES (EPA AND BIA)
The Tribe has one of the leading Tribal Natural Resources programs
in the Country. Our program includes a Fish Hatchery for several
species of fish, Fisheries Management, Waterfowl habitat protection,
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Conservation Law Enforcement,
Wildlife protection, Historic Preservation, and numerous environmental
programs, including water resources. Our Natural Resources Department
employs fish biologists, wildlife biologists, fish hatchery operators,
hydrologists, technicians and administrators, many of whom are paid in
full or in part with EPA and BIA funds and critical to our work
protecting the resources that were promised to us in our Treaties. We
urge the subcommittee not to jeopardize our Natural Resources programs
that are critical to protecting our culture, our health and our
economy, that is part of Wisconsin's $19 billion hunting, fishing,
recreation and tourism industry.
The proposed reduction in EPA funding and cuts to BIA Natural
Resources programs would be devastating to our Program. Even with
existing funding, we struggle to meet the demands we face to maintain
clean air, water and lands from the many contaminants that threaten our
community. The highest concentrations of mercury tainted lakes are in
the State's northern most counties, including Vilas and Oneida.
Minnesota and Wisconsin lead the Nation with mercury-contaminated
lakes. At present, there are more than 146 lakes with fish health
mercury advisories in place in Wisconsin. This presents a direct threat
to our culture because we cannot eat contaminated fish that are
otherwise a staple of our diet. A continuing threat to our treaty
protected resources is Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), it has been
detected in deer in our ceded territories and is moving closer to the
deer population on our Reservation. There is no silver-bullet to this
challenge, but we need resources to ensure proper monitoring and
management.
A. TRUST-NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
In fiscal year 2018, Congress appropriated $204 million for the
BIA's Trust-Natural Resources Management programs, a $3.2 million
increase from fiscal year 2017. We greatly appreciate this, but given
the importance of our natural resources to our culture and economy more
is needed. Our Tribe alone needs nearly a $500,000 increase for our
Tribal Fish Hatchery Operations and Tribal Management/Development
Program for fiscal year 2019.
B. CIRCLE OF FLIGHT: WETLANDS WATERFOWL PROGRAM
We urge the subcommittee to continue to provide support for the BIA
Circle of Flight Program (about $707,000). This modest BIA program
supports Tribal efforts throughout the Great Lakes Region to restore
and preserve wetlands and waterfowl habitat and enhances wild rice
gathering within Tribal territories throughout the three States along
the Mississippi flyway.
C. GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE
Thank you for funding the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative at
$300 million in fiscal year 2018. Do not terminate this vital program.
For the indigenous people of Wisconsin, the Great Lakes represent the
lifeblood of our culture and the foundation of our economies. The
protection and preservation of the Great Lakes is a necessity.
D. EPA TRIBAL GENERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Congress approved $3.5 billion for State and Tribal Assistance
Grants, including $2.461 billion for Infrastructure assistance grants
and $1.066 billion for categorical grants (maintaining Tribal air
quality management grants and Tribal general assistance program (Tribal
GAP) grants at $12.8 million and $65.4 million, respectively). The
Tribal GAP program provides base environmental funding to assist Tribes
in building their environmental capacity to assess environmental
conditions, utilize available data and build their environmental
programs to meet their local needs. While we strongly support the
Tribal GAP funding, that funding is limited to capacity building and it
is critical that we expand Tribal EPA funding to include program
implementation.
E. UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK FUND (LUST)
We remain concerned that annual reductions to the Underground
Storage Tank fund (LUST) permits ongoing contamination of ground waters
that threaten Tribal and other communities. We encourage the
Subcommittee to instruct EPA to give greater consideration to Tribal
cleanup standards and help Indian Tribes remediate unsafe conditions on
reservations. We would ask Congress to direct EPA to work with Tribes
to address these sites that present a continuing threat to our
Reservation.
III. BIA AND BIE APPROPRIATIONS
A. LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Tribe is working collaboratively with our State and local
partners to address drug trafficking and gang activity on and off the
reservation. In December, we lost a young Tribal member, related to
these activities. We want to ensure that this does not happen again.
There is a greater need for cooperation among the Tribe, the State and
Federal law enforcement agencies to address the significant impact of
drug trafficking on the public safety of our community.
As a Tribe in Public Law 280 States we have long suffered from the
lack of sufficient support by the Federal Government for our law
enforcement and Tribal court needs We have one full time judge who
handle a range of cases ranging from domestic abuse orders to child
support enforcement. In addition, we a three court clerks and a
prosecutor. We greatly appreciate the Appropriations Committee support
of Tribal justice systems for Tribes in Public Law 280 States, we
provide an important service to the people of our Reservation that if
we did not do it, the State courts would have to do it. We would urge
Congress to continue this funding.
Related to this is the need to provide specific funding for
conservation law enforcement officers. Our conservation officers,
provide a critical role in the management of our natural resources and
sometimes are the first line in identifying drug and other illegal
activities on the Reservation.
B. INDIAN EDUCATION
Congress provided $34.9 million for Adult Scholarships and restore
the $2.9 million for special higher education scholarships for fiscal
year 2018. We recommend this subcommittee continue to support these
programs that provided needed support to Tribal members seeking higher
education.
The Lac du Flambeau Public School and Lakeland Union High School
educate our Tribal youth. The High School is approximately 23 percent
Native American and 86 percent of high school graduates went on to
attend 4- and 2-year colleges/technical schools, 9 percent entered the
workforce or pursued other activities and 5 percent entered the
military. For this reason, we oppose any effort to eliminate the
Johnson O'Malley Program, the goal of which is to address the unique
cultural needs of Indian students attending public schools through a
supplemental program of services planned, developed and approved by the
Local Indian Education Committee, comprised of parents of eligible
Indian students. The $14.9 million JOM Program must be protected, so
that Indian children are provided the supplemental programs that honor
and celebrate their Native heritage and help them grow into confident,
well-adjusted adults who contribute to their families. Given our
experience in calculating our Native student count in our schools, we
are troubled by the BIA's inability to provide Congress with an
accurate student count.
C. ROAD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
The Tribe appreciates Congress including $4.3 million increase in
funding for the Road Maintenance Program for fiscal year 2018. We
believe a $10 million increase is justified for fiscal year 2019. The
Tribe receives less than $90,000 to maintain nearly 180 miles of BIA-
owned roads. Our budget requirements for road maintenance are closer to
$2 million annually. A year's entire road maintenance budget can be
consumed in the winter months removing snow and salting/sanding roads
to ensure freedom of movement. Transportation barriers undermine
Federal and Tribal efforts to improve Native health, educate our youth
and attract businesses and jobs to remote, rural communities like ours.
The ``historical'' formula for the BIA Road Maintenance Program makes
little sense to us. We ask the subcommittee to include report language
for fiscal year 2019 that directs the BIA to explain the allocation
methodology, verify each Tribe's road inventory that generate Road
Maintenance dollars, and make publicly available to Tribes their
relative share of funds.
______
Prepared Statement of LeadAbatement deg.
Prepared Statement of U.S. Senators in Support of the Environmental
Protection Agency's Lead Abatement, Inspection, and Enforcement
Programs
______
Prepared Statement of the League of American Orchestras
The League of American Orchestras urges the Senate Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee to
support increased fiscal year 2019 funding for the National Endowment
for the Arts (NEA). Bipartisan support in Congress for the ongoing work
of the NEA has been especially appreciated in the past 2 years, and we
are grateful for the subcommittee's leadership. Further support in
fiscal year 2019 will enable the agency to provide more Americans with
meaningful opportunities for arts participation.
The League of American Orchestras leads, supports, and champions
America's orchestras and the vitality of the music they perform. Its
diverse membership of more than 2,000 organizations and individuals
runs the gamut from world-renowned orchestras to community groups, from
summer festivals to student and youth ensembles, from businesses
serving orchestras to individuals who love symphonic music. As
orchestras navigate the rapid and profound changes coursing through
American society, they are redoubling their efforts to serve their
communities through the orchestral experience. NEA support via Art
Works and Challenge America grants helps to expand the capacity of
orchestras to present concerts and programs to communities of all
sizes, and each NEA direct grant dollar leverages up to $9 of
additional non-Federal or private investment. The following 12
orchestral projects from fiscal year 2018 total $197,500 in direct
Federal support and show a glimpse of some remarkable partnerships that
are serving the public in increasingly responsive ways.
nea funding increases public access to the arts
The NEA is committed to helping small and mid-sized organizations
extend the reach of the arts to populations whose arts opportunities
are limited by geography, economics, or disability. The Mobile Symphony
reaches 35,000 people every year through its concerts and educational
programs, with just 9 professional staff members and 72 part-time
musicians. A Challenge America grant helped Mobile Symphony bring
Grammy-award-winning cellist Zuill Bailey and acclaimed conductor Andre
Raphel to southwest Alabama, with both artists participating in
educational activities for students in urban and rural Title I schools,
including working with band and music students. All students were
offered free tickets to the concerts with the orchestra. Raphel also
spoke to students at Bishop State Community College, which serves a
large number of low-income, minority students in Mobile's inner city.
Another Challenge America grantee, the Timpanogos Symphony
Orchestra--an all-volunteer orchestra with just one part-time paid
staff person--brought live symphonic music and educational activities
to Price, Richfield, and Delta: three cities in Utah that do not have
an orchestra of their own. Programming featured pianist Scott Holden,
an accomplished pianist and head of piano studies at Brigham Young
University, as well as Utah-raised singer Summerisa Bell Stevens. In
addition to offering three community concerts, Timpanogos Symphony
Orchestra also presented four school assemblies on the tour,
introducing students to music from the baroque, classical, romantic,
and modern eras. Following the assembly concert at Carbon High School,
one of the school staff thanked the orchestra, remarking that ``many of
our students do not have the opportunity to attend a performance like
this, especially free of charge.''
The Fox Valley Symphony Orchestra, with two full-time and 9 part-
time employees, and 75 musicians, used its Challenge America grant to
support activities associated with a February concert featuring Grammy-
nominated composer and trombonist Chris Brubeck. Brubeck and orchestra
musicians shared music with veterans and students in rural areas of
Wisconsin and conducted an interactive workshop with band students in
Weyauwega at the Gerold Opera House and a lecture and performance by
Brubeck at the Wisconsin Veterans Home at King, which inspired some
memories of Brubeck's father, jazz musician and composer Dave Brubeck.
Chris recalled stories of his father going into hospitals to play music
for veterans, connecting with them in a special way. Sharing that
spirit, Brubeck said, ``If the vets can't come to a concert, I am happy
to go to see them and reach out through music.''
nea funding supports youth engagement with the arts
With 11 full-time and 3 part-time staff members and nearly 90
contracted musicians, the Des Moines Symphony offered nearly 6,000
Central Iowa fourth and fifth grade students the chance to learn in-
depth about orchestral music. With the help of an Art Works grant, each
school received an enhanced, multi-media curriculum, then students
attended a live Des Moines Symphony performance which included visuals
displayed on a screen above the orchestra, and a side-by-side
performance with the Des Moines Symphony Youth Symphony featuring the
winner of the Des Moines Symphony Academy student concerto competition.
Through these concerts, the Des Moines Symphony is introducing a broad
range of Central Iowa students to creative expression through
orchestral music and building a shared cultural experience across many
Central Iowa communities, urban and rural alike.
The Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra (ISO) serves over 380,000
patrons every year through concerts and education programs, and employs
an administrative staff of 62 full-time and 9 part-time employees, 74
full-time musicians, and 3 conductors. An Art Works grant helps support
the Metropolitan Youth Orchestra (MYO), the ISO's flagship education
program that engages youth with music instruction and mentoring to
discourage at-risk behaviors and set students on the path to lifelong
success. Over 220 children from kindergarten through 12th grade
participate in MYO, and over 130 of their parents and guardians either
learn to play an instrument alongside them or volunteer in other
capacities. Even though many MYO students come from areas of
Indianapolis with the highest poverty rates and lowest levels of
education, 100 percent of MYO seniors have graduated and enrolled a 4-
year university since 2008.
Through its Intensive Community Program (ICP), the Boston Youth
Symphony Orchestras (BYSO) currently serves 90 students of color and
low-income students. ICP was created nearly 20 years ago to address
accessibility barriers that prevent students from underrepresented
communities in classical music from auditioning into BYSO and
experiencing the benefits of a high-quality music education. ICP
accepts students ages 4-11 who show exceptional interest in studying
string, wind, or brass instruments and provides tuition subsidies,
weekly music lessons, music theory classes, use of a good quality
instrument, and ongoing mentoring from professional musicians until
they graduate high school. ICP students participate an average of 10
years and to date, all graduates of the program have gone on to attend
college, many being the first in their families to do so. NEA support
helps BYSO run this program with its 13 full-time and approximately 60-
70 part-time or contracted artistic staff.
nea funding fosters innovative presentation of and engagement with
music
The NEA encourages collaborations, innovative presentation
strategies, and initiatives that help organizations engage audiences in
new and meaningful ways. Employing more than 290 artists and an
administrative staff of 35 full-time and 12 part-time employees, The
Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra (SPCO) presented the No Fiction Festival,
celebrating life stories through two weeks of concerts, education, and
community engagement events. The festival explored the theme of
sisterhood through works by women composers such as Amy Beach, whose
accomplishments were a beacon in the suffrage movement, and the 21st-
century composer of Maori heritage, Dame Gillian Whitehead. Concert
programs also included works by sisters Nadia and Lili Boulanger, and
Jessie Montgomery. On the theme of place, the composer, sound artist,
and writer Brian Harnetty presented ``Shawnee, Ohio,'' a musical work
with sampled sound archives, video, and field recordings about the
history and ecology of Appalachian Ohio.
The Arkansas Symphony Orchestra (ASO), with 14 full-time
administrative staff, 12 full-time musicians, and over 80 part-time
musicians, is advancing streaming innovation, collaboration, and fun
for Arkansans in its CANVAS Festival, which combined visual arts and
the performance of live symphonic music with repertoire including Adam
Schoenberg's ``Finding Rothko,'' and Respighi's ``Trittico
Botticelliano (Three Botticelli Pictures).'' Orchestra musicians
collaborated with the Arkansas Arts Center to curate a chamber music
performance based on pieces from the center's collection and
educational activities included lecture-demonstrations, pre-concert
discussions, and open rehearsals. The festival culminated with a
performance of Beethoven's Symphony No. 6, ``Pastoral'' with visual
artist Barry Thomas painting onstage in real time in reaction to the
music being played.
The Oregon Symphony is also pushing artistic boundaries with its
The Sounds of Home series, directed by Music Director Carlos Kalmar. By
pairing classical works with visual art forms, the symphony guides the
community through an exploration of the meaning of home through a
unique series of programs onstage and throughout the community in
venues such as homeless shelters, healthcare facilities, and community
centers. The series combines three multimedia productions, four new
commissioned works in three art forms, the first commission of a play
by an American orchestra, and a diverse collection of collaborating
artists from within and beyond the orchestral field. The orchestra,
comprising 38 full-time and 12 part-time staff, and 76 full-time
musicians, is actively building collaborations with social service
organizations and community leaders, as well as arts groups, to reflect
on these issues.
nea funding helps honor and celebrate our country's diverse cultural
heritage
A citizenry steeped in creativity, excellence, and the ability to
navigate differences strengthens democracy. Orchestras are very
effective at providing an artistic way of connecting people with one
another and with our pasts. The Nashville Symphony, for example, with
its 72 full-time and 357 part-time staff, and 81 full-time musicians,
is using its Art Works grant to support the commissioning, performance,
and recording of a new work by American composer Jonathan Leshnoff. The
Violins of Hope exhibition showcased restored instruments that were
played by musicians who were interned in concentration camps during the
Holocaust. For 3 months, programming was curated and presented by the
orchestra, under the direction of Music Director Giancarlo Guerrero, in
partnership with more than 25 community organizations. Partners crossed
disciplines and sectors, and included the Jewish Federation of
Nashville and Middle Tennessee, the Nashville Public Library, and
others. The Violins of Hope collection is on display, free to the
public, at the Nashville Public Library.
The Toledo Symphony Orchestra (TSO), with its 18 full-time and 19
part-time staff and approximately 60 full-time musicians, helped more
than 6,000 patrons celebrate the contributions of African-American
musicians in the 3-month long North Star Festival. Concert repertoire
included spirituals, chamber music, jazz-inspired works, and a modern
opera. Composers included Duke Ellington, Steven Gerber, Rhiannon
Giddons, Alice Gomez, Adolphus Hailstork, James Weldon Johnson,
Coleridge Taylor Perkinson, Florence Price, Daniel Bernard Roumain,
Paul Schoenfield, Alvin Singleton, and William Grant Still. The
signature event in the series was a special performance by renowned
African-American soprano Kathleen Battle, who presented a concert
program titled Underground Railroad: A Spiritual Journey. The TSO also
brought music into a wide variety of community venues through a
creative collaboration with the Toledo Lucas County Public Library
system and the Lathrop House, a former stop on the Underground Railroad
and local museum.
The Oakland Symphony, which employs over 60 musicians and 16 staff,
is presenting To Belong Here: Notes from the African Diaspora, a
concert honoring the people of West and Central African descent. The
program will feature works by 18th-century composer Chevalier de St.
Georges; African-British composer and conductor Samuel Coleridge-
Taylor; and Florence Price, the first African-American woman to have a
major work performed by a symphony orchestra. In addition to these
works, the performance will be narrated by Oakland native Prentice
Powell, a spoken word artist who has performed internationally. In the
lobby, Afro-Puerto Rican bomba drummers and dancers will present the
once outlawed artform that was used by enslaved people to signify and
organize rebellion.
Thank you for this opportunity to convey the tremendous value of
NEA support for the communities that orchestras are serving in every
corner of our country. We applaud the NEA's national leadership in
promoting excellence and engagement with high-quality artistry by all
citizens and we urge you to increase our Nation's creative potential
and access to the arts by approving increased funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts in fiscal year 2019.
[This statement was submitted by Jesse Rosen, President and CEO.]
______
Prepared Statement of LongIslandSound deg.
Prepared Statement of U.S. Senators in Support of the Environmental
Protection Agency's Long Island Sound Geographic Program
______
Prepared Statement of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
Chairman Calvert, Members of the subcommittee and the distinguished
Gentleman from the 6th District in Washington State representing my
Tribe, Congressman Derek Kilmer. I am Frances Charles, Chairwoman of
the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, an elected position that I have been
honored to hold for the past 12 years. Thank you for providing me this
opportunity to submit testimony for the record on the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), Indian Health Service (IHS), and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) budgets for fiscal year 2019. My testimony
identifies our most urgent Tribal-specific funding needs at the Lower
Elwha Klallam Tribe. We are also supporting some Regional and National
budget requests which will benefit the Lower Elwha citizens and
community.
tribal-specific requests for lower elwha klallam tribe
Bureau of Indian Affairs.--$5.43 Million
1. $4.972 Million Dam Removal and Fisheries Restoration--Public
Law 102-495, Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act
a. $702,000--Salmon Hatchery O&M
b. $270,000--Flood Control Levee O&M
c. $4 million--Land Acquisition
2. $267,000--Tribal Court Enhancement and Implementation of Tribal
Law and Order Act (TLOA) and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
3. $191,000--Tiwahe Initiative--Tribe seeks to assert jurisdiction
in its own court system over all cases arising under the Indian Child
Welfare Act (ICWA) and to become a licensing agency for foster homes
Indian Health Service $500,000--Mental Health and Chemical Dependency
programs
Environmental Protection Agency $536,000--Environmental Programs
1. $125,000--General Assistance Grant (GAP)
2. $ 81,000--Clean Water Act Sec. 106 Grant
3. $180,000--Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) Implementation Grant
4. $150,000--PSP Tribal Capacity Grant
Contract Support Costs--Past, Present and Future
As a Self-Governance Tribe, Lower Elwha has been impacted by the
Federal Government's refusal to pay full contract support costs (CSC)
for contracted and compacted programs for the past two decades. In 2014
and 2015, the Supreme Court determined that Tribes were entitled to
CSC. The game-changer going forward was the ground-breaking decision by
Congress in Public Law 114-113, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016,
to create a new account in the appropriations bill specifically for CSC
in 2016 and 2017 as well as language establishing an indefinite
appropriation for CSC in both agencies. Under the new budget structure,
the full CSC that Tribes are entitled to will be paid and other
programs will not be reduced if payments are underestimated in the
President's budget. Tribes agree that this structure achieves the
Nation's legal obligation to fully pay CSC without imposing any
corresponding reduction in direct services to any Tribe. We also
continue to request to fully fund CSC on a mandatory basis in fiscal
year 2019-2021 and make it a permanent, indefinite appropriation.
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Background
The Lower Elwha Indian Reservation is located at the mouth of the
Elwha River along the Strait of Juan de Fuca on the northern Olympic
Peninsula, about 8 miles west of the City of Port Angeles, Washington.
The Lower Elwha Tribe has roughly 1,000 members and a total land base--
Reservation and adjacent trust lands--of about 1,000 acres. We are a
salmon people with fishing rights in a large expanse of marine and
fresh waters, reserved in the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point. To date,
our economic development opportunities have been limited and we believe
our long-term prospects are tied to natural resources restoration and
preservation in an ecologically rich region where an extraction-based
economy is well past its prime.
lower elwha tribal-specific funding requests
$5.43 Million--Bureau of Indian Affairs
1. $4.972 Million--Dam Removal and Fisheries Restoration.--We were
the leading advocate for the removal of the two hydro-electric dams on
the Elwha River. In accordance with Congress's direction in the Elwha
River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992 (Elwha Act),
Public Law 102-495, we are working closely with the National Park
Service and other agencies to remove the last remnants of the dams and
restore the once famously abundant runs of native Elwha River salmon
and steelhead. Unfortunately, removal of the dams caused a short-term
threat to the salmon runs (due to sediment released from behind the
former dams) and has adversely impacted our small Tribal land base and
our Tribal budgets. We are strongly committed to the restoration of
fisheries, fish habitat, streams and rivers, and the Port Angeles
Harbor. We urgently need increased Self-Governance funds to support the
operation of dam removal mitigation and restoration features and to
revive our other Self-Governance activities from which we have been
forced to transfer funds to support dam removal mitigation.
a. $702,000--Salmon Hatchery O&M Costs.--Fish Hatchery
Operations Budget for the ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M) of
our state-of-the-art hatchery, which went online in 2011. This is a
significant increase of $601,929 annually, but one that is amply
justified by the crucial role that our hatchery serves in dam removal
and fishery restoration. Our hatchery is a genetic preserve for native
Elwha salmonids, which have been on the verge of extirpation from the
impacts of the dams and which have been further threatened by the
enormous sediment load unleashed by the removal of the dams. The
National Marine Fisheries Service would not have approved dam removal
under the Endangered Species Act without the hatchery's native salmonid
programs. The Tribe should not have to bear the O&M cost of this
important restoration facility that in fact benefits the entire region.
b. $270,000--Flood Control Levee O&M Costs.--The levee on our
lands had to be expanded prior to dam removal in order to protect
Tribal lands from the newly unleashed Elwha River and to conform to new
Federal standards--clearly it is a mitigation feature of the dam
removal project. In the 1992 Elwha Act, Congress intended that courts
not be asked to address problems where legislative solutions would be
far more effective in covering all the bases. Twenty-five years of
inflation since 1992 more than justifies this increase in the current
annual operations allocation of $10,400.
c. $4 million for Land Acquisition.--Section 7(b) of the Elwha
Act authorized $4 million so that the Secretary could acquire trust
lands for the Tribe in Reservation status in Clallam County,
Washington, for economic development and housing. But those funds have
never been appropriated. In 1934, an Interior Department report
concluded that the Reservation should be 4,000 acres, but currently we
have only 1,000 acres, several hundred of which (on the river's side of
the levee) have to be maintained in undeveloped status as floodplain
habitat. In addition, we need legislative direction to ensure that
former hydro-project lands are transferred to the Tribe as contemplated
in Section 3(c)(3) of the Elwha Act. The Elwha people have struggled
for a century from the harm to their culture and economies caused by
the Elwha River dams. We had to endure the destruction of not only the
fisheries but the treaty fishers themselves and the attendant loss of
our traditional and cultural livelihood; we have lost an opportunity--
which will only return after another generation--to teach our children
the ways of their ancestors and the Elwha life as designed by the
Creator.
2. $267,000--Funding for Tribal Court Enhancement and to Implement
TLOA and VAWA.--Consistent with the Interior Department's and Tribe's
high priority on Tribal Court enhancement, Lower Elwha has made
progress in adopting the enhanced sentencing provisions authorized by
the 2010 Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) and in particular the expanded
Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction under the 2013 Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA). In the past year we have finally retained the first
in-house Chief Judge in the Tribe's history and are making progress on
upgrading our Court's organization and caseload. But our efforts will
be limited due to the lack of adequate base funding for Court
development. Requested funding will enable our Tribe to further our
progress by providing for: (a) mandatory criminal defense counsel
(including basic legal assistance for domestic violence victims); (b)
legal counsel for parents in abuse/neglect cases; (c) detention
services; (d) probation services that focus on solutions and
restorative justice by sharing coordinated case management and re-entry
referrals; and (e) basic court security. Full funding for TLOA-mandated
provisions and increased base funding for our Tribal Court will enable
Elwha to benefit from: BIA regional assessments using Trial Court
Program Standards; specific technical assistance and training
identified through these assessments; targeted training for specific
Tribal court personnel (judges, prosecutors, public defenders, clerks);
development of Tribal Court bench books; identification of funding
sources for pilot programs; and captured data covering criminal pre-
trial to post-conviction matters, including any collateral civil legal
issues.
3. $191,000--Funding for ICW-related services from BIA's Tiwahe
(Family) Initiative.--Lower Elwha faces a community crisis with the
increasing number of child abuse/neglect cases, which stem from
inordinately high rates of drug/substance abuse by parents or
caregivers. This crisis severely impacts services in all facets of
Tribal government. A coordinated community response must be based on
multi-disciplinary, culturally informed case planning and service
delivery, coupled with a strong commitment to restorative justice
ideals and (in criminal cases) solutions-based sentencing. A major
obstacle to implementing this approach is our lack of infrastructure to
assume jurisdiction over all local cases clearly arising under the
Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA); 65 percent of our current ICWA cases
remain in the State court system (a deceptively low percentage due to
reduced State court filings resulting from staff turnover). In
addition, because we are dependent on an inadequate State system for
licensing foster care providers, we are often unable to make proper
placements to assist our families. For the past three fiscal years, the
Tribe's base Federal funding (BIA Self-Governance ICWA) has remained
flat-lined at a mere $45,000. We seek $191,000 additional annual
funding from the BIA's Tiwahe (Family) Initiative, which would enable
the Tribe to assert jurisdiction in its own court system over all cases
arising under the ICWA and to become a licensing agency for foster
homes.
Indian Health Service Elwha Tribal-Specific Funding Requests--$500,000
for Elwha Health Department Programs
The drug abuse and mental health crisis threatens to destroy the
potential and the cultural connections of many Tribal members and
families. In fiscal year 2016, the Tribe's Mental Health and Chemical
Dependency programs served 275 American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN)
patients, with the potential to reach approximately 1,500 within
Clallam and Jefferson County. The Tribe currently subsidizes its
chemical dependency program with third-party revenue and gaming revenue
to fund prevention health initiatives and chemical dependency programs,
yet these critical health epidemics remain severely underfunded. To
remedy this, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services formula must
be expanded to inpatient chemical dependency treatment programs at the
current encounter rate of $391/per day, with annual increases.
Environmental Protection Agency Elwha Tribal-Specific Funding
Requests--$536,000 for Elwha Tribal Environmental Programs:
General Assistance Grant, $125,000; Clean Water Act Sec. 106
Grant, $81,000; Puget Sound Partnership (``PSP'')
Implementation Grant, $180,000; and PSP Tribal Capacity Grant:
$150,000.
Lower Elwha's environmental programs have, over the past two
decades, developed a strong pragmatic capability to protect human and
basic environmental health for not only the Tribal community but also
the greater Port Angeles and northern Olympic Peninsula communities. By
focusing on collaboration with local governments and other
stakeholders, we have maximized the efficiency of our small but skilled
staff. This would not be possible without the basic EPA funding that we
seek to continue. This funding supports: basic staff salaries,
including for our highly experienced program director (General
Assistance Grant); water quality monitoring in significant local rivers
and lakes (Clean Water Act Sec. 106 Grant); implementation of crucial
in-the-field projects consistent with the PSP's Action Agenda (PSP
Implementation Grant); Tribal participation and influence in local,
State, and Federal environmental planning and review activities
(General Assistance and PSP Tribal Capacity Grants). PSP Implementation
funding has enabled the Tribe to complete numerous stream restoration
projects that support the PSP Action Agenda. EPA funding is critical to
our participation in the cleanup of toxic contamination of Port Angeles
Harbor, which was nominated for Superfund listing but deferred to State
cleanup authority; under this deferral arrangement, the Tribe has a
unique and important role as the sole local representative working
directly with the responsible State agency to ensure that the cleanup
will protect the health of all residents of the greater Port Angeles
area.
Regional and National Budget Requests
The Tribe supports the fiscal year 2019 Regional Budget Priorities
of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Indians, and the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board,
and also the fiscal year 2019 National Budget Priorities of the
National Congress of American Indians and National Indian Health Board.
______
Maintaining Effective Funding Levels for Essential Wildfire Risk
Reduction and Protection Programs at the USDA Forest Service and the
Department of the Interior deg.
Prepared Statement of Supporters for Maintaining Effective Funding
Levels for Essential Wildfire Risk Reduction and Protection Programs at
the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior
Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
The undersigned organizations are writing to express our strong
support for maintaining effective funding levels in the fiscal year
2019 appropriations process for essential wildfire risk reduction and
protection programs at the USDA Forest Service (USFS) and the
Department of the Interior (DOI). The important work accomplished
through the State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire Assistance
programs help decrease total Federal emergency wildfire suppression
costs and reduce the threat of fire to people, communities, and both
public and private lands.
America's forests and forest-dependent communities are at risk from
outbreaks of pests and pathogens, persistent drought, and the buildup
of hazardous fuels. Urbanization and development patterns are placing
more homes and communities near fire-prone landscapes, leading to more
destructive and costly wildfires, like those that burned more than 10
million acres in 2017 alone.
We thank you for your leadership in developing and securing a long-
term wildland fire funding solution which will ensure that the USFS has
the funding needed for both routine activities to local and State
wildland fire preparedness and mitigation efforts as well as engage in
emergency wildland fire suppression activities. This long-held goal of
our organizations would not have been realized without your leadership
and the work of this Committee. Additionally, our organizations thank
you for providing additional funding to support the USFS until this
fire funding fix takes effect in fiscal year 2020. We encourage you to
continue providing this strong funding level to the USFS at least until
the recently enacted fire funding fix takes effect in fiscal year 2020.
The fiscal year 2019 appropriations bill can provide for both
necessary wildland fire suppression and fire risk reduction activities
that reduce firefighting costs in the long run. We appreciate this
Committee's continued support for the State Fire Assistance program and
the Volunteer Fire Assistance program and encourage you to continue
providing strong funding for these important programs.
State Fire Assistance (SFA) is the fundamental Federal mechanism
for assisting States and local fire departments in responding to
wildland fires and in conducting management activities that mitigate
fire risk on non-Federal lands. The program helps train State and local
first responders who are often first to arrive at a wildland fire
incident, as well as equip them with the tools they need to put
wildfires out in efficiently and safely.
For example, in fiscal year 2017, SFA directly funded hazardous
fuel treatments on 83,845 acres (with another 92,276 acres treated with
leveraged funding from partners) and provided assistance to communities
around the country, supporting 4,581 risk assessment and fire
management planning projects in more than 3,100 communities.
Additionally, between 2008 and 2012, the program helped deliver more
than $150 million annually in equipment for use by State and local
first responders.
The localized support provided by SFA is crucial because most
wildfires (80 percent during 2017) burn within State and local fire
department jurisdictions. Even when it comes to wildfires on Federal
lands, SFA-supported crews and engines are often the first to respond.
Our organizations are grateful for the Committee's decision to
increase SFA funding to $80 million in fiscal year 2018. However,
additional modest increases in SFA funding can help expand wildland
fire preparedness and mitigation efforts and support State forestry
agencies in repurposing equipment through the Federal Excess Personal
Property and the Firefighter Property programs. In fiscal year 2019, we
urge you to provide $87 million for the State Fire Assistance program.
The Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) program provides support to
rural communities and is critical to ensuring adequate capacity to
respond to wildfires, reducing the risk to communities, people, homes
and property, and firefighters. This capacity is critical because these
State and local resources are the first responders to more than 80
percent of wildland fires--whether on State, Federal or private lands.
According to the Forest Service, during fiscal year 2017, the VFA
program helped provide assistance to 8,821 communities, train 17,140
firefighters, expanded or organize 61 fire departments, and purchase,
rehabilitate, or maintain nearly $9 million in equipment.
Our organizations greatly appreciate the Committee's work to
increase VFA funding to $16 million in fiscal year 2018. In fiscal year
2019, we urge you to provide no less than $16 million for the Volunteer
Fire Assistance Program.
We appreciate the difficult task the Committee faces in the current
budget climate. It is important to remember, however, that these vital
programs safeguard human life, habitat, and property, and reduce the
overall cost of wildland fire management. Accordingly, we urge you to
support funding for these critical programs.
Thank you for your consideration of this important request.
Sincerely,
National Association of State Foresters
National Volunteer Fire Council
International Association of Fire Chiefs
______
Prepared Statement of the Maniilaq Association
Summary. The Maniilaq Association is an Alaska Native Tribal
organization representing 12 Tribes in Northwest Alaska. We provide
health, social, and Tribal government services through self-governance
agreements with the Indian Health Service (IHS) and Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (``ISDEAA"; Public Law 92-638). We make the following
recommendations regarding fiscal year 2019 IHS and BIA funding:
--Reject the IHS proposal to amend the law in order to avoid full
compensation for leases under section 105(l) of the ISDEAA.
--Ensure that Contract Support Costs are permanent, mandatory funding
with no provisos on indefinite CSC funding that conflict with
the carryover funding authority provided by the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act.
--Provide advance appropriations for IHS, just like the Veterans
Administration.
--Keep the Special Diabetes Program for Indians as mandatory funding.
--Support transfers of funds from HHS to IHS address the opioid
epidemic.
--Support ending the cap on Federal Communications Commission
Universal Service Administrative Company Rural Health Care
Program telecommunications connectivity subsidies.
--Reject any fiscal year 2018 proposed rescissions to Indian
Programs.
105(l) clinic leases
We are concerned by the administration's proposed request to amend
the law in order to avoid full compensation for leases under section
105(l) of the ISDEAA. The proposed bill language in the IHS
Administrative provisions is designed to overrule the decision in
Maniilaq Association v. Burwell, 170 F. sup. 3d 243 (D.D.C. 2016) which
held that section 105(l) of the ISDEAA provides an entitlement to full
compensation for leases of Tribal facilities used to carry out ISDEAA
agreements. The proposed language would exclude section 105(l) of the
ISDEAA as a source of entitlement to funding for section 105(l) leases,
leaving it entirely within the discretion of the IHS. Tribes and Tribal
organizations increasingly rely on section 105(l) leases to address
chronically underfunded facilities operation, maintenance, and
replacement costs. Congress declined to include such a provision in the
fiscal year 2018 IHS appropriation bill and we ask that you treat this
year's repeat proposal the same way.
contract support costs
We greatly appreciate the House and Senate Interior Appropriations
Subcommittees' work over the past several years in making a reality the
full payment of Contract Support Costs CSC by both the IHS and the BIA.
We are also very pleased that the administration--both the current and
the previous one--has followed suit and requested that CSC be
maintained as a separate appropriations account in IHS and in BIA and
with an indefinite funding of ``such sums as may be necessary''. This
action has, for example, helped to ensure that CSC would be fully
funded without having to reprogram funding for critical healthcare
services and other programmatic funding to cover the CSC need and has
been crucial to the strengthening of Tribal governments' ability to
successfully exercise their rights and responsibilities as governments.
Thus, Maniilaq continues to believe that the indefinite appropriation
of CSC funding must be made mandatory and permanent.
In both the fiscal year 2017 and 2018 Appropriations Acts, however,
the administrations proposed to reinstate provisions from the fiscal
year 2016 Appropriations Act for IHS which are contrary to the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act with regard to CSC. The
first is the ``carryover'' clause that could be read to deny the CSC
carryover authority granted by the ISDEAA; the other is the
``notwithstanding'' clause used by IHS to deny CSC for their grant
programs--Domestic Violence Prevention; Substance Abuse and Suicide
Prevention; Zero Suicide Initiative; after-care pilot projects at Youth
Regional Treatment Centers; funding for the improvement of third party
collections; and accreditation emergencies. We are grateful that the
subcommittees have rejected these two proposals in the past and ask
that you continue to do so.
ihs advance appropriations
We ask for your support in placing the budget for the IHS on an
advance appropriations basis. Under advance appropriations we would
know a year in advance what the budget would be and importantly, would
not continue to be constrained by the start and stop level funding of
Continuing Resolutions (CRs), each of which requires the same
processing and manpower for each partial payment as one full
apportionment. For example, over the past several fiscal periods,
appropriations have been enacted well after the beginning of the
Federal fiscal year: nearly 6 months in fiscal year 2018, 7 months in
fiscal year 2017, 2.5 months in both fiscal years 2016 and 2015, 3.5
months in fiscal year 2014, and 6 months in fiscal year 2013. Following
enactment, it then takes a few months before funds are cleared through
the Office of Management and Budget, allocated to the IHS Area Offices,
and then finally provided to the Tribes and Tribal organizations.
Both the Tribal and IHS programs suffer under this situation. We
need to be able to do the best job possible in planning, decisionmaking
and administering programs, but we are impeded in our ability to do so
because we do not know how much funding will be made available or when
we will receive it. This uncertainty requires us to constantly re-work
our budget and delay recruiting and hiring decisions, when we should be
devoted to providing the best health services possible. These delays
also ultimately cost us more money, since we are not able to take full
advantage of buying items in bulk for lower cost, such as our heating
fuel. Additionally, this fiscal uncertainty makes it incredibly
difficult to plan capital improvement projects that are required to
continue to provide quality services to our patients.
Even if CRs had not become the norm, having advance notice of
funding levels would aid greatly in our health programs planning,
recruitment, retention, and leveraging of funds. Finally, we note again
that the Veterans Health Administration accounts have been receiving
advance appropriations since fiscal year 2010. Both the VA and the IHS
provide direct medical care and both are the result of Federal
policies. We ask that the IHS budget be afforded the same budget status
consideration as the VA medical programs.
special diabetes program for indians (sdpi)
SDPI is a vital resource that has directly helped reduce the
diabetes epidemic in Indian Country. That is why we were perplexed when
the administration proposed, with no real explanation of why, that a
number of health programs' funding, including SDPI, be changed from a
mandatory to a discretionary status. We are concerned that if such a
change were to be made, it could lead to a reduction in funding for
this critical program. While the fiscal year 2019 administration's
proposal is for level funding of $150 million for SDPI in discretionary
funding in the IHS budget, that would not shield it from reductions in
future years or the uncertainty of Continuing Resolutions. We
understand if the administration's proposal were to be approved, these
discretionary funds would have to come out of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittees' 302(b) allocations. We note that SDPI is
currently funded through fiscal year 2019. We hope that SDPI can be
made permanent at an increased funding level of $200 million or higher.
opioid epidemic
We are pleased that the administration has proposed $150 million
pass-through of funding from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration to the IHS for the purpose of addressing the
opioid epidemic. Indian Country has been hit especially hard by this
disaster. As has been widely reported, Tribes have experienced the
largest percentage increase of deaths from opioid abuse from 1999-2015
of any other population in the Nation--519 percent. We understand that
in anticipation that Congress will approve this important proposal, the
IHS is considering the use of a funding distribution system that is
similar to the one employed by the Special Diabetes Program for Indians
whereby Tribes and Tribal organizations receive multi-year funding
based on need and submission of eligible applications. We understand
that IHS also intends to consult with Tribes regarding the distribution
of these proposed funds and has been in discussion with other Federal
agencies who are also funding initiatives to address the opioid
epidemic.
subsidies for telecommunications connectivity
Maniilaq understands that the subcommittees do not directly control
funding subsidies under the Federal Communications Commission and
Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). However, the USAC
recently implemented a pro-rata reduction in Rural Health Care funding
that subsidizes the extremely high costs of telecommunications and
Internet connectivity in Alaska, which is critical to our being able to
provide healthcare services. The funding cap has resulted in a reported
$50 million in cuts nationally, and an $18.1 million unplanned
shortfall for connectivity in Alaska--just for this year for Tribal
health programs in Alaska. We are being told to expect more than twice
that impact next year, which could exceed $35 million for Alaska Tribal
health programs. We need Internet connectivity in order to provide
health services, including telecommunications services and care
coordination. We thus request the subcommittees' support for
eliminating the cap and reinstating the full USAC subsidies to Tribal
health programs throughout the State of Alaska.
reject any fiscal year 2018 proposed rescissions
We have heard the talk of possible fiscal year 2018 rescissions and
must object to that. After this year's enactment of the Bipartisan
Budget Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, it would be
outrageous to break these congressional budget agreements and to
interrupt the planning that is taking place among Tribes and Tribal
organizations (and others) with regard to facilities, staffing, and
services. We are grateful for the increases in the IHS and BIA fiscal
year 2018 budgets made possible by those Acts, increases that should be
maintained in the fiscal year 2019 appropriations bills.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to provide appropriations testimony
on these critical programs. We deeply appreciate the work of the
subcommittees and the bipartisan commitment to listening to Tribal
priorities.
[This statement was submitted by Tim Gilbert, President and CEO.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Metlakatla Indian Community
The requests of the Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) for the
fiscal year 2019 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies budget are
as follows:
--Create a new category within the BIA Construction budget for
Electrical Transmission and Telecommunications project
construction, of which $11.5 million is needed to complete the
intertie between Annette Island Reserve, Alaska and neighboring
Ketchikan, Alaska.
--Continue strong funding for the BIA Safety of Dams (SOD) program
within the BIA Resources Management Construction budget, of
which $1 million is needed to address the hazard mitigation
needs and initial planning phases for improvements at Chester
Lake Dam on Annette Island Reserve.
--Continue strong funding for Tribal hatcheries under the Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks sub-activity within the BIA Trust-Natural
Resources Management budget.
--Increase appropriations to support the ongoing implementation of
the U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty under both the BIA Trust-
Natural Resources Rights Protection Implementation sub-activity
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Pacific Marine
Fisheries Commission.
--Continue strong funding for Tribal courts in Public Law 83-280
States under the BIA Public Safety and Justice Law Enforcement-
Tribal Justice Support program element.
--Ensure that there is full and mandatory funding for Contract
Support Costs (CSC).
--Appropriate additional funding for Village Built Clinics and reject
the IHS proposals to limit 105(l) Clinic Leases.
--Support IHS Advance Appropriations--just like what the VA has.
--Shield IHS funding from sequestration--just like how VA funding is
shielded.
--Reject any proposed fiscal year 2018 Rescissions for Indian
programs.
The Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) is located on the Annette
Island Reserve in southeast Alaska, a land base of 87,000 acres which
includes significant fish and forestry resources. Through our Annette
Island Service Unit we provide primary health services at our
outpatient facility through funding from the IHS as a co-signer to the
Alaska Tribal Health Compact under the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act. We are currently experiencing an ongoing,
community-wide emergency: the lakes on which our island community
depends on for drinking water and hydropower have reached dangerously
low levels resulting in intermittent blackouts and our increased
reliance on back up diesel power. The extent of this emergency and our
proposal for relief are described below.
create an electrical transmission and telecommunications category under
bia construction
We are currently experiencing an ongoing, community-wide emergency:
because of changing weather patterns and decreased snowfall, the lakes
on which our island community depends on for community drinking water
and hydropower (Chester Lake and Purple Lake) have reached dangerously
low levels resulting in intermittent blackouts, our increased reliance
on dirty and unaffordable back up diesel power and uncertainty for our
community's main employer who provides jobs that we absolutely cannot
afford to lose. Over the past decades, we in partnership with several
different Federal agencies have successfully invested millions of
dollars in energy generation and transmission infrastructure through a
combination of loans to the community and a few small grants. Right
now, we need $11.5 million to run an undersea cable to finally complete
the last portion of this intertie which will link our community with
neighboring Ketchikan. The completion of this intertie will allow us to
buy and sell affordable hydropower back and forth with Ketchikan as
lake levels change and it will allow our community will finally access
business-grade Internet speeds beyond the antiquated microwave
technology on which we currently rely. All of our studies are done, all
of our permits are complete. This project would absolutely transform
our community but with 80 percent seasonal unemployment in our
community, our ratepayers simply cannot afford for Metlakatla Power and
Light (our utility company) to take on an $11.5 million loan--even at
the very low Federal interest rates available today.
To be clear, we do not need technical assistance or planning funds
at this stage. We need on the ground construction funds to finally
complete the very last portion of this critical project. We have been
to every single Federal and State agency and office and every non-
profit that we can think of. Unfortunately, while everyone very much
wants to help us, no one actually has the construction money to do so.
We do not believe that we are the only Tribe in this position. Year
after year, studies and planning documents pile up across Indian
Country raising hopes, only for Tribes to find that construction
priority lists are years long, require a substantial non-Federal match
or come in the form of ``financing'' for communities who already have
very little money to begin with. As you may remember, when Recovery Act
funding was appropriated, Indian Country was immediately ready with a
list of shovel-ready projects a mile long. We would particularly like
to thank these subcommittees for recognizing this and substantially
increasing appropriations for BIA Construction in fiscal years 2017 and
2018. This is why in fiscal year 2019, we are proposing the creation of
a new Electrical Transmission and Telecommunications category within
the BIA Construction budget. We are here, we are ready and there is a
tremendous pent up need for these vital projects in all of our
communities.
bia safety of dams funding for chester lake dam
Once again, we would like to thank the subcommittees for increasing
funding in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 for construction, particularly
for Resources Management Construction. Chester Lake is our sole
municipal water supply, so maintaining this reservoir is essential to
the survival of the Tribe. Measures to secure and improve this water
supply are a high priority to Tribal leaders. It is this consideration
that led the Emergency Preparedness Task Force to enforce the cessation
of hydropower operations from Chester Lake during the extremely low
water period from July to September in 2016.
This had the effect of making the Tribe rely more heavily on diesel
power generation and the Purple Lake Dam. The BIA Safety of Dams
Downstream Hazard Classification Study 2016 was performed in summer
2016 to determine if the dam's hazard classification needed to be re-
evaluated and to begin potential work to make improvements to this
reservoir.
This process is part of the oversight provided by BIA SOD to ensure
the safety of dams in Indian Country. In March 2017, SOD informed MIC
that the Chester Lake Dam qualified to have its hazard classification
upgraded from low to high hazard, thereby requiring additional
comprehensive evaluation of the Dam, its status and steps to take to
prevent any kind of an emergency or hazard to the community health and
wellness.
The MIC has determined, through this process, that $1 million in
infrastructure funding is necessary to make safety improvements at
Chester Lake Dam, as well as carry out necessary planning and studies
for expansion of the dam's storage and hydropower production capacity.
The total cost of this project will be approximately $12 million, but
the initial funding will allow for immediate safety measures to be
implemented to protect the drinking water supply while planning for the
Phase 2 improvements that will increase not only water storage capacity
but also expanded hydropower production from Chester Lake Dam.
tribal hatcheries
We deeply appreciate the increase for the Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
sub-activity within the BIA Trust-Natural Resources Management budget
and are asking the subcommittees to continue this increased funding
level for fiscal year 2019. MIC now receives hatchery funds from this
sub-activity. Our new hatchery is now online and is expected to produce
roughly 40 million more chum fry for the Northwest Region this year.
Over the next 5 years, it is expected to produce 100 million more per
year.
u.s./canada pacific salmon treaty
Pacific salmon migrate through a broad geographic range that
includes rivers, streams and the coastal waters of both the United
States and Canada. Recognizing this reality, the Pacific Salmon Treaty
was negotiated between the U.S. and Canada in 1985 to prevent
overfishing and provide optimum production and fair sharing of the
salmon harvest. In the U.S., salmon fisheries governed by the Treaty
provide nearly 27,000 full time jobs and add nearly $2 billion annually
to the gross domestic product. Funding to carry out different elements
of the Treaty is appropriated through the Departments of Interior,
State and Commerce. In the Department of Interior's budget, this
funding is appropriated through the BIA Trust-Natural Resources Rights
Protection Implementation sub-activity and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission. We would like to thank
the subcommittees for rejecting the administration's request to
substantially cut funding for the Rights Protection Implementation sub-
activity in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 and ask that you once again
protect this sub-activity in fiscal year 2019 and if possible, increase
funding for it.
tribal court assistance for tribes subject to public law 83-280
We deeply appreciate the much-needed support for Tribes who are
affected by Public Law 83-280 and who are striving to serve their
communities with competent and appropriate judiciary systems. We are
grateful for both the increased appropriations directed to the BIA
Public Safety and Justice Law Enforcement-Tribal Justice Support
program element and the helpful report language provided in fiscal
years 2017 and 2018.
We ask that the subcommittees continue to include Public Law 280-
specific funding under this program element and continue to direct the
BIA to ``continue to work with Tribes and Tribal organizations in these
States to consider options that promote, design, or pilot Tribal court
systems for Tribal communities subject to full or partial State
jurisdiction under Public Law 83-280.''
support for overarching priorities for indian country
We would like to associate ourselves with Tribal testimony calling
for:
--Full and mandatory funding for Contract Support Costs (CSC).
--Additional funding for Village Built Clinics and a rejection of the
IHS proposals to limit 105(l) Clinic Leases.
--Support for IHS Advance Appropriations--just like what the VA has.
--Shielding IHS funding from sequestration--just like how VA funding
is shielded.
--Rejecting any proposed fiscal year 2018 Rescissions for Indian
programs.
conclusion
We are glad to provide any additional information you may request.
Thank you for your consideration of the concerns and requests of the
Metlakatla Indian Community.
[This statement was submitted by William Wilson, Tribal
Councilmember.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Minerals Science and Information Coalition
On behalf of the undersigned members of the Minerals Science and
Information Coalition, thank you for the opportunity to submit a
written statement to the record on fiscal year 2019 appropriations
related to the Mineral Resources Program within the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS).
The Minerals Science and Information Coalition (``MSIC'' or ``the
Coalition'') is a broad-based alliance of minerals and materials
interests united in advocating for reinvigorated minerals science and
information functions in the Federal Government. The Coalition is
comprised of trade associations, scientific and professional societies,
groups representing the extractive industries, processors,
manufacturers, other mineral and material supply-chain users, and other
consumers of Federal minerals science and information.
MSIC supports the President's request for $58 million for the U.S.
Geological Survey's Mineral Resources Program for fiscal year 2019 and
commends the maintenance of funding levels for minerals science in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018.
Every sector of industry relies on a variety of minerals to
generate their end products, making a stable and reliable supply of
minerals vital for the continued growth and success of our economy.
Minerals are critical ingredients in specialized applications for
national defense and energy technologies, as well as essential building
blocks for buildings, roads and civic infrastructure projects. They are
used in the manufacture of paper, glass, ceramics, plastics, refined
metals, and a host of intermediary materials. These minerals and
materials are vital for manufacturing products that define our daily
lives including automobiles, mobile phones, and computers. Whether
acting as the raw materials for manufacturing processes or as the end
products themselves, minerals are part of daily life in virtually every
product we use.
A stable and reliable mineral supply chain is critical for the
continued growth and success of our economy. Supply chains can be long,
complex, and vulnerable to disruption for many reasons. The
restrictions in the supply of rare Earth elements, for example,
threaten the production of components essential for U.S. defense
systems, in addition to a vast array of communications, clean energy,
electronics, automotive, and medical products. Understanding both our
domestic mineral resources and the greater supply chain is imperative
as our reliance on foreign imports continues to grow. MSIC is pleased
to note the commitment by the administration and Secretary Zinke to
invest in the Mineral Resources Program (MRP) at USGS, as seen through
the Executive and Secretarial orders on Critical Minerals and the
fiscal year 2018-2019 funding requests. The Coalition is supportive of
the funding requests and increased awareness of the importance of
minerals science and information.
usgs mineral resources program
The Minerals Science and Information Coalition supports the
prioritization of USGS's Mineral Resources Program as it is vitally
important to our national defense and economic well-being. The Nation's
manufacturing, pharmaceutical, and agricultural sectors rely on
impartial information from the Federal Government to build stable
supply chains. The MRP assists decision-makers in making informed
choices by providing reliable, accurate information about the location,
quantity, and quality of mineral resources. This information is the
foundation for identifying and anticipating existing and emerging
vulnerabilities: it is paramount for sound decisionmaking by business
leaders and policymakers.
This includes USGS's development of the Three Dimensional mapping
and Economic Empowerment Program (3DEEP), to improve the topographic,
geological, and geophysical mapping of the United States. Programs such
as 3DEEP create a strong scientific foundation for understanding our
resources and allow for the development of longterm, proactive public
policies.
Equally important to current supply chain studies, the minerals
science conducted by MRP covers the full life cycle of minerals, from
the discovery of mineral deposits to the disposal of mineral products,
including understanding how mineral deposits are formed, the nature and
location of mineral deposits, and the environmental issues associated
with responsible mineral extraction and land restoration. The MRP has a
long and distinguished history of research and assessment of our
Nation's mineral resources, from production through life cycle. The
holistic understanding of minerals science allows us to balance our use
and maximize the value of our natural resources.
The National Minerals Information Center (NMIC), within MRP, is the
premier source of information on the worldwide supply of, demand for,
and flow of minerals and materials. The NMIC's consistency and
reliability of data over decades are its greatest strengths. NMIC's
data and products are used throughout the Federal Government to support
economic, national security, and land use decisionmaking. NMIC's data
is also critical to private sector investment and financial
institutions. Due to our expanding use of a range of critical and
strategic mineral commodities that are essential to our defense,
economy, and wellbeing, the Mineral Science and Information Coalition
applauds the administration's commitment to funding minerals science.
The fiscal year 2019 funding request will help guarantee NMIC receives
the resources needed to develop and maintain a robust forecasting
function for the minerals sector.
The Mineral Science and Information Coalition encourages you to
fund these programs at the requested levels and thanks you for
understanding and valuing the role USGS and minerals science,
specifically the Minerals Resource Program and National Minerals
Information Center, play in our economic and national security.
American Chemical Society
American Geosciences Institute
American Exploration & Mining Association
American Physical Society
Association of American State Geologists
Industrial Minerals Association--North America
National Industrial Sand Association
National Mining Association
National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association
Society of Economic Geologists, Inc
If you would like any additional information for the record, please
contact Ariel Hill-Davis, Vice President, Industry and Regulatory
Affairs, Industrial Minerals Association--North America, 1200 18th St
NW, Suite 1150, Washington, D.C. 20036. [email protected]. 202-
457-0200.
[This statement was submitted by Mark Ellis, Chair.]
______
Prepared Statement of MountainPact1 deg.
______
Prepared Statement of MountainPact2 deg.
______
Prepared Statement of MountainPact3 deg.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
Programs
My name is Bob Scott and I serve as Director of the Division of
Abandoned Mine Lands within the Kentucky Department of Natural
Resources. I am providing this statement on behalf of the National
Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP), for which I
currently serve as President. NAAMLP represents 31 States and Tribes,
of which 28 implement federally approved abandoned mine land
reclamation (AML) programs authorized under Title IV of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA).
As you know, the 2006 amendments to Title IV of SMCRA 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 and based on current OSMRE projections, the
States and Tribes should receive $327.6 million (before sequestration)
in fiscal year 2019.
OSMRE's budget includes a discretionary funding request that would
provide $20.4 million, a decrease of $6.6 million from the previous
year. From this amount, OSMRE must meet the supplemental grant needs of
States operating at ``minimum program'' status (``minimum program make-
up funds''), as well as fund other activities and obligations including
the agency's own AML work, administration of the AML Fund, and other
activities in support of the AML program. While the amount provided
should be sufficient to cover minimum program funding needs,\1\ it
should be noted that the decrease might strain the agency's ability to
meet its other programmatic obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In fiscal year 2018 for example, 12 minimum program States
received minimum program make-up funds totaling approximately $18
million. It should be noted that other AML programs may become minimum
programs in the future requiring additional funds for this category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMCRA has been successful largely as a result of the cooperative
Federalism model that it employs. While the States and Tribes
understand and appreciate OSMRE's role in the AML program under SMCRA,
we caution against using limited OSMRE funding for unproductive ends,
for example OSMRE oversight that second-guesses State/Tribal
assessments or requires unnecessary levels of supplemental information
that does not advance program purposes. Rather than having OSMRE simply
engaging in more oversight, the States and Tribes would benefit from a
more collaborative relationship with OSMRE in completing the hard work
associated with these program requirements. Minimum program States are
particularly reliant on this type of support.
For example, we believe that funding for technical assistance and
applied science projects related to AML work is particularly important.
We also urge the subcommittee to maintain necessary funding for OSMRE's
training program and TIPS, including moneys for State/Tribal travel.
These programs are central to the effective implementation of State and
Tribal AML programs as they provide necessary training and continuing
education for State/Tribal agency personnel, as well as critical
technical assistance.
We also strongly support maintaining funding for the Watershed
Cooperative Agreements in the amount of $1.5 million, which is proposed
to be eliminated in OSMRE's 2019 budget request. This funding serves an
important role in facilitating State and local partnerships, thereby
helping to leverage outside sources of funding and preserve precious
reclamation grant funding.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Funding for these agreements will also potentially be a key
support for Good Samaritan programs and projects should Congress adopt
legislative language supporting Good Samaritan clean up activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMCC and NAAMLP strongly recommend an increase in annual funding
available to minimum program States. These States often have very
significant AML inventories but funding under the current grant
distribution formula is not enough to make efficient progress with
their AML inventories.\3\ In the interest of enabling these AML
programs to fulfill their potential, NAAMLP believes an increase in
minimum program funding to an annual grant amount of at least $5
million would be very beneficial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ At the current rate, some minimum program States have AML
inventories that would literally take hundreds of years to reclaim
completely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further to the goal of efficiency in the use of limited AML grant
funding, sequestration of AML grants under the Budget Control Act of
2013 is an increasing concern to the State and Tribal AML programs. In
fiscal year 2018, a sequestration reduction of 6.8 percent translated
to $21.2 million withheld for a total of approximately $118.6 million
withheld since 2013.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For minimum program States only receiving $3 million per year
the loss is especially problematic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAAMLP recommends that Congress consider the exemption of the AML
fund from sequestration a priority as it pursues legislative
initiatives related to AML, as the benefits are patent, and every
dollar of AML funding is needed. Because the AML fee is paid by the
coal mining industry for the exclusive purpose of AML remediation,
withholding that funding does not actually reduce the Federal budget
deficit. NAAMLP also recommends that the subcommittee explore
mechanisms to release the growing balance of withheld AML moneys
related to sequestration as part of the appropriations process.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ According to OSMRE, the specific amounts that have been
withheld from each State or Tribe are being held in the AML Fund and
are being tracked so that, once OSMRE has authority to distribute those
funds, they can be returned to the State and Tribal AML programs for
which they were originally intended. According to OSMRE, there is no
authority to distribute withheld funds unless provided by Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAAMLP also recommends attention be given to the way AML
emergencies are funded under Title IV. Responding to sudden emergencies
such as mine subsidence, blow-outs, sinkholes and landslides is one of
the AML programs' most important functions. Starting in 2010, OSMRE
instituted a policy whereby State and Tribal AML programs must fund AML
emergencies from their regular AML grants. This change has proven
problematic in that it diverts grant funding away from progress with
AML inventories.\6\ For minimum program States, a single emergency can
preempt a year of progress. NAAMLP recommends a return to the pre-2010
system wherein AML programs received reimbursement from the OSMRE
discretionary share for emergency projects. This will encourage
efficient progress with reclamation as well as ensure that the State
and Tribal AML programs are well equipped to fulfill their important
public safety role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This is a particular problem for minimum program States, who
can have entire years worth of progress with their limited annual grant
be preempted by a single emergency project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's recognition of the important role played by the AML
program is evidenced by the ongoing provision of AML Economic
Development Grant Pilot funds. The projects underway due to this pilot
program exhibit potential economic as well as safety and environmental
benefit, though the types of projects undertaken and benefits they hope
to achieve have varied significantly between the States. The pilot as
also served to inform potential future economic development-focused
reclamation efforts. NAAMLP therefore opposes the reduction of funding
for the pilot program in OSMRE's fiscal year 2019 proposed budget, and
notes that these grants are not redundant to regular AML grant funding;
pilot funding has a distinctly economically-focused purpose, whereas
regular AML grant funding is focused on human and environmental health.
While the pilot program has been generally successful so far, and
OSMRE's guidance documentation has been helpful, the States involved
with the pilot program recommend that OSMRE's project vetting process
could be more efficient. Several States are experiencing back ups as
they await project approvals from OSMRE for their pilot project
proposals, which could cause significant delays if construction seasons
are allowed to pass before projects can get underway. A degree of shift
in the direction of efficiency may aid the overall success of the
program at this juncture.
Beyond the coal sector, NAAMLP represents many States with
significant hardrock AML problems within their borders.\7\ In the
absence of a hardrock AML funding source comparable to Title IV funding
for coal AML, State and Tribal hardrock AML programs struggle to
maintain adequate funding and make consistent progress. There is no
comprehensive account of the scale of the hardrock AML problem, but it
is often cited as being in the tens of billions of dollars. In light of
the disparity between available funding and the scale of the problem,
NAAMLP is concerned with significant reduction to hardrock AML funding
contained in the BLM fiscal year 2019 proposed budget. The proposal for
BLM's hardrock AML program would combine the AML program with the
hazardous materials program, with the amount appropriated for the
combined program (approximately $13 million) being less than what was
previously provided just for AML (approximately $19 million). BLM
hardrock AML funding is one of very few resources available for
hardrock AML reclamation and water treatment. The majority of hardrock
AML problems occur on Federal lands, meaning that the BLM AML program
is the primary means of addressing public safety and environmental
impacts. What's more, BLM cooperates closely with the State and Tribal
AML programs to conduct this work, meaning that the cut to BLM funding
will have a cascading negative effect on the State- and Tribal-level
programs. NAAMLP therefore recommends that funding for BLM's hardrock
AML program be maintained at $15 million and the reduction to that
funding recommended in BLM's proposed fiscal year 2019 budget be
rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For example, Arizona alone estimates that they have in excess
of 50,000 hazardous historic-mining hazards. More information about
remaining AML reclamation costs and reclamation accomplishments can be
found in NAAMLP's 2018 Update of the ``Safeguarding, Reclaiming,
Restoring'' booklet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Returning to discussion of coal AML--with the AML fee on which the
Title IV program relies set to expire in 2021, NAAMLP has been in
engaged in serious discussions regarding the program's future. It is
clear that the continuing need for these programs is strong. The AML
pilot highlights the fact that AML work is especially important to the
struggling communities in Appalachia who have been hit hardest by
downturns in coal related employment--the mitigation of which has been
a congressional and administration priority in recent years. AML sites
endanger public health and safety, degrade the environment, and dampen
economic prospects, which severely constrains well-being and growth in
AML-impacted communities nationwide. AML programs have been contending
with these issues for 40 years or more and have learned much about the
true depth and scale of AML impacts over that time, as well as the
health and economic benefits these projects bring to nearby
communities.
Despite the progress that has been made, the time allotted to the
AML programs to restore impacts from more than two hundred years of
unregulated coal mining has simply not been adequate to complete that
mission by the time the AML fee expires in 2021. Current OSMRE
estimates project that over $10 billion in reclamation costs will
remain, and NAAMLP believes the true costs are significantly higher.
There can be little question that if the AML program is to complete its
mission, and if its fundamental contributions to living conditions and
economic circumstances in coalfield communities are to continue,
additional AML funding will be required beyond 2021. If the AML fee is
not reauthorized, consideration must be given to how the more than $10
billion in public liability represented by remaining coal AML costs
will be addressed.
Discussion around reauthorization of the AML program will soon come
to the forefront. At that time, important questions will be asked about
how much and what type of AML work is being accomplished and what types
of AML problems remain. It should be noted that the AML accomplishments
data furnished by OSMRE through its budget justifications document and
the e-AMLIS database represent only a selective portion of the work
that is being accomplished through AML grant funding. This is mainly
due to the fact that e-AMLIS only records construction costs and does
not include data on costs such as program administration, project
management, and most importantly, project design. NAAMLP has been
working with OSMRE to examine data related to the AML program and is in
the late stages of developing information to more accurately tell the
story of the AML program. As an example of what has so far been
produced by that effort, the NAAMLP 2017 Accomplishments report can be
found in the footnote below.\8\ The State and Tribal AML programs have
been in the lead role in conducting reclamation and tracking progress
for the last 40 years. We hope to work closely with the Committee as it
considers the future of the AML program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NAAMLP 2017 Accomplishments Report: http://www.naamlp.net/
memberinfo/NAAMLP
AccomplishmentReport2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement regarding
OSMRE's proposed budget for fiscal year 2019. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have or provide additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
On behalf of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
(NACAA), thank you for this opportunity to testify on the fiscal year
2019 proposed budget for the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), particularly grants to State and local air pollution
control agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
which are part of the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program.
NACAA recommends that Congress increase State and local air grants by
$75 million above fiscal year 2018 levels (i.e., approximately $151
million above the administration's request), for a total of $303
million. This level of Federal support is calibrated to the scope and
complexity of the Federal requirements State and local agencies must
meet to assume or continue implementation responsibilities. NACAA
opposes the administration's proposal to cut State and local air
quality grants by 33 percent (from $228 million in fiscal year 2018 to
$152 million in fiscal year 2019), which would be detrimental to the
public's health and welfare. Additionally, NACAA recommends that these
agencies be provided with flexibility to use the increased funds on the
highest priority programs in their areas. Finally, NACAA requests that
grants for fine particulate matter monitoring remain under CAA Section
103 authority, where matching funds are not required, rather than being
shifted to Section 105 authority.
NACAA is the national, non-partisan, non-profit association of 156
local and State air pollution control agencies in 41 States, the
District of Columbia and four territories. The members of NACAA have
the primary responsibility under the Clean Air Act for implementing our
Nation's clean air program. The air quality professionals in our member
agencies have vast experience dedicated to improving air quality in the
United States. These observations and recommendations are based upon
that experience. The views expressed in this testimony do not
necessarily represent the positions of every State and local air
pollution control agency in the country.
increases in federal grants to state and local air agencies are
essential
State and local air pollution control agencies have struggled with
insufficient resources for many years. NACAA members have faced the
hard choices and made the difficult decisions to address their budget
shortfalls. They have cut expenses, reduced staff, deployed Lean
efforts and explored organizational realignments to maximize
efficiencies in their programs. Addressing these funding shortfalls
while effectively meeting Federal requirements and implementing their
missions has been very challenging for these agencies.
State and local air agencies' responsibilities have continued to
grow while funding has lagged behind. Federal grants to State and local
air quality agencies were $228 million in fiscal year 2018, which is
the same amount these agencies received 14 years ago, in fiscal year
2004. If the fiscal year 2004 figure is adjusted for inflation, level
funding would translate to approximately $303 million in today's
dollars--a $75-million difference. NACAA's recommendation of $75
million above the fiscal year 2018 amount is merely suggesting level
funding from 14 years ago, adjusted for inflation.
Additional funds to adjust for inflation would support the
administration's approach of increased responsibilities for State and
local agencies as part of its emphasis on ``Cooperative Federalism.''
State and local air agencies are already underfunded and even now bear
a disproportionate share of the cost of the national air program. In
order to take on new clean-air efforts under Cooperative Federalism,
they would need additional Federal resources to support those
activities.
Increased funding would allow agencies to make investments that
will modernize and streamline their operations. It is critical that
funds are allocated to ensure State and local agencies can meet the
customer demands of automation through information technology (IT)
systems, digitization (reducing labor-intensive paper processes) and
mobility (ensuring digital collection of data in the field, e.g.,
compliance information). They could then improve services to the
regulated community and the public, such as timely and efficient permit
processing and streamlined regulatory operations and compliance
assistance, all of which are in demand by customers and contribute to
economic development. Such efforts can also enhance transparency and
create added pathways for public access to information.
State and local agencies also would use increased grants to
modernize their systems to keep pace with trends in the digital
economy, as well as for a variety of mission applications, especially
if they are provided with the flexibility to target grant increases for
the highest priority activities in their areas, as NACAA recommends.
These funds would be used to support their operations, equipment and
facilities. State and local air quality agencies are required to carry
out many essential activities to obtain and maintain healthful air
quality. These include not only new efforts, but also ongoing day-to-
day responsibilities that constitute the foundation or ``core'' of our
programs. Some of these core responsibilities for fiscal year 2019
include implementing the health-based national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for multiple pollutants, including developing and/or
revising State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for each of the NAAQS--
especially for ozone, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and
sulfur dioxide; implementing new and updated air toxics Risk and
Technology Review standards; addressing visibility and regional haze
problems; arming citizens with information to protect themselves during
catastrophic events (e.g., wildfires); and implementing motor vehicle
and related fuels programs.
Completing all of these actions is resource- and labor-intensive
and requires additional Federal grant funds. These tasks include
developing plans to bring areas from nonattainment into attainment; air
resource planning; compiling comprehensive emission inventories;
conducting complex modeling; analyzing extensive and complex data;
adopting regulations; providing compliance assistance; inspecting
facilities and enforcing regulations, as necessary; addressing
complicated air pollution transport matters; issuing small business
permits; and informing and involving the public in air quality
decisions and issues.
One other major responsibility that is a critical element of State
and local programs, and for which additional funds are needed, is the
operation of ambient air monitoring equipment and networks. Monitoring
is essential for determining the extent and location of air pollution
and assessing the effectiveness of planning, permitting and enforcement
programs. Additional funds will ensure that agencies can continue to
collect high-quality monitoring data, which regulators and the
regulated community agree is crucial, as well as enable regular
equipment replacement, as EPA requires in equipment-replacement plans.
While the smaller individual samplers and sensors appearing on the
market can provide helpful data, they are not a substitute for a robust
national ambient monitoring program that provides necessary and
quality-assured information for judicious decisionmaking by Federal,
State and local regulators and the regulated community.
grant cuts will severely impair state and local programs
In light of the critical need for increased grant funding, State
and local air agencies would find it difficult to accommodate any cuts
to Federal air quality grants. The cuts to State and local air quality
grants contemplated in the fiscal year 2019 budget proposal--
approximately 33 percent--would mean many State and local agencies
would not be able to fully implement the Federal requirements of the
CAA's health-based standards and deliver the healthful air the public
expects. Indeed, if Congress enacts the cuts being proposed for fiscal
year 2019, we fear more people will die prematurely and get sick
unnecessarily.
When grant reductions were proposed last year, NACAA surveyed State
and local air quality agencies to learn what a reduction of
approximately 30 percent in Federal air quality grants would mean to
their programs.\1\ In responding to the NACAA survey last year, agency
after agency painted a similar picture of severe curtailments to their
activities in the face of the proposed steep cuts: cancellation of
programs, loss of staff and a diminished capacity to obtain and
maintain clean air. Nearly every respondent reported that cuts of this
magnitude would severely reduce the essential services agencies
provide. These services are required not only by the general public,
with respect to decreasing air pollution, maintaining clean air and
generally protecting public health, but also by the regulated
community, who require quick, consistent and defensible permitting,
compliance assistance and other services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NACAA Report, Impacts of Proposed fiscal year 2018 Budget Cuts
on State and Local Air Quality Agencies (May 22, 2017), http://
www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/NACAAFundingReport-
fiscal year 2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, State and local air quality agencies reported that a
30-percent cut in grants could force them to turn some of their
important Clean Air Act implementation work back to the Federal
Government. This would be counter to the philosophy of Cooperative
Federalism, which is intended to place even greater reliance on State
and local air agencies.
Finally, without sufficient resources to carry out required
mandates, regions of the country could be sanctioned under the CAA,
including the withholding of significant Federal highway funds, severe
emissions ``off-set'' limits that could interfere with economic
development and the possibility of EPA imposing Federal Implementation
Plans on States.
air pollution is still a significant threat to human health in spite of
improvements
Great strides have been made in lessening air pollution in this
country. Yet, it remains a significant threat to human health and there
is still so much work to be done. Tens of thousands of people in this
country die prematurely each year and many others suffer serious health
problems as a result of exposure to air pollution. These health
complications include premature mortality, cancer, heart attack, stroke
and neurological and reproductive damage.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA Report Our Nation's Air: Status and Trends through 2016,
https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2017/#sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to EPA figures, about 120 million people in this country
(about 40 percent of the population) lived in counties that exceeded at
least one of the Federal health-based air pollution standards in
2015.\3\ With respect to hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), EPA's most
recent National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) indicates that in 2011
``all 285 million people in the U.S. ha[d] an increased cancer risk of
greater than 10 in one million,'' while one-half million people had an
increased risk of cancer of over 100 in a million, due to exposure to
HAPs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fiscal Year 2019 EPA Budget in Brief (February 2018), page 16,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/fy-2019-
epa-bib.pdf.
\4\ http://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/2011-nata-
assessment-results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Congress as a whole and this subcommittee specifically must
find funding for many serious problems, it is unlikely that any are a
greater threat to the health of Americans than air pollution. This
subcommittee has an opportunity and obligation to protect and improve
the health of millions of people in this country by providing adequate
Federal funding for State and local air pollution control programs.
nacaa recommends that monitoring grants remain under caa section 103
authority
The administration's recommended budget calls for EPA to shift
funds for PM2.5 monitoring from Section 103 authority, under
which State or local matching funds are not required, to Section 105,
which would require a match. NACAA recommends that these
PM2.5 monitoring grants remain under Section 103 authority.
If a State or local agency is unable to meet the matching requirements,
retaining the funds under Section 103 will ensure that they do not have
to refuse essential monitoring funds because they do not have the
resources for the match. In previous years, Congress has been
responsive to our requests on this issue, for which we are extremely
grateful, and NACAA recommends again that these grants remain under
Section 103 authority.
conclusion
NACAA recommends that Congress increase State and local air grants
by $75 million above fiscal year 2018 levels (i.e., approximately $151
million above the administration's request), for a total of $303
million. NACAA opposes the administration's proposal to cut State and
local air quality grants by 33 percent (from $228 million in fiscal
year 2018 to $152 million in fiscal year 2019). Additionally, NACAA
recommends that State and local agencies be provided with flexibility
to use the increased funds on the highest priority programs in their
areas. Finally, NACAA requests that grant funds for PM2.5
monitoring remain under Section 103 authority, rather than being
shifted to Section 105 authority.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on these
important programs and for considering the funding needs of State and
local air quality agencies.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies
The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) represents
a growing network of more than 300 public wastewater and stormwater
agencies nationwide who collectively serve more than 125 million
Americans. NACWA thanks the subcommittee for its work in fiscal year
2018 to provide strong funding for clean water, including dedicating
increased infrastructure investment to our Nation's critical water
needs. Looking to build on that strengthened Federal funding
partnership, below are our fiscal year 2019 EPA Appropriations
priorities.
Program: Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Funding Request: $2.8 B (2x fiscal year 2017 enacted, an increase of
$1.106B over fiscal year 2018 enacted).
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is a critical tool
which municipal clean water agencies leverage to help meet their
Federal obligations under the Clean Water Act. In the United States,
more than 90 percent of water infrastructure investment comes through
local ratepayer and State investment. Importantly, the low-interest
loans--and in limited cases, grants and loan forgiveness--that the
CWSRF facilitates helps clean water agencies finance infrastructure
investments at favorable rates and better manage impacts to ratepayers.
The CWSRF is increasingly crucial at a time when sewer and water
rates are increasing well above the rate of inflation. NACWA analysis
found that in 2017, the national average cost of wastewater services
rose faster than the rate of inflation for the 16th year in a row,
rising 3.6 percent in 2017 alone. The national average amount that a
single-family residence pays for wastewater collection and treatment
[not including drinking water service] is now $501 per year. Key
drivers of rising rates include Federal consent decrees requirements,
associated capital construction and debt service, CSO and SSO controls,
and sewer rehabilitation and replacement.
The CWSRF has been instrumental in many communities' successes in
complying with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits, implementing secondary (biologic) treatment of wastewater, and
reducing the frequency and size of sewer overflows during wet weather
events. The CWSRF is also essential for many communities working to
implement new regulatory requirements ranging from updated water
quality standards to tightening nutrient limitations. And, the CWSRF is
increasingly used to help implement innovative stormwater and nutrient
management projects and green infrastructure.
Increasing national attention on the State of our Nation's water
infrastructure is welcomed by NACWA, and we are excited to work with
Congress on innovative proposals to boost water infrastructure
investment and better address the infrastructure investment gap. That
said, the CWSRF, with its demonstrated success in facilitating
investment in communities large and small, must continue to be a key
part of the infrastructure solution. NACWA strongly appreciates the
increase from $1.394B in fiscal year 2017 to $1.694B in fiscal year
2018, and urges continued strong support toward a water sector goal of
reaching $2.8 Billion in annual Federal appropriation for the Fund.
Program: Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA)
program
Funding Request: $63 Million
The newer WIFIA program is a promising compliment to the CWSRF and
DWSRF, providing a new tool to address water infrastructure investment
by leveraging limited Federal resources. This new mechanism, first
authorized in 2014, was designed primarily to fund large water
infrastructure projects over $20 million. NACWA has been engaged and
pleased with the Agency's efforts to establish the program. In April
2018 EPA made its first loan under the new program, for which
applications greatly exceeded available funding. NACWA is strongly
supportive of the significant increase in funding for WIFIA provided in
fiscal year 2018 and encourages at least level funding with the $63
million provided in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus.
Program: Integrated Planning
Funding Request: Provide at least $6.5 M for Integrated Planning
NACWA utility members were encouraged by the Integrated Planning
Framework for Municipal Stormwater & Wastewater which EPA put forth in
2012. The Integrated Planning approach can help municipalities in
addressing their Clean Water Act obligations by providing an approach
to prioritizing clean water investments within a compliance schedule
that focuses on the highest-impact investments first. The approach can
help address rising rates and affordability issues impacting local
utilities and ratepayers by generating greater ``bang for the buck,''
and allowing communities to address environmental and public health
issues holistically and cost-effectively. NACWA has been pleased to see
bipartisan congressional support for Integrated Planning, including
legislation to codify this approach that has passed the 115th Senate
(S. 692). We urge funding targeted to helping the Agency provide
technical assistance to pilot communities as this approach becomes
better accepted and understood.
Program: Geographic Programs
Funding Request: At least $473 Million, to provide full funding across
Geographic Programs
USEPA's Geographic Programs, including the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative (GLRI), Chesapeake Bay Program, and Long Island Sound among
others support watershed-based investments aimed at improving water
quality. The goals and impacts of these programs cross multiple States,
impact waters of national significance, and leverage significant State,
local, and private dollars. In many cases, the geographic programs have
helped forge partnerships between clean water agencies, upstream
landowners, conservation groups, and other stakeholders to
strategically address root problems and advance water quality, reduce
historic contamination, restore habitat, and many other goals that
advance the Clean Water Act goals of fishable and swimmable waters.
NACWA is strongly encouraged by the strong bipartisan congressional
support these programs enjoy, particularly in light of recommendations
in the Presidents' budget to drastically reduce their funding. We urge
Appropriators to maintain full funding for these important and
successful programs in fiscal year 2019.
Program: Categorical Grants: Nonpoint Source Sec. 319
Funding Request: $170.92 M (Maintain fiscal year 2018 enacted level)
The CWA has been remarkably successful in reducing point source
discharges. In many watersheds nonpoint sources remain the largest
outstanding driver of water quality impairments. Thus, continued
progress on improving water quality under the CWA relies in large part
on the ability to improve nonpoint source management. Nonpoint sources
also contribute to acute public health risks such as harmful algal
blooms and threats to drinking water.
Nonpoint Source grants are provided to State, Tribes, and
territories to aid implementation of EPA-approved Nonpoint Source
Management Programs under Sec. 319 of the CWA. Activities provided
under these programs include technical and financial assistance to
municipalities, outreach and education, and technology transfer and
training. These programs also help monitor and assess the impacts of
nonpoint management projects, an area where continued research and
documentation is in demand by public entities and the private sector.
Program: Categorical Grants: Pollution Control Sec. 106
Funding Request: $230.81 M (Maintain fiscal year 2018 enacted level)
Under Sec. 106 of the CWA, EPA provides Federal assistance to
States and Tribes to aid in their role of enforcing the CWA. Strong
State programs are essential to the cooperative Federalism approach of
the Act. The clean water agencies represented by NACWA continually
engage with their State programs offices on all aspects of CWA
permitting, compliance and enforcement. NACWA is interested in efforts
to help streamline programs but strongly urges maintained funding, as
reductions may impact the functioning of State programs to the
detriment of the regulated community.
Program: National Priorities Water Research Program
Funding Request: $20 M
Since 2012, Congress supported the National Priorities Water
Research grant program by providing approximately $4 million in EPA's
Science and Technology Account. This funding has advanced the science
of priority research topics through applied, extramural research
projects. This successful program provides direct benefit to water
sector utilities through increased knowledge, tools, and models that
can improve public health outcomes and lower costs for municipalities.
However, more funding is needed. We urge increased funding for the
National Priorities Water Research grant program to $20 million for
fiscal year 2019. The increased funding for this competitive grant
program will support transformative research approaches that will
enable the water sector to respond to current and future challenges.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration, and please do not
hesitate to contact NACWA for additional information.
[Contact: Kristina Surfus, Director of Legislative Affairs,
[email protected].]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Conservation
Districts
Dear Chairman and Ranking Member:
The National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD)
represents America's 3,000 conservation districts and the 17,000 men
and women who serve on their governing boards. Conservation districts
are local units of government established under State law to carry out
natural resource management programs at the local level. Districts work
with millions of cooperating landowners and operators to help them
manage and protect land and water resources on all private lands and
many public lands in the United States.
Recent events across the country have shown the importance and
continued benefit of proper management of our water and forest
resources. For fiscal year 2019, NACD respectfully requests an
appropriation of $171 million for Environmental Protection Agency's 319
Nonpoint Source Grants. We also request maintaining level funding for
the Forest Service's State and Private Forestry program at $237 million
in the fiscal year 2018 Interior appropriations bill.
The 319 Nonpoint Source Grants are critically important to stream
bank stabilization, stormwater management, low-impact development, and
other projects led by conservation districts to address water quality
at the local level. Working lands are under increased pressure to
produce food, feed, fuel, and fiber for the world's growing population.
Because of this reality, it is more important than ever that we
dedicate the resources necessary to ensuring local communities continue
to have access to and realize the benefits of clean water.
State and Private Forestry is one of the few U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) programs that provides technical and financial assistance to
private landowners. For this reason, State and Private Forestry
programs should be staffed and funded at levels that allow for strong
public-private partnerships and ensure greater forest management and
economic opportunity on private, non-industrial forest lands.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests. We look forward
to working with you as we continue to serve the Nation through natural
resource conservation.
Sincerely,
Brent Van Dyke
NACD President
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the
subcommittee, I am David Terry, Executive Director of the National
Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), which represents the 56
State and Territory Energy Offices. NASEO is submitting this testimony
in support of funding for the ENERGY STAR program (within the Climate
Protection Partnership Division of the Office of Air and Radiation) at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NASEO supports funding
of at least $46 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. The program
has a proven track record--it makes sense, it saves energy and money
and Americans embrace it. With a slowly recovering economy, ENERGY STAR
helps consumers and businesses control expenditures over the long term.
The program is strongly supported by product manufacturers, utilities
and homebuilders, and ENERGY STAR leverages the States' voluntary
efficiency actions. Voluntary ENERGY STAR activities are occurring in
public buildings, such as schools, in conjunction with State Energy
Offices, in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The proposed elimination of this program is a grave mistake. We also
strongly oppose the creation of a ``fee-based'' funding model, which
could erode the program's integrity.
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, communities and business to
achieve these goals in a cooperative, public-private manner. NASEO has
worked very closely with EPA and approximately 40 States are ENERGY
STAR Partners. With very limited funding, EPA's ENERGY STAR program
works closely with the State Energy Offices to give consumers and
businesses the opportunity to make better energy decisions and
catalyzes product efficiency improvements by manufacturers without
regulation or mandates. This program is voluntary.
ENERGY STAR focuses on energy efficient products as well as
buildings (e.g., residential, commercial, and industrial). Over 1
billion ENERGY STAR certified products were shipped in 2015 across more
than 85 product categories for a cumulative total of well over 5.2
billion products since 1992. The ENERGY STAR label is recognized across
the United States. Approximately, 90 percent of households recognized
the ENERGY STAR label when it was shown to them. It makes the work of
the State Energy Offices much easier, by working with the public on
easily recognized products, services, and targets. In order to obtain
the ENERGY STAR label a product has to meet established guidelines.
ENERGY STAR's voluntary partnership programs include ENERGY STAR
Buildings, ENERGY STAR Homes, ENERGY STAR Small Business, and ENERGY
STAR Labeled Products. The program operates by encouraging consumers
and working closely with State and local governments to purchase these
products and services. Marketplace barriers are also eradicated through
education. State Energy Offices are working with EPA to promote ENERGY
STAR products, ENERGY STAR for new construction, ENERGY STAR for public
housing, etc. A successful example of how State Energy Offices are
leveraging this key national program is the Nebraska Energy Office,
which since 2005, has utilized ENERGY STAR as the standard for
certifying home and office electronics that are eligible under the
State's successful and long-running Dollar and Energy Savings Loan
program.
In 2016, millions of consumers and 16,000 voluntary partners, that
included manufactures, builders, businesses, communities and utilities,
tapped the value of ENERGY STAR and achieved impressive financial and
environmental results. Their investments in energy-efficient
technologies and practices reduced utility bills by well over $34
billion.
An estimated 500,000 homes were improved through the whole house
retrofit program, Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (HPwES) through
2015. This work was performed by 48 locally sponsored programs and more
than 2,100 participating contractors across the Nation. Over 30 States,
including California, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, and Pennsylvania,
operate or support the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR programs.
3,100 home builder partners have constructed 1.8 million certified
homes since 1995.
The State Energy Offices are very encouraged with progress made at
EPA and in our States to promote programs to make schools more energy
efficient, in addition to an expanding ENERGY STAR Business Partners
program. In Kentucky, the State has partnered with school districts and
engineering firms to advance ENERGY STAR rated schools, resulting in
more than 325 ENERGY STAR rated schools in the State, a 67 percent
increase since 2012. Over the past few years, Kentucky has moved
aggressively to promote and build zero-net energy schools. Other States
that have over 150 ENERGY STAR rated schools include Arizona,
California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. Over 27 percent of Utah's K-12
schools are certified as ENERGY STAR.
EPA provides technical assistance to the State Energy Offices in
such areas as ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager (how to rate the
performance of buildings), setting an energy target, and financing
options for building improvements and building upgrade strategies.
ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager is used extensively by State Energy
Offices to benchmark performance of State and municipal buildings,
saving taxpayer dollars. Portfolio Manager is the industry-leading
benchmarking tool which has been used voluntarily in 45 percent of the
commercial buildings in the U.S. Portfolio Manager is used to measure,
track, assess, and report energy and water consumption.
Additionally, the industrial sector embraces ENERGY STAR and
companies such as GM, Eastman Chemical, Nissan, Raytheon, Boeing and
Toyota are recognized for sustained energy excellence by the program.
At the close of 2014, the number of industrial sites committed to the
ENERGY STAR Challenge for Industry grew, while 306 sites met or
exceeded their targets by achieving an average 20 percent reduction in
industrial energy intensity.
The State Energy Offices are working cooperatively with our peers
in the State environmental agencies and State public utilities
commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies
are developed recognizing both energy and environmental concerns. We
have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues.
We encourage these continued efforts.
conclusion
The ENERGY STAR program saves consumers billions of dollars every
year. The payback is enormous. NASEO supports robust program funding of
at least $46 million in fiscal year 2019. Funding for the ENERGY STAR
program is justified. It's a solid public-private relationship that
leverages resources, time and talent to produce tangible results by
saving energy and money. 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
Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
The administration's fiscal year 2019 budget proposal would have
significant adverse consequences for the Nation's forests, over 60
percent of which are State or privately owned. We believe that
investments in key Federal programs to conserve and improve America's
forests--rural and urban, private and public--are critically important.
These investments create jobs, mitigate pollution and carbon emissions,
enhance and protect our drinking water, contribute to healthy and
livable communities, and encourage forest product innovation and
utilization--helping the Nation to foster strong economic growth in
rural areas.
State foresters deliver technical and financial assistance to
protect forest health (and the many benefits healthy forests provide)
with help from USDA Forest Service State and Private Forestry programs.
The comprehensive processes for delivering their services are
articulated in each State's Forest Action Plan, which were authorized
in the 2008 Farm Bill and reauthorized in the 2014 Farm Bill.
We thank you for your continued support of State and Private
Forestry programs in the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus bill. In fiscal year
2019, sustained funding for these programs will help improve the health
of the Nation's forests and encourage economic growth in a sector that
sustains more than one million jobs in the United States. Our fiscal
year 2019 funding level requests include:
state fire assistance (sfa) and volunteer fire assistance (vfa)
programs
Fire-prone landscapes, adversely affected by drought and high fuel
loads, have been identified as priority areas for treatment by many
State foresters in their State Forest Action Plans. This is because
wildland fires have become increasingly expensive and more complicated
to suppress, and often threaten human life and property. For instance,
in 2017, over 71,000 wildfires consumed more than 10 million acres and
8,000 homes. Eighty-one percent of those fires were on State and
private lands. Additionally, across the Nation, local responders and
State forestry agencies are the primary initial attack for wildland
fire response.
SFA and VFA are the Federal mechanisms for assisting States and
local fire departments in responding to wildfires and in conducting
management activities that mitigate fire risk on non-Federal lands. SFA
helps train and equip local first responders who are often first to
arrive at a Federal wildland fire incident and play a crucial role in
keeping fires and their costs as small as possible.
In fiscal year 2015, these two programs delivered more than $169
million in equipment to State and local first responders. A small
investment of SFA funds supports State forestry agencies in accessing
and repurposing equipment from the Federal Excess Personal Property and
the Firefighter Property programs.
NASF supports funding the State Fire Assistance program at $87
million and Volunteer Fire Assistance at $16 million in fiscal year
2019. The need for increased funding for fire suppression has broad
support and the administration's budget recommends a significant
funding increase to meet the anticipated fire threat on Federal lands.
Increased fire suppression funding for State and private lands, many of
which are interspersed with Federal lands, is just as urgent.
forest health management program on cooperative lands
State Forest Action Plans have also identified pests and diseases
as being significant forest threats. The USDA Forest Service estimates
hundreds of native and non-native insects and diseases cause damage to
the Nation's public and private forests each year. A growing number of
damaging pests and diseases are introduced and spread by way of wooden
shipping materials, movement of firewood, and through various types of
recreation.
In 2010, approximately 6.4 million forested acres suffered
mortality from insects and diseases \1\ and an estimated 81.3 million
acres are at risk of attack over the next 15 years.\2\ These losses
threaten clean and abundant water availability, wildlife habitat, clean
air, and other environmental services provided by forests. Furthermore,
extensive tree mortality sets the stage for large-scale, catastrophic
wildfire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Man, Gary. 2011. Major Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in
the United States: 2010 Update. Last accessed on March, 5, 2015 at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/
ConditionsReport_2011.pdf.
\2\ Tkacz, Bory, et al. 2014. NIDRM 2012 Report Files: Executive
Summary. Last accessed on March, 5, 2015 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/
foresthealth/technology/pdfs/2012_RiskMap_Exec_
summary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cooperative Forest Health Management program supports State
activities related to prevention, monitoring, suppression, and
eradication of insects, diseases, and plants through technical and
financial assistance. Because forest pests and disease know no bounds,
controlling pests on private lands can stop millions of dollars in
damage to public lands and vice versa.
NASF supports funding the Forest Health Management on Cooperative
Lands Program at $48 million and on National Forests at $59 million for
fiscal year 2019.
forest stewardship program
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.\3\
However, the Forest Service estimates that 57 million acres of private
forests in the U.S. are at risk of conversion to urban development over
the next two decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Forest2Market. The Economic Impact of Privately-Owned Forests.
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forest Stewardship Program is routinely identified in State
Forest Action Plans as keeping working forests intact and providing
public benefits, including protecting watershed health, wildlife
habitat, and neighboring public lands. On the ground, almost 90 percent
of landowners who have forest stewardship plans implement them, and
those landowners with a plan are nearly three times more likely to
actively manage their forest compared those who don't have a plan.
Additionally, almost 50 percent of the Nation's wood supply comes from
small landowners, who are the target of this program, and in 2017, this
program assisted over 323,000 landowners.
NASF supports funding the Forest Stewardship Program at $29 million
in fiscal year 2019. The need to increase funding on State and private
lands to support active management is urgent.
forest legacy program
The Forest Legacy Program provides critical Federal assistance to
States and private landowners to keep working forests working through
permanent conservation easements, and in some cases, fee acquisitions.
Each easement acquisition is required to have a long-term forest
stewardship plan.
Working forests play an important role in sustaining the economic,
ecological, and social well-being of America's rural and urban areas
through the jobs they support and the benefits they provide, such as
wildfire threat reduction, clean air and water, wildlife habitat, and
outdoor recreation space.
NASF supports funding the Forest Legacy Program at $62 million (net
funding level) in fiscal year 2019. NASF also supports the program
being fully funded from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and asks
that it not be included in the discretionary budget cap. NASF
recommends report language requiring coordination with State foresters
prior to recommendation and selection of easements and acquisitions due
to land management considerations and tax implications.
urban and community forestry program
Community forests are important to achieving energy savings,
improved air quality, reduced noise, stability in home values, and
improved health and quality of life in municipalities and communities
around the country. In fact, studies show community trees and forests
reduce cases of childhood asthma, mitigate the impacts of auto exhaust,
reduce home heating and air-conditioning costs, provide economically
viable solutions for storm water management, and even reduce crime
rates.
Community forests have been shown to provide environmental, social,
and economic benefits to the more than 249 million Americans
annually.\4\ Yet, urban and community forests face serious threats,
such as development and urbanization, invasive pests and diseases, and
fire in the wildland-urban interface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ United States Census Bureau, Growth in Urban Population
Outpaces Rest of Nation, Census Bureau Reports. Available at https://
www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html.
Last Accessed March 5, 2015. April 1, 2010 population estimate
308,745,538 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US#viewtop
Accessed April 17, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since its expansion under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act
of 1990, the Urban and Community Forestry Program has provided
technical and financial assistance to an average of 8,200 communities
annually. The program is delivered in close partnership with State
foresters and leverages Federal dollars 2:1 with existing local efforts
to help communities manage, maintain, and improve their tree cover and
green spaces.
NASF supports funding the Urban and Community Forestry Program at
$31 million in fiscal year 2019.
forest inventory and analysis program
America's ``Forest Census,'' made possible through the Forest
Inventory and Analysis Program, is the foundation for addressing the
Nation's forest health. The program enables forest managers to
understand the scope and scale of forest condition trends and to make
projections of future conditions through extensive data collection on
everything from forest species composition to forest growth rates.
When sufficiently funded, FIA measures plots every 5 years in the
East and every 10 years in the West. The forest industry, a sector
which provides at least 2.8 million U.S. jobs (more than the automobile
manufacturing industry), uses this data routinely to make management
and investment decisions.
The program also provides unbiased information for monitoring
trends in wildlife habitat, wildfire risk, insect and disease threats,
predicting spread of invasive species and for solving many other
resource questions. It is a particularly important tool used in the
development of Forest Action Plans.
NASF supports funding the Forest Inventory and Analysis program at
$83 million in fiscal year 2019.
landscape scale restoration program
Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) projects allow States to
collaborate with the USDA Forest Service and other partners to address
critical forest priorities on a national scale. LSR projects focus only
on the most critical national priorities identified in each State's
Forest Action Plan, and as a result, drives meaningful and cost-
effective results.
The LSR program was codified in the 2008 Farm bill and a LSR budget
line item was subsequently included in fiscal year 2014 appropriations.
Regional review teams comprised of State and Federal officials carry
out rigorous reviews of proposed LSR projects, and as a result,
projects selected for funding are ground-truthed, landscape-scale,
cross-boundary, and outcome-driven.
NASF supports funding the Landscape Scale Restoration program at
$23 million in fiscal year 2019. NASF does not support increases in
this program coming at the expense of other programs described above.
NASF also supports current legislative efforts to codify this program.
State foresters assist in strengthening the economic backbone of
communities across the Nation and the health of the forests surrounding
them. We appreciate your consideration of our requests and would
welcome an opportunity to discuss how your committee can support our
work.
Sincerely,
George Geissler
NASF President
Oklahoma State Forester
Attachment
NASF FISCAL YEAR 2019 APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
[In Millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 FY 2018 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2019
NASF Priority Programs FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 NASF Admin Omnibus Admin NASF
Enacted Enacted Enacted Enacted Enacted Enacted Enacted Recom. Proposed Approps Proposed Recom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landscape Scale Restoration.... $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14.00 $14.00 $14.00 $14.00 $23.00 $0.00 $14.00 $0.00 \1\ $23.
00
Forest Health--Cooperative $60.23 $48.35 $44.83 $45.65 $45.65 $40.68 $39.00 $48.00 $36.18 $41.00 $34.40 $48.00
Lands.........................
Forest Stewardship............. $32.55 $28.81 $30.44 $22.40 $23.00 $23.04 $20.05 $29.00 $20.50 $20.50 $19.50 $29.00
Forest Legacy Program.......... $53.00 $53.30 $50.95 $50.97 $53.00 $62.35 $62.35 $62.00 $0.00 \2\ $67. $0.00 $62.00
00
Urban & Community Forestry..... $32.04 $31.33 $30.70 $28.04 $28.04 $28.04 $28.04 $31.00 $0.00 $28.50 $0.00 $31.00
Forest Inventory & Analysis.... $71.84 $69.21 $65.78 $66.81 $70.00 $75.00 $77.00 $83.00 $77.00 $77.00 $75.00 $83.00
State Fire Assistance.......... $97.23 $85.97 $78.43 $78.00 $78.00 $78.00 $78.00 $87.00 $69.40 $80.00 $65.90 \3\ $87.
00
Volunteer Fire Assistance...... $15.66 $13.03 $12.42 $13.03 $13.00 $13.00 $15.00 $16.00 $11.60 $16.00 $11.00 \3\ $16.
00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) Program funds national priorities in the federally mandated State Forest Action Plans.
\2\ While the enacted level was $67 million, approximately $6 million was rescinded, so that the ``net'' appropriated was approximately $61 million.
\3\ Much of the Nation's initial and extended attack resources are funded by SFA/VFA programs. In a typical year 80 percent of the Nation's wildfires
and almost 50 percent of the acreage burned are State and private forests. In addition when responding out of jurisdiction the majority of the time
that SFA and VFA resources are responding to wildfires, they are responding on Federal forest lands. Investments upfront in SFA/VFA prevention and
initial attack capabilities, should help reduce Federal wild fire suppression costs and hence proposed increases should be mirror increases in
wildfire suppression funding for Federal resources. In Admin Proposed FY19 Budget: Forest Stewardship Program has been renamed Working Forest Lands.
State and Volunteer Fire Assistance programs have been renamed National and Rural Fire Capacity Programs.
______
Prepared Statement of National Environmental Education Act deg.
Prepared Statement of U.S. Senators in Support of the National
Environmental Education Act (NEEA)
______
Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Chairman Murkowski and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal
year 2019 funding on behalf of the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF), and thank you for your years of steadfast support
for the natural resource conservation work of NFWF. NFWF's fiscal year
2019 appropriations request will be matched at least dollar for dollar
with non-Federal match to conserve fish, wildlife and their habitats
through local partnerships. By law, NFWF will accomplish this by
applying 100 percent of the appropriated funding to on-the-ground
conservation projects at ZERO cost to the Federal Government.
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:
--$ 3.0 million with bill language through the Bureau of Land
Management's Management of Lands and Resources appropriation;
--$ 7.022 million with bill language through the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Resource Management appropriation; and
--$ 3.0 million through the Forest Service's National Forest System
appropriation.
bureau of land management
NFWF has received directly appropriated funding for the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) since fiscal year 1995. In the past 5 years
(fiscal year 2013-fiscal year 2017), NFWF has turned $14.8 million
(approximately $3 million annually) in BLM funds into $71.4 million to
support on-the-ground conservation projects.
In fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019, NFWF is working on re-
aligning our conservation partnership with BLM to align with new BLM
and Department conservation priorities. Examples of these focus areas
include: (1) wildlife and migration corridors in the northern Rocky
Mountain States; (2) NFWF's Alaska Fish and Wildlife Fund; (3)
restoring native sage steppe habitat restoration; and (4) native fish
population enhancements in watersheds in the Western United States.
In fiscal year 2018, NFWF began a new and exciting partnership in
the Pecos watershed with six oil and gas companies (Anadarko, Chevron,
Noble Energy, Occidental Petroleum, Shell Oil, and XTO Energy), the
U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the States of New
Mexico and Texas to proactively bolster populations of at-risk species.
NFWF would add BLM funding to this new and creative partnership if
appropriated.
Requested BLM Bill Language:
``; of which $3,000,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2019
subject to a match by at least an equal amount by the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation for cost shared projects
supporting conservation of Bureau lands; and such funds shall
be advanced to the Foundation as a lump-sum grant without
regard to when expenses are incurred.''
united states fish and wildlife service:
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has been a
trusted partner since NFWF was created by Congress in 1984 and signed
into law by President Reagan. In the past 5 years (fiscal year 2013-
fiscal year 2017), the FWS appropriated funds received by NFWF have
generated more than $210 million in conservation impact through 487
projects. The funds appropriated to NFWF serve as a magnet to attract
funds from the private sector to create public-private partnerships
critical to restoring fish, wildlife and their habitats.
In the past, the FWS appropriation for NFWF has existed in the
Committee Report. However, we respectfully request that it be included
in bill language, to First, it will make NFWF's direct appropriations
in the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Bill consistent
across all three agencies.
Requested FWS Bill Language:
``; of which $7,022,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2019
subject to a match by at least an equal amount by the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation for cost-shared projects
supporting conservation of wildlife and other natural
resources; and such funds shall be advanced to the Foundation
as a lump-sum grant without regard to when expenses are
incurred.''
Because NFWF works with FWS on discretionary cooperative agreements
for conservation programs, we also respectfully support the highest
possible funding levels for the Delaware River Basin Conservation Act,
Klamath Basin Restoration, and efforts to combat white-nosed syndrome
in bats within the FWS, Resource Management appropriation.
united states forest service
Congress has appropriated approximately $3 million in annual
funding to NFWF for partnerships with the United States Forest Service
(USFS) since fiscal year 1998. From fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year
2017, NFWF turned $14.8 million in USFS funds into $118.1 million in
on-the-ground conservation investments.
The fiscal year 2019 administration's budget request included level
funding for the NFWF appropriation within the USFS at a level of $3
million, identical to the previous fiscal year, and as in past years,
includes the language in the Bill text to appropriate the funds to
NFWF.
NFWF respectfully requests that the Committee agree to the
administration's budget request.
environmental protection agency
NFWF has partnered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
since fiscal year 1997 and since fiscal year 2000 has worked with EPA
to make grants to States and other grantees within the Geographic
Programs appropriation. Therefore, we respectfully support the highest
possible funding levels for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,
Chesapeake Bay, and Long Island Sound within the Environmental
Protection Agency Geographic Programs. We also respectfully ask that
the long-standing report language that delineates the amount of funding
for nutrient and sediment removal grants and small watershed grants
within the Chesapeake Bay program be continued.
``within the amounts provided, $X,000,000 is for nutrient and
sediment removal grants and $X,000,000 is for small watershed
grants to control polluted runoff from urban, suburban and
agriculture lands.''
nfwf background
NFWF was established by Congress in 1984 to catalyze private
investments to conserve fish, wildlife and their habitats. In addition,
every dollar directly appropriated to NFWF by Congress goes to on-the-
ground conservation projects. NFWF raises private funds not only to
leverage appropriated dollars, but also to support the associated
management costs of implementing the Federal funds.
NFWF is required by law to match each directly 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.
Since its creation by Congress in 1984, NFWF has invested $4.8
billion representing more than 16,500 projects partnering with more
than 4,500 organizations. In 2017, NFWF awarded 730 grants, using
$111.2 million on Federal funds to generate a total conservation of
more than $283.2 million. NFWF remains fully transparent and is
required by law to notify Congress 30 days in advance of every grant
that exceeds $10,000 in Federal funds.
The goal of NFWF is to ensure abundant wildlife species thrive in
order to allow the economic health of our Nation to continue. We
achieve this through voluntary conservation efforts to keep private
working lands working, and pursuing proactive conservation to avoid
regulatory actions. The key elements of our approach include: (1)
leverage, (2) efficiency, (3) partnerships, (4) transparency, (5)
accountability, and (5) meaningful measurable outcomes.
In fiscal year 2017, NFWF partnered with 15 Federal agencies or
departments and more than 30 corporations to support implementation of
Federal conservation priorities. These efforts focused on working
landscapes, private landowner outreach, natural resource conservation
and supporting community-based restoration.
In fiscal year 2018, NFWF was audited by an independent accounting
firm and they issued an unqualified report with no material weaknesses
identified and no deficiencies identified. This is the eighth
consecutive year of unqualified audits. In addition, NFWF has
continually qualified as a low risk auditee under OMB Circular A-133.
NFWF has a compliance department that works with grantees and
partners to ensure adherence with all laws and regulations and ensure
they have the capacity to financially manage funds we grant to them.
conclusion
For more than 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 to
attract support from the private sector to address the most significant
threats to fish and wildlife populations and their habitats.
To reiterate, in the past 5 years (fiscal year 2013-fiscal year
2017):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Appropriations Match Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM................ $14.8............ $56.6.......... $71.4
FWS................ $35.0............ $175.4......... $210.4
USFS............... $14.8............ $103.3......... $118.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total impact of the appropriated funding to NFWF from fiscal
year 2013-fiscal year 2017 for the three agencies above is that $64.6
million in appropriated funding realized an impact of $399 million in
on-the-ground conservation.
Meaningful and measurable outcomes, evaluation, transparency and
accountability are NFWF's building blocks to ensure maximum
conservation impact. We work directly with Federal agencies and other
partners to maximize results and produce long-lasting conservation
outcomes. We would not be able to impact natural resource conservation
and the related benefits to citizens and the economy without the
support of this subcommittee. We look forward to building on our
partnerships with our Federal agency partners in fiscal year 2019 and
appreciate the subcommittee's continued support of these collaborative
efforts.
Chairman Murkowski and Members of the subcommittee, we greatly
appreciate your continued support and hope the subcommittee will
approve funding for the Foundation in fiscal year 2019.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Ground Water Association
The National Ground Water Association (NGWA) requests that $5
million be allocated in the fiscal year 2019 Interior, Environment &
Related Agencies appropriations bill to the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) with the Water Resources mission area's Groundwater and
Streamflow Information Program to continue implementation and
maintenance of a national groundwater monitoring network (NGWMN).
In addition to funding, NGWA is also requesting eligibility of the
cooperative grant funding be expanded to Tribes, as well as State and
local governments. Tribes are currently able to provide data to the
network, but are not eligible to receive funding to create and/or
maintain a 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. NGWA maintains that
management of groundwater resources should be a coordinated effort
between Federal, State and local governments based on the strengths of
each government level, the best science available, and the nature of
the resource. The NGWMN is a great example of cooperation between
levels of government, in order to manage and protect a vital natural
resource.
Water is one of the most critical natural resources to human,
ecosystem and economic survival. Nationally, over 40 percent of the
drinking water supply comes from groundwater and, in some locations, it
is relied on by 80 percent of Americans for drinking water. Groundwater
also serves as a key source of agricultural irrigation water.
While the health of the American people and our Nation's economic
prosperity depends on groundwater, no systematic nationwide monitoring
network is in place to measure what is currently available and how
groundwater levels and quality may be changing over time.
As with any valuable natural resource, our groundwater reserves
must be monitored to assist in planning and minimizing potential
impacts from shortages or supply disruptions. Just as one cannot
effectively oversee the Nation's economy without key data; one cannot
adequately address the Nation's food, energy, economic, and drinking
water security without understanding the extent, availability and
sustainability of a critical input--groundwater.
Congress acknowledged the need for enhanced groundwater monitoring
by authorizing a national groundwater monitoring network with passage
of Public Law 111-11 (Omnibus Public Land Management Act) in 2009, the
SECURE Water Act, and viability of the network was proven through the
completion of pilot projects in six States--Illinois, Indiana,
Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, and Texas. These States voluntarily
pilot tested concepts for a national groundwater monitoring network as
developed by the Federal Advisory Committee on Water Information's
(ACWI) Subcommittee on Ground Water (SOGW).
Following completion of the pilots and reports on the viability of
the NGWMN, congressional support for the network has enabled national
implementation of the program:
Fiscal Year 2015: $2.6 million Fiscal Year 2017: $3.6 million
Fiscal Year 2016: $3.6 million Fiscal Year 2018: $3.6 million
However, national implementation has not yet been achieved. To
date, only 26 States have received grants. The fiscal year 2018 awards
are pending.
While continuing support for the NGWMN is requested at this time,
it is important to note that the requests will be finite once all
States are connected to the network. From there, the costs of ongoing
maintenance of the network are expected to be minimal.
Once implemented nationwide, the NGWMN would provide consistent,
comparable nationwide data that would be accessible through a public
web portal for Federal, State, local government and private sector
users. In these tight fiscal times, the proposed network would build on
existing State and Federal investments, maximizing their usefulness and
leveraging current dollars to build toward systematic nationwide
monitoring of the groundwater resource.
Funding from the NGWMN will be used for two purposes:
1. Provide grants to regional, State, and Tribal governments to
cost share increased expenses to upgrade monitoring networks for the 50
States to meet the standards necessary to understand the Nation's
groundwater resources. Activities funded include: site selection, web
services development, well drilling, well maintenance, among others.
2. Support the additional work necessary for USGS to manage a
national groundwater monitoring network and provide national data
access through an Internet web portal.
A selection of State projects funded is listed below to demonstrate
to type of work being funded by Congress in the first rounds of
cooperative agreements.
--Alaska Department of Natural Resources received funding to become a
data provider, serving water level data to the portal. In
addition, funding is received to do well maintenance and well
drilling.
--Minnesota Pollution Control Agency received funds to re-establish
web services to provide data to the network and expand coverage
across all of the States principal aquifers.
--South Carolina Department of Natural Resources received funding to
set-up web services to provide water level data to the NGWMN.
--Texas Water Development Board received funding to select and
classify water quality wells and incorporate them into the
NGWMN.
A complete list of all cooperative agreements funded is available
on the cooperative agreements page of the NGWMN portal's website. Each
recipient of funding must also provide USGS a report, following the
conclusion of the funding period.
Though the amount of funding requested is small in the context of
the Department of Interior's annual budget request, funding is vital
considering that, for a small investment, States and the USGS can
finally secure adequate monitoring of the hidden resource that provides
over 40 percent of the Nation's drinking water supply and serves as a
key driver for our agricultural economy.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. With questions or
in request of additional information, please contact Lauren Schapker,
NGWA Government Affairs Director, at [email protected].
______
Prepared Statement of the National Humanities Alliance
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the National Humanities Alliance, with our nearly 200
member organizations, I write to express strong support for the
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
overview
For fiscal year 2019, we respectfully urge the subcommittee to fund
the National Endowment for the Humanities at $155 million.
We would like to thank the subcommittee for appropriating $152.8
million to the NEH for fiscal year 2018, thereby increasing the
Endowment's funding by nearly $3 million. This increase is a critical
step in rebuilding the capacity of the NEH, which has been severely
eroded in recent years. Even with the increase, the Endowment's current
funding is 20 percent below its fiscal year 2010 level, when adjusted
for inflation. Modestly increasing the NEH's budget to $155 million
would allow the Endowment to regain its capacity to support the
humanities at a time when the humanities are increasingly called upon
to meet national needs.
While we recognize the difficult choices that are before this
subcommittee, we believe that expanding the capacity of the NEH should
continue to be a priority. In the remainder of this testimony, I will
highlight some of the many ways that the NEH serves national needs and
helps accomplish critical national goals.
neh serves national needs
The National Endowment for the Humanities' funding is distributed
to the Federal/State Partnership, which supports humanities councils in
every State and territory; Competitive Grants divisions, which award
peer-reviewed grants in research, education, preservation, digital
humanities, challenge grants, and public programs; and Chairman's
Grants, which are used to pilot new programs and respond to natural
disasters and other emergency situations. I will highlight just five
examples of how NEH grants serve clear national needs.
The NEH's Standing Together program aids veterans' reintegration into
civilian life and deepens public awareness of the experience of
war.
For the past 4 years, the NEH has supported innovative programs
that harness the power of the humanities to serve veterans. Increased
appropriations over the past 3 years have been critical to expanding
these programs, although much unmet demand continues to exist.
Dialogues on the Experience of War, an NEH initiative now in its third
year, supports community discussion programs for veterans and their
families. Dialogues programs have reached veterans in 18 States and the
District of Columbia and will reach an additional 4 States in the
coming year. In fiscal year 2017, a program held in College Park,
Maryland, honored one-hundred years of women's service in the military
while supporting female veterans of recent conflicts; at the University
of West Florida, a Dialogues program helped first-year students who are
also veterans bridge their military and civilian experiences through
history, literature, philosophy, and art.
Other efforts funded through the Standing Together initiative
include programs that help document and preserve veterans' life
experiences. A grant to North Dakota State University funded an oral
history program that helps veterans explore their memories through
creative outlets, while a grant to Lewiston Auburn College supported a
program for preserving veterans' pictures and memorabilia in Maine.
Veterans from across the Nation benefit from intensive college-
preparation programs and training for Veteran Affairs staff that helps
them understand veterans' experiences.
The NEH plays a key role in the preservation of native languages and
cultures.
The NEH supports the documentation and teaching of native
languages, history, and culture. A 2011 grant helped Salish Kootenai
College in Pablo, Montana establish a degree program in Tribal Historic
Preservation that prepares students to interpret and preserve
indigenous heritage. To date, all graduates of the program have
continued their studies in graduate training or found work in
preservation offices, cultural departments, museums, private resource
management firms, and government agencies.
Meanwhile, a 2015 grant to Ilisagvik College in Alaska helped
preserve Inupiaq, a UNESCO-classified endangered language with only
about 2,000 fluent speakers. In addition to creating an online database
that documents the language, faculty and students created language-
acquisition materials--online apps and storybooks--that are used by the
local summer reading program and the college's innovative ``language
nest'' program for pre-K children. And in New Mexico, a 2017 grant is
helping the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center document the oral histories
of women from the New Mexico Pueblo, preserving their life stories for
generations to come. These are just three examples of NEH's long-term
commitment to sustaining, revitalizing, and preserving Native American
languages and cultures: since 2006, the NEH has provided $11.4 million
in support of its Documenting Endangered Languages program.
The NEH is the only entity, Federal or private, with a national mandate
to ensure that the humanities serve all Americans.
Through a partnership with Missouri's Mid-America Arts Alliance,
the NEH on the Road program ensures that high-quality museum
exhibitions--originally curated with NEH support--reach all parts of
the country. Fifty-three percent of the communities served have a
population under 50,000. For example, in Red Cloud, Nebraska, a
community of only 1,020, more than 3,000 people saw Our Lives, Our
Stories: America's Greatest Generation. The exhibition traveled to 23
other locations including Excelsior Springs and Fulton, Missouri and
Fairmont, West Virginia. Additionally, between 2010 and 2015, Bison: An
American Icon, traveled to 19 sites, including Bend, Oregon, Las
Cruces, New Mexico, and Brigham City, Utah.
To ensure a wide reach, the NEH has dedicated funding lines for
innovation in humanities curricula in community colleges, HBCUs,
Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges. At one 2-year
school, South Florida State College, an NEH grant is helping faculty
develop new curricular units based on Florida's history and purchase
much-needed books and materials for the rural college's library.
Additionally, the NEH provides critical support to rural
institutions, establishing the cultural infrastructure necessary for
thriving communities. For instance, in Seward, Alaska, the Seward
Community Library & Museum, which was built with NEH challenge grant
funding, is the city's only public space designed for people of all
ages. In Whitesburg, Kentucky, the NEH has supported Appalshop since
awarding it a foundational grant in 1972. Appalshop is now an economic
driver that amplifies Appalachian voices and concerns on a national
level while contributing to community life.
The NEH safeguards our historical and cultural legacies.
With grants to historical societies, historic sites, archives, and
town and county record offices around the country, the NEH ensures that
historical documents and artifacts are preserved under the proper
conditions and accessible in the long-term. For example, grants to
Andrew Jackson's Hermitage in Tennessee have supported archaeological
investigations as well as the full restoration of the home's historic
interior. In West Virginia, grants to Davis & Elkins College have
helped preserve the papers of Senators Henry Davis and Stephen Elkins
as well as 10,000 items representing American history from Native
American civilizations to the present day. And several small grants to
the International Tennis Hall of Fame Museum in Newport, Rhode Island,
helped the museum become accredited by the American Alliance of Museums
as well as preserve items related to the history of tennis and Newport.
In a massive undertaking, the NEH is also enabling the digitization
of historical newspapers from around the country through the National
Digital Newspaper Program. For example, in 2013, the NEH awarded a
grant to the Mississippi Department of Archives and History to digitize
100,000 pages of historic Mississippi newspapers published between 1836
and 1922. To date, the NEH has provided support for the digitization of
approximately 11 million pages of newspapers published between 1690 and
1963--making these resources accessible for scholars, students, and
anyone interested in researching local history or genealogy.
The NEH also supports the publication of the documents associated
with important historical figures and events and ensures that these
documents are widely accessible. Grants to the University of
California, Berkeley have supported the print and digital publication
of Mark Twain's letters and other writings, including his best-selling
autobiography. NEH funding has supported many similar projects centered
on the lives of such notable figures as George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, John and Abigail Adams, Albert Einstein, and Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr.
With a modest investment, the NEH stimulates private, local investment
in the humanities and cultivates tourism.
NEH matching grants over the last 50 years have generated more than
$4 billion in nonFederal donations to humanities projects and
institutions. The NEH's investments in museums, historic sites,
research, and the preservation of historic artifacts have played a key
role in developing local cultural heritage tourism economies, which
attract 78 percent of all leisure travelers. Over several decades, for
example, the NEH has supported the development of new exhibitions at
Thomas Jefferson's Monticello. These grants have had an outsized impact
on the local economy as Monticello welcomes nearly 400,000 annual
visitors, 93 percent of whom are from outside Virginia and 50 percent
of whom stay in a hotel for at least one night adding at least $13.1
million to the local economy. In Dubuque, Iowa, NEH investment in the
National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium has helped turn a small
local historical society into a nationally-significant tourist site
that generates $10 million per year to the city's economy.
From funding professional development programs for teachers that
celebrate the history of the Mississippi Delta to supporting
collaborative, interdisciplinary archaeological research that has led
to new understanding of heart disease, each year the NEH awards
hundreds of competitive, peer-reviewed grants to individual scholars
and a broad range of nonprofit educational organizations around the
country. Grantees include universities, 2- and 4-year colleges,
humanities centers, research institutes, museums, historical societies,
libraries, archives, scholarly associations, K-12 schools, local
education agencies, public television/film/radio producers, and more.
The NEH supports the preservation of collections that would be
otherwise lost, path-breaking research that brings critical knowledge
to light, programs for teachers that enrich instruction in schools, and
public programs that reach individuals and communities in every
district in the country.
Overall, the NEH's support is crucial for building and sustaining
humanities' infrastructure in all 50 States, serving American citizens
at all stages of life.
conclusion
We recognize that Congress faces difficult choices in allocating
funds in this and coming years. We ask the subcommittee to consider
modestly increased funding for the humanities through the NEH as an
investment in opportunity for all Americans, innovation and economic
growth, and strengthening our communities. Thank you for your
consideration of our request and for your past and continued support
for the humanities.
Founded in 1981, the National Humanities Alliance advances national
humanities policy in the areas of research, preservation, public
programming, and teaching. Nearly 200 organizations are members of NHA,
including scholarly associations, humanities research centers,
colleges, universities, and organizations of museums, libraries,
historical societies, humanities councils, and higher education
institutions.
[This statement was submitted by Stephen Kidd, Executive Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Indian Child Welfare Association
The National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) is a national
American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) nonprofit organization. NICWA has
provided leadership in the development of public policy that supports
Tribal self-determination in child welfare and children's mental health
systems for over 30 years. This testimony will provide funding
recommendations for the following programs administered by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the Interior: Indian Child
Protection and Family Violence Prevention grant programs ($43 million),
Social Services ($50 million), Welfare Assistance ($80 million), Indian
Child Welfare Act On or Near Reservation Program grant program (Tribal
Priority Allocation--$20 million), and Indian Child Welfare Act Off-
Reservation Program grant program ($5 million).
In order for AI/AN children to have the full protections and
supports they need, Congress must appropriate adequate funds to the
basic child welfare programs and services that Tribal communities, like
all communities, need. States also rely on Tribes to help them provide
appropriate child welfare services to AI/AN children and families that
fall under their jurisdiction.\1\ This includes partnering on
investigations of child abuse and neglect reports, building case plans
for families, providing culturally based family services, and securing
appropriate out-of-home placements. Investments in these programs will
reduce preventable trauma to children and families, reduce future
expenditures for more expensive and intrusive services, and decrease
long-term involvement with the child welfare system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Indian Child
Welfare Act: Existing information on implementation issues could be
used to target guidance and assistance to States. Retrieved from http:/
/www.gao.gov/new.items/d05290.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recommendations below suggest funding increases that will
provide Tribal communities with sufficient child welfare funding, avoid
unnecessary restraint on local Tribal decisionmaking, and support
established State and Tribal partnerships dedicated to the protection
of AI/AN children.
priority program recommendation
BIA Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
Recommendation
Appropriate for the first time $43 million for the three
discretionary grant programs under this law--$10 million for the Indian
Child Abuse Treatment Grant Program, $30 million for the Indian Child
Protection and Family Violence Prevention Grant Program, and $3 million
for the Indian Child Resource and Family Service Centers Program to
protect AI/AN children from child abuse and neglect. Despite
overwhelming need these grant programs have never been appropriated
funds since their inception in 1990.
The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
(ICPFVPA), Public Law No. 101-630 (1990), was enacted to fill gaps in
Tribal child welfare services--specifically child protection and child
abuse treatment--and to ensure better coordination between child
welfare and domestic violence programs. The act authorizes funding for
two Tribal programs: (1) the Indian Child Protection and Family
Violence Prevention Program, which funds prevention programming as well
as investigation and emergency shelter services for victims of family
violence; and (2) the Treatment of Victims of Child Abuse and Neglect
program, which funds treatment programs for victims of child abuse. It
also authorizes funding to create Indian Child Resource and Family
Service Centers in each of the BIA regional areas. These centers would
provide training, technical assistance, and consultation to Tribal
child protection programs.
There is an incredible need for family violence prevention and
treatment resources in AI/AN communities. As recently recognized by
Congress in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, AI/
AN women are more likely than any other population to experience
intimate partner violence. In fact, more than one in three AI/AN women
experience intimate partner violence at some point in their lives.\2\
Further, AI/AN children experience child abuse and neglect at an
elevated rate. They are victims of child maltreatment at a rate of 13.8
per 1,000, compared to the national rate of 9.2 children per 1,000.\3\
These problems are intricately intertwined. Studies show that in 49-70
percent of cases, men who abuse their partners also abuse their
children,\4\ while child abuse investigations reveal violence against
the mother in 28-59 percent of all cases.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Black, M. C., & Breiding, M. J. (2008). Adverse health
conditions and health risk behaviors associated with intimate partner
violence--United States, 2005. (Table. 1) Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report, 57(5), 113-117.
\3\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and
Families, Children's Bureau. (2015). Child maltreatment 2015.
Rockville, MD: Author.
\4\ White Eagle, M., Clairmon, B., & Hunter, L. (2011). Response to
the co-occurrence of child maltreatment and domestic violence in Indian
Country: Repairing the harm and protecting children and mothers [Draft]
(pp. 19-20). West Hollywood, CA: Tribal Law and Policy Institute.
\5\ Carter, J. (2012). Domestic violence, child abuse, and youth
violence: Strategies for prevention and early intervention. San
Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child abuse prevention funding is vital to the well-being and
financial stability of AI/AN communities. Beyond the emotional trauma
that maltreatment inflicts, victims of child maltreatment are more
likely to require special education services, more likely to be
involved in the juvenile and criminal justice systems, more likely to
have long-term mental health needs, and have lower earning potential
than their peers.\6\ Financially, child maltreatment costs Tribal
communities and the United States $210,012 per victim.\7\ Child abuse
prevention funding is an investment Tribal communities believe in, but
need support to fulfill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Fang, X., Brown, D. S., Florence, C. S., & Mercy, J. A. (2012).
The economic burden of child maltreatment in the United States and
implications for prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 156-65. doi:
10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.10.006.
\7\ Fang, X., Brown, D. S., Florence, C. S., & Mercy, J. A. (2012).
The economic burden of child maltreatment in the United States and
implications for prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 156-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
other program recommendations
BIA Indian Child Welfare Act Program
Increase appropriations to the Indian Child Welfare Act On or Near
Reservation Program grant program to $20 million and the Off
Reservation grant program to $5 million.
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was a response to national
findings that public and private child welfare agencies were
systematically removing AI/AN children from their homes and communities
at horrendous rates, often without due process and under questionable
circumstances. To prevent these troubling practices, which
unfortunately still occur today, Congress provided protections to AI/AN
families in State child welfare and judicial systems under ICWA. It
also recognizes the authority of Tribal nations to provide child
welfare services and adjudicate child welfare matters. To effectuate
these provisions, ICWA authorized grant programs to fund child welfare
services on or near reservations and for ICWA support in off-
reservation, urban Indian programs.
At the time that ICWA was passed in 1978, Congress estimated that
between $26 million--$62 million would be required to fully fund Tribal
child welfare programs on or near reservations.\8\ Even after an
important fiscal year 2018 increase, current funding levels falls far
short of this estimate--especially after adjusting for inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ S. Rep. No. 95-597 (p. 19) (1977).
Appropriate $5 million for the authorized, but unfunded, Off-
Reservation ICWA Program to ensure all AI/AN children receive effective
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
services as required by ICWA.
According to the 2010 Census, 67 percent of AI/AN people lived off-
reservation. These children and families are best served when State
child welfare systems are not only working with the child's Tribe, but
also with urban Indian child welfare programs. These programs provide
assistance to States and the child's Tribe, and provide culturally
appropriate child welfare services that can reduce disproportionality
of AI/AN children in State foster care systems and other poor outcomes.
For this reason, ICWA authorizes child welfare funding for urban Indian
programs. From 1979-1996, funding was allocated to urban organizations
serving Native children and families. When funded, off-reservation
programs provided important services such as recruitment of Native
foster care homes, child abuse prevention efforts, and culturally
appropriate case management and wraparound services. When funding
stopped, the majority of these programs disintegrated even as the
population of AI/AN children off-reservation increased. This funding
must be reinstated.
BIA Welfare Assistance Program
Increase appropriation levels to $80 million to support tribal
services that assist families in crisis, prevent child neglect, sustain
kinship placements for children placed outside their homes, support
adults in need of care, and provide final expenses.
The Welfare Assistance line item provides five important forms of
funding to AI/AN families: (1) general assistance, (2) child
assistance, (3) non-medical institution or custodial care of adults,
(4) burial assistance, and (5) emergency assistance.
AI/AN child welfare programs and social service agencies need to
have the resources necessary to support families in times of crisis and
uncertainty. AI/AN adults--including parents and kinship caregivers--
are unemployed on reservations at a rate more than two times the
unemployment rate for the total population.\9\ Thirty-four percent of
AI/AN children live in households with incomes below the poverty line
as compared to 20.7 percent of children nationwide.\10\ The crippling
of Native economies before the self-determination era left Tribal
communities overwhelmingly impoverished, with few economic
opportunities and high unemployment. The barriers to employment vary
region to region in Indian Country, but include geographic remoteness,
a weak private sector, poor basic infrastructure, and even a lack of
basic law enforcement infrastructure. These conditions make the
programs funded under welfare assistance an important safety net for
AI/AN families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Stegman, E., & Ebarb, A. (2010). Sequestering opportunity for
American Indians/Alaska Natives (Para. 1). Retrieved from Center for
American Progress website: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/
poverty/news/2013/11/26/80056/sequestering-opportunity-for-american-
indians-and-alaska-natives.
\10\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources
and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau. (2013).
Child health USA 2012 (p. 9). Rockville, MD: Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The General Assistance Program provides short-term monetary
assistance for basic needs like food, clothing, shelter, and utilities
to individuals who are actively working towards financial stability and
ineligible for all other financial assistance programs. The Emergency
Assistance Program provides a one-time emergency payment of less than
$1,000 to individuals experiencing property damage beyond their
control. These programs are essential to families experiencing
unexpected job loss or financial crisis. They often provide the
assistance necessary to help a family make ends meet and keep their
children safely in their home.
The Child Assistance Program provides payments for AI/AN children
on Tribal lands who must be cared for outside their homes in foster
care, adoptive, or guardianship placements and who are not eligible for
other Federal or State child placement funds or services.
The current funding for the Welfare Assistance Program falls short
of meeting the needs in Tribal communities. This leaves families in
poverty and caregivers willing to take children who have been abused or
neglected into their homes without sufficient financial support.
BIA Social Services Program
Provide $55 million to fortify child protective services and ensure
meaningful technical assistance to Tribal social service programs
across Indian Country.
The Social Services Program provides a wide array of family support
services, filling many funding gaps for tribal programs and ensuring
Federal staff and support for these programs. Importantly, the Social
Services Program provides the only BIA and Tribal-specific funding
available for ongoing operation of child protective services in Indian
Country. It also funds BIA social workers at regional and agency
offices, and funds training and technical assistance to Tribal social
service programs and workers.
The Social Services Program is drastically underfunded and as a
result, AI/AN children and families suffer. Recent increases as part of
the Tiwahe Initiative are to be commended and their momentum must be
continued. This recommended increase will ensure that basic child
protective services are provided in Tribal communities across the
country, that tribes have access to meaningful training and technical
assistance, and that the BIA has the resources necessary to fill
service gaps. The Tribal Interior Budget Council estimated an unmet
need of $32 million based upon fiscal year 2015 levels and recent
appropriations for fiscal year 2018 are still $25 million below the
estimate of need.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Indian Education Association
Dear Chairman Murkowski:
On behalf of the National Indian Education Association (NIEA), I
respectfully submit the following testimony regarding fiscal year 2019
Appropriations for programs that impact Native students.
NIEA is the most inclusive national organization advocating for
improved educational opportunities for American Indian, Alaska Native,
and Native Hawaiian students. Our mission is to ensure that Native
students have access to a high-quality academic and cultural education,
a goal that is only possible if Congress upholds the Federal trust
responsibility to Tribes.
the federal trust relationship
Congress has a Federal trust responsibility for the education of
Native students. Established through treaties, Federal law, and U.S.
Supreme Court decisions, the Federal Government's trust responsibility
to Tribes includes the obligation to provide parity in access and equal
resources to all American Indian and Alaska Native students, regardless
of where they attend school. The Federal trust responsibility is an
obligation shared between the Congress and the administration for
federally-recognized Tribes.
priorities for the department of interior and the bureau of indian
education (bie)
NIEA highlights the following appropriations requests for fiscal
year 2019 in the Department of Interior and the BIE.
Education Construction
Provide $430 million for Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) school
construction and repair. An increase of $191.7 million above fiscal
year 2018 enacted.
--This funding category includes school construction, facilities
improvement and repair, and replacement school construction.
--Schools operating within the BIE system are woefully outdated, and
in some cases, dangerous for student and staff.
--The Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General
published in September of 2016, an evaluation titled
``Condition of Indian School Facilities,'' estimated the cost
of fixing the dilapidated BIE schools, concluding that more
than $430 million would be needed to fix the problems already
identified.
Broadband Internet Access
Provide $40 million to extend broadband Internet access. An
increase of $21.15 million above fiscal year 2018 enacted.
--Technology is no longer a luxury in 2018, and serves as a necessity
to keep up with today's advanced society.
--Less than 10 percent of Indian Country has access to broadband
Internet technology.
--60 percent of BIE schools do not have adequate digital broadband
access, or computer access, to be aligned with college and
career readiness standards.
--Expand e-rate for BIE schools, Native majority schools and Tribal
Colleges and Universities.
Johnson O'Malley
Provide $42 million for full funding. An increase of $27.1 million
above fiscal year 2018 enacted.
--The Johnson O'Malley program has provided grants to supplement
basic student needs since 1934.
--It is currently being used across the country in innovative ways to
assist with the unique cultural and scholastic needs of Native
students.
--The Federal Government allocated $125 per student in JOM funding in
1995.
--Current funds (fiscal year 2017) provide less than $63.80 per
student, which are often the only source through which Native
students--including those in public schools--can engage in
basic education activities.
--Tribal nations request additional funds to increase the current per
student allocation to previous levels and prepare for student
count increases in future years.
Juvenile Detention Education
Provide $620,000 for juvenile detention education in BIA-funded
facilities. An increase of $120,000 above fiscal year 2018 enacted.
--This essential funding is used to provide educational services to
detained and incarcerated youth at 24 BIA-funded juvenile
detention facilities.
Student Transportation
Provide $73 million for student transportation in the BIE system.
An increase of $16 million above fiscal year 2018 enacted.
--BIE schools incur significant costs in transporting Native students
to and from school.
--These costs are considerably higher than most school systems due to
the often-rural location of BIE facilities.
--These high costs often lead to funding shortfalls, which then must
either go unpaid or funded by diverting funds from other
education programs.
Tribal Grant Support Costs
Provide $90 million for Tribal grant support costs for tribally-
operated schools. An Increase of $9 million above fiscal year 2018
enacted levels.
--Tribal Grant Support Costs fund the administrative costs of
existing tribally-operated schools.
--Full funding is critical as these funds help Tribes expand self-
governance and Tribal control over education programs by
allocating monies for administrative costs such as accounting,
payroll, and other legal requirements.
--Schools must divert critical teaching and learning funding to cover
any shortfalls in operational costs.
Facilities Operations
Provide $109 million for BIE facilities operations. An increase of
$42.4 million above fiscal year 2018 enacted.
--BIE schools use this funding for costs such as electricity, heating
fuels, communications, GSA vehicle rentals, custodial services,
and other vital operating expenses.
--For years, schools have only received roughly 50 percent of funding
needed for these expenses. This shortfall is unacceptable as
costs continue to rise for vital services.
Facilities Maintenance
Provide $76 million for BIE facilities maintenance. An increase of
$16.5 million above fiscal year 2018 enacted.
--BIE schools use this funding for the preventative and routine
upkeep, as well as for unscheduled maintenance of school
buildings, grounds, and utility systems.
--Underfunding of maintenance continues to be an issue as buildings
are in poor conditions and cannot maintain proper standards.
Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP)
Provide $431 million for the Indian School Equalization Program. An
increase of $24 million above fiscal year 2018 enacted.
--These funds provide the core budget account for BIE elementary and
secondary schools by covering teacher salaries, aides,
principals, and other personnel.
--ISEP funds are often reallocated to cover the program cuts in other
areas of education.
--ISEP must have adequate funding to ensure program needs are
fulfilled and must not be reduced to provide funds for
initiatives that have not been vetted by Tribes.
Bureau of Indian Education Immersion Demonstration Grants
Provide $5 million for BIE immersion programs. An increase of $3
million above fiscal year 2018 enacted.
--According to UNESCO, 74 Native languages stand to disappear in the
next decade, with only 20 Native languages being spoken by
2050.
--Funding under the BIE reform efforts should strengthen Tribal
sovereignty to increase capacity to support Native language
immersion schools and provide Native students equal access to
learning their cultures and languages.
--Providing Immersion Demonstration Grant funds would protect the
cultural and linguistic heritage of Native students in
education systems by providing Native students immersion
learning in order to strengthen their language, improve
academic outcomes, and become future leaders of their Tribes.
Tribal Education Agencies/Departments
Provide $10 million to fund Tribal Education Agencies/Departments.
An increase of $7.5 million above fiscal year 2018 enacted.
--This funding assists Tribal Education Agencies (TEAs), who are
uniquely situated at the local level to implement innovative
education programs that improve Native education.
--Because they are administered by Tribes, TEAs are best equipped to
deliver education programs tailored to improve education parity
for Natives.
--TEAs would use this much-needed funding to develop academic
standards, assess student progress, and create math and science
programs that require high academic standards for students in
Tribal, public, and BIE schools.
--Tribes utilizing self-governance over education have been very
successful because they better understand the circumstances of
their populations and can develop initiatives that meet local
needs.
conclusion
With these concerns and through these recommendations on the fiscal
year 2019 budget request for Indian programs, NIEA looks forward to
working with the Chairman to pass a budget that serves the unique needs
of the only students that the Federal Government has a direct
responsibility to educate--Native students. If you have any questions,
please contact Matt de Ferranti, NIEA's Legislative Director, at
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Ahniwake Rose
Executive Director, NIEA
______
Prepared Statement of the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) Superfund Research Program (SRP)
Request Type: Program
Bill: Interior and Environment Appropriations
Agency/Account: Title III, Department of Health and Human Services,
National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences
Program Title: Superfund Research Program
Program Description: The NIH-NIEHS Superfund Research Program is a
competitively-administered, university-based, multidisciplinary
research program that brings together diverse groups of scientists
and engineers at 23 centers across the United States with the goal
of better understanding the human health problems associated with
Superfund contaminants, developing new cleanup technologies,
improving risk assessment methods and understanding how hazardous
substances move in the environment. Its overarching goal is to
solve problems associated with Superfund sites and protect public
health. This program is authorized by Section 311(a) of CERCLA.
Program Funding Level Requested: A total funding level of $80,349,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2019 Amount Requested:.......................................... $80,349,000
Amount included in Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget:..................... $54,000,000
Amount Increase/Decrease Over Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget:.......... $26,349,000 Decrease
Fiscal Year 2018 Appropriated:.............................................. $77,349,000
Amount Increase/Decrease Over Fiscal Year 2018:............................. $3,000,000 Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources
Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of
the National Institutes for Water Resources in support of the Water
Resources Research Act program, a program funded as part of the U.S.
Geological Survey's (USGS) budget. I am Sam Fernald, Director of the
New Mexico Water Resources Research Center at New Mexico State
University. We are deeply appreciative of the subcommittee's long-
standing support for the Water Resources Research Act, and request that
the subcommittee fund the WRRA program in fiscal year 2019 at $9
million.
The Water Resources Research Act, enacted in 1964, is designed to
expand and provide more effective coordination of the Nation's water
research. The Act establishes water resources research institutes
(Institutes) at lead institutions in each State, as well as for
Washington D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Federated
States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
and American Samoa.
Congress created the Institutes to fulfill three main objectives:
--Develop, through research, new technology and more efficient
methods for resolving local, State, and national water
resources challenges;
--Train water scientists and engineers through on-the-job
participation in research; and
--Facilitate water research coordination and the application of
research results through dissemination of information and
technology transfers.
Since 1964, the Water Resources Research Institutes have fulfilled
these three objectives in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey.
The Institutes, managed by a director in each State, promote water-
related research, education, and technology transfer at the national,
State, and local level through grants and sponsored projects. The
program is the only federally-mandated research network that focuses on
applied water resource research, education, training, and outreach.
The Water Resources Research Institutes program is a State-based
network dedicated to solving problems of water quantity (supply) and
quality in partnership with universities, local governments, the water
industry, non-governmental organizations, and the general public. Each
State contributes a minimum of a 2:1 match of non-Federal funds to
Federal funds, thus ensuring that local and regional priorities are
addressed and the impact of Federal dollars is maximized. The
Institutes are a direct, vital link between Federal water interests and
needs and the expertise located within the States' research
universities.
The Water Resources Research Institutes program also provides a
mechanism for ensuring State, regional, and national coordination of
water resources research, education of future water professionals, and
proper transfer and utilization of results and outcomes. In fact, the
Institutes collaborate with over 150 State agencies and more than 165
local and municipal offices. They also help train over 250 students
across the Nation and are engaged in over 220 research projects aimed
at solving regional water needs.
For more than five decades, the Institutes, in partnership with
USGS, have provided significant research results and services to our
Nation and proven successful at bringing new water professionals into
the work force. Although these projects primarily focus on State needs,
they also address water issues relevant to our Nation. The following
are several examples of research conducted by Institutes across the
country.
My Institute, the New Mexico Water Resources Research Center,
developed an innovative desalination technology to remove organic
substances and salts from water produced from oil and gas exploration.
The technology improves ion-exchange membranes using nanoparticles,
nanoflakes, and charged polymers. These new antifouling membranes will
have broad applications to treat wastewater at lower cost and energy
demand as compared to existing desalination technologies. Water in this
system can be potentially recycled in the industrial process making it
more cost-effective. The technology also uses bacteria to convert
biodegradable pollutants into electricity, which offsets operation
energy use or supplies additional energy for other systems for
operators.
In 2015, Alaska's Sagavanirktok (Sag) River flooded the Dalton
Highway, cutting off the only overland passage to the Prudhoe Bay
Oilfields for a period of approximately 3 weeks. Following that event,
the University of Alaska Fairbanks Water and Environmental Research
Center has been continuously working with the Department of
Transportation and Alyeska Pipeline Services Company to understand Sag
River flood dynamics and reduce the risk of highway and/or pipeline
damage from future flooding events. This and similar studies better
explain North Slope hydrologic processes, a necessary step in
identifying source water for O&G-related ice roads in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.
Researchers at the Ohio Water Resources Institute, are developing
new technologies to detect and quickly respond to harmful algal blooms
in Lake Erie. With the rise and frequency and severity of harmful algal
blooms in lakes and reservoirs, it has become critical to develop early
warnings and solutions to alleviate this problem. Researchers have
deployed early warning detection buoys to collect and transmit
information to water treatment plants, lake managers, and communities
that may use the water as a drinking water source to alert them to a
bloom before it grows and becomes potentially dangerous.
In Colorado, researchers at the Colorado Water Resources Research
Institute are studying ways to respond to droughts in the South Platte
River Basin. Although droughts are common in the West, projections
indicate that they may become more frequent and severe, making water
management more challenging. Results from the research are revealing
strategies that maximize management adaptability and resultant
resiliency of water provision during droughts in the State.
There are two grant components of the USGS Water Resources Research
Institutes program.
The State Water Research Grants provide competitive seed grant
funding opportunities for State water institutes for research
priorities that focus on State, local, and community water resources
problems. The study areas span the spectrum of water supply, water
quality, and public policy issues of water management. These seed
grants are used to develop future research proposals and secure
additional external funding.
The National Competitive Grants program promotes collaboration
between the USGS and university scientists in research on significant
regional and national water resources issues and promotes dissemination
of results of the research funded under this program.
With our funding and educational services, water-related
professionals and researchers provide solutions to the many complex
water management challenges we face, including toxicity in urban
stormwater runoff, managing aquifer recharge in drought--stricken
communities, and monitoring and alleviating human and ecological health
impacts associated with water reuse.
Our Nation faces growing challenges in providing water for
agriculture, human consumption, industrial use, and natural resource
applications. Institutes also use their base grants to help train new
scientists, disseminate research results to water managers and the
public, and promote intrastate and regional collaboration. The Water
Resources Research Institutes serve to build the STEM workforce as we
enter a period in which there will be a disproportionate number of
retirements in all sectors.
For fiscal year 2019, the National Institutes for Water Resources
recommends the subcommittee provide $9,000,000 to the USGS for the
Water Resources Research Institute program. We respectfully submit
that, even in times of fiscal challenges, investing in programs at USGS
focused on data collection and the reliability and quality of water
supplies is critically important to the health, safety, quality of
life, and economic vitality of communities across the Nation.
Thank you, on behalf of all the Institute directors, for the
opportunity to testify and for the subcommittee's strong support of the
Water Resources Research Institutes program.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on
behalf of National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). Founded in
1919, NPCA is the leading national, independent voice for protecting
and enhancing America's National Park System for present and future
generations. I appreciate the opportunity to provide our views
regarding the National Park Service (NPS) fiscal year 2019 budget and
funding issues facing our national parks this year.
National parks protect America's heritage and deliver robust
economic returns of $10 in economic benefits nationally for every
dollar invested in the NPS. Last year, national parks supported nearly
$36 billion in economic activity and 306,000 jobs. NPCA and other
polling indicates the vast popularity of national parks and strong
bipartisan support for adequately funding them. And of course, they are
deeply loved by the American people in part because they protect our
cultural and natural heritage.
We acknowledge the tremendous challenge the subcommittee faces in
setting thoughtful spending priorities, so we are grateful for your
consistent support for the National Park Service. NPCA and our partners
in the National Parks Second Century Action Coalition commend your
subcommittee for providing needed increases for the National Park
Service the last five fiscal years, with particularly commendable
increases in fiscal year 2016 and in the recent fiscal year 2018
omnibus appropriations bill. This will be helpful for parks to address
their funding challenges. As they are still behind where they need to
be to meet their mission, we urge you to do your best to build on this
support in fiscal year 2019.
Top Three Fiscal Year 2019 Priorities: NPCA requests appropriated
funding for NPS with a focus on these accounts:
1. $2.629 billion for `Operation of the National Park System'
2. $407 million for `National Parks Construction'
3. $23 million for `National Park Partnerships'/Centennial
Challenge
The Centennial Challenge request is for flat funding, and the
operations and construction requests are based upon the proportional
increases in fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2018.
There are numerous other NPS accounts and programs important to us,
and we outline several of them later in this testimony.
The President's Fiscal Year 2019 Budget: Not helpful to your work
in fiscal year 2019 is the extraordinarily damaging president's budget,
which is comparable in its draconian nature to the administration's
fiscal year 2018 request. The initial request sought to cut 1,835 NPS
staff in FTEs, an astonishing number that is a nearly 50 percent
increase over an already damaging fiscal year 2018 request for staff
cuts. Proposed cuts to EPA and other agencies important to protecting
parks' environments are further damaging. That the administration's
addendum second-guessed the deep cut to park operations was of little
consolation. We commend the appropriations committees for
wholeheartedly rejecting the administration's proposed cuts in fiscal
year 2018 and urge that you continue to support our parks despite this
damaging vision for their future.
The Interior Allocation and Wildfire Funding Relief: NPCA
recognizes the allocation provided to the subcommittee in recent years
has been insufficient and emblematic of the austere constraints on
domestic discretionary investments. Therefore, we were relieved that
compromise was reached on a budget deal that will extend to fiscal year
2019, and urge Congress to find future sequester relief through the
expiration of the Budget Control Act after fiscal year 2021. We applaud
the work of Chairman Mike Simpson and other Members of Congress who
fought so hard for a wildfire funding fix, which we hope will both make
the subcommittee's work easier and ensure a far more functional system
for funding catastrophic wildfires. We expect this will be helpful to
our national parks and other public lands.
Appropriated Funding for the Deferred Maintenance Backlog: The
backlog continues to threaten the protection of nationally significant
resources and, eventually the experience of visitors. Investments are
needed for visitor centers, trails, water systems, and more. The
subcommittee's recent increases for maintenance accounts will be very
helpful for national parks. The $160 million in added maintenance
funding in fiscal year 2018 will be particularly helpful in addressing
parks' many repair needs, and commend that our national parks were
beneficiaries of Congress' maintenance investments. Unfortunately, more
is needed to build on that good work.
Support for the aforementioned request would help address the $11.6
billion deferred maintenance backlog with investments in the repair/
rehab and cyclic maintenance Operations subaccounts, and line-item
construction subaccount.. For your information, we are also urging the
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development subcommittee to fund at
the fully authorized $100 million annualy the Nationally Significant
Federal Lands and Tribal Projects Program, which funds transportation
infrastructure for parks and other Federal lands, and Tribal lands. We
were grateful for the $300 million appropriated to this fund in fiscal
year 2018.
Centennial Challenge: This program provides Federal funds to match
private funds for projects throughout the park system that improve the
visitor experience, including but not limited to deferred maintenance
projects. We commend this subcommittee for the increases for the
program the last three fiscal years. This support has leveraged more
than two dollars for every dollar invested for signature projects
across the National Park System that enhance the visiting experience.
Many more philanthropic opportunities await, so we hope the
subcommittee can support the request for flat funding from fiscal year
2018 for this successful program that enjoys strong bipartisan support.
We commend Congress for passage of the Centennial Act in 2016 to
dedicate funding to that program and to a newly established endowment.
Given the extraordinary philanthropic interest in the program,
sustained or increased appropriations in addition to those funds would
help leverage additional philanthropic dollars--a wise investment. We
understand the intent of the committee in directing Centennial
Challenge dollars to focus on deferred maintenance. While deferred
maintenance projects funded by this program are critical, NPCA
respectfully reminds the committee of the importance of other
philanthropically-driven projects that improve the visiting experience
in other ways beyond maintenance.
Dedicated Backlog Funding: We respect that it can be very difficult
to identify budgetary offsets for mandatory programs, yet have been
urging Congress to recognize that a more realistic long-term solution
is needed to address the maintenance backlog. Under current allocations
established by the Budget Control Act, and even beyond given the
constraints of the appropriations process, it is difficult to see how
this subcommittee will be able to address even the highest priority
non-transportation facilities' needs. We also recognize the constraints
of the Highway Trust Fund in meeting the bulk of park transportation
infrastructure needs. These funding sources are simply limited in their
ability to address the scope of the large backlog.
NPCA is a strong advocate for the National Park Service Legacy Act,
S. 751 and H.R. 2584. We're grateful of the support of several Interior
appropriators for those bills. We urge the members of the committee to
cosponsor the bill and work with other members of Congress and the
administration to ensure passage of a bill that dedicates robust and
dependable funding to the maintenance challenge.
While we commend Senator Alexander and others for their support for
dedicated funding through introduction of the Restoration Act, we urge
improvement of that funding source through working with the Legacy Act
cosponsors and the administration to arrive at a final solution that
can realistically address the problem. We fear the Restoration Act
revenue source does not guarantee the robust funding that is needed,
and that the park service under that revenue stream would not be able
to plan for multi-year projects without a sufficient and known amount
to plan for these projects. We urge Congress to pass a bill that
provides robust, dedicated, dependable and dedicated funding to this
problem.
We Respectfully Request Operations Investments for Non-Maintenance
Needs: While the maintenance backlog is one of our highest funding
priorities, we do not want a focus on the backlog to cause other needed
work to fall further behind; therefore, we respectfully request broad
investments in park operations to address the many operating needs
beyond maintenance.
In recent years, NPS has experienced a gradual erosion of staff in
most years. As you know, these losses can be damaging, with impacts
such as less day-to-day maintenance, less scientific inventory and
monitoring, reduced hours or even closed public facilities, fewer
visitor programs, and other challenges to parks fulfilling their
mission. The challenge is compounded by significant increases in
visitation that require staff time. Since 2011, NPS has experienced an
11 percent reduction in staff while at the same time the National Park
System experienced a 19 percent increase in visitation. We appreciate
the committee's attention to these ongoing needs, and that while the
maintenance backlog is a profound problem that NPCA and others are
prioritizing, these other needs must be addressed.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): The acquisition of
inholdings is directly related to better managing the places in which
our Nation already has made a significant investment. Thus we urge
support for the NPS Federal land acquisition and management portion of
LWCF, a critical tool for protecting our national parks. We were
pleased the fiscal year 2016 omnibus included a 3-year reauthorization
of the program, but are concerned this authorization will run out at
the end of this fiscal year. We are urging Congress to reauthorize this
program and request consideration of appropriations bill language to
provide temporary reauthorization in an fiscal year 2019 funding
vehicle. To address LWCF's needs in the long-term, we urge support for
legislation to permanently reauthorize the program, S. 896 and H.R.
502, and to provide both permanent reauthorization and dedicated
funding, S. 596.
We commend the approach of the LAND Act and the Senate energy bill
in seeking to address both deferred maintenance and LWCF. NPCA urges
Congress to support both these important needs.
National Heritage Areas (NHAs): NPCA is a strong supporter of the
National Heritage Area program. The 49 existing NHAs have generated $12
billion in economic activity and $1.2 billion in tax revenues, and
generated over 900,000 volunteer service hours. This mighty program
with a modest budget deserves support from both Congress and the
president. Furthermore, support for H.R. 1002 would establish a program
structure and provide uniform standards for designating, funding and
assessing all NHAs.
Historic Preservation Fund (HPF): The HPF provides the primary
source of funding for State Historic and Tribal Historic Preservation
Offices in all 50 States. The HPF also supports the Historic Tax Credit
program, responsible for the rehabilitation of over 40,000 buildings,
the creation of 2.5 million jobs and the leveraging of $117 billion in
private investments in historic preservation projects. We request
continued support for this important program.
Policy Riders: Efforts to attach environmentally damaging policy
riders only further threatens the appropriations process, so we were
grateful that the final fiscal year 2018 bill was largely free of the
many proposed riders that would have threatened parks, their
ecosystems, and the health of visitors and wildlife within them. We
urge continued rejection of efforts to attach damaging riders.
National Park Fees: NPCA recognizes that fees play an important
role in supplementing Federal funds, but they can never realistically
be a major funding source for parks. We forcefully opposed the
administration's excessive effort to increase fees at 17 parks during
peak season and commend their withdrawing that effort. While the new
fees will be more modest, on top of recent fee increases, we fear the
higher amounts could price Americans out of the parks they own. We are
urging the administration to research the price point at which fees do
not discourage visitation, particularly for lower income families. We
ask Congress to consider setting those fee levels to be adjusted every
two or 3 years by inflation automatically, thus reducing the
complications that arise with fee decisions and keeping fees at a fair
and even rate in constant dollars.
We urge the committee in general to continue exercising oversight
of fees to keep parks affordable.
The Administration's Department of the Interior Reorganization
Effort: We are deeply concerned about the administration's proposal to
reorganize the Department. Our chief concerns are: a lack of
transparency and public involvement; a lack of clarity on the problems
to be solved, the purposes and goals of the proposal and its
components, and the suggested timeline for implementation; the
potential for the proposal to erode the unique NPS mission; shifting
the number and role of regional offices and staff; the potential for
the effort to reduce the capacity, presence or coordinating capacity of
the Washington Support Office (WASO), Denver Service Center and
regional support offices; the potential cost of the proposal to an
under-resourced park service; and the potential this proposal could be
connected with a workforce reduction effort.
We commend the committee's extensive fiscal year 2018 report
language exercising oversight over this proposal and appreciate your
continued oversight to ensure the integrity of NPS and the Department
more broadly.
In Conclusion: We recognize the subcommittee's constrained
allocation, and thus commend the recent funding increases to NPS and
commitment to our parks well-being. We urge you to provide the best
funding level possible for NPS in fiscal year 2019 to help the agency
recover from underfunding. Further, we appreciate your oversight over
the administration's proposals regarding fees and reorganization.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[This statement was submitted by John Garder, Director of Budget
and Appropriations.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
Coalition
My name is Melanie Fourkiller. On behalf of the National Tribal
Contract Support Cost Coalition (NTCSCC), I am pleased to submit
written testimony concerning the fiscal year 2019 budget for the Indian
Health Service (IHS) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The Coalition
is comprised of 21 Tribes and Tribal organizations situated in 11
States, including my own Tribe the Cherokee Nation, and the Tribe I
work for, the Choctaw Nation. Collectively, these 21 Tribal
organizations operate contracts to administer roughly $500 million in
IHS and BIA programs on behalf of over 250 Native American Tribes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NTCSCC is comprised of the: Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium (AK), Arctic Slope Native Association (AK), Central Council
of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes (AK), Cherokee Nation (OK), Chickasaw
Nation, Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation (MT),
Choctaw Nation (OK), Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (MT),
Copper River Native Association (AK), Forest County Potawatomi
Community (WI), Kodiak Area Native Association (AK), Little River Band
of Ottawa Indians (MI), Pueblo of Zuni (NM), Riverside-San Bernardino
County Indian Health (CA), Shoshone Bannock Tribes (ID), Shoshone-
Paiute Tribes (ID, NV), Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium
(AK), Spirit Lake Tribe (ND), Tanana Chiefs Conference (AK), Yukon-
Kuskokwim Health Corporation (AK), and Northwest Portland Area Indian
Health Board (43 Tribes in ID, WA, OR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NTCSCC Coalition was created to assure that the Federal
Government honors the United States' contractual obligation to add full
contract support cost funding to every contract and compact awarded
under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
Over the past year, the IHS and BIA have been implementing their
new CSC policies for calculating and reconciling CSC payments. These
policies were developed in the wake of two Supreme Court cases which
declared that full contract support cost funding is a statutory right,
and this Committee's excellent work to cement those hard-fought
victories by putting in place an annual indefinite appropriation. The
days of unpredictable payments and uncertain program funding levels are
behind us, and we thank Congress for working in partnership with Tribes
to achieve this result. Clearly Congress supports Tribal self-
governance, Tribal self-determination, and the importance of working
with Tribes on a government to government basis.
But over the past year, we have been concerned that IHS at times
has not shared Congress' goals. A few examples illustrate this point
well.
Up until 2012, IHS routinely transferred certain funding to Tribes
through our self-governance compacts and self-determination contracts.
I am talking principally about Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention
Initiative Funds (MSPI)--now called Substance Abuse and Suicide
Prevention Funding (or SASP)--and Domestic Violence Prevention
Initiative Funding (DVPI). During this period, IHS also calculated
contract support cost requirements on these funds, even if IHS didn't
always find the money to pay those costs.
But ironically, just months after the Supreme Court ruled in
Salazar v Ramah that Tribes were entitled to these costs in full as a
matter of law, IHS under former Director Roubideaux reversed course.
Director Roubideaux announced that these funds were suddenly only be
paid though grants, and no contract support costs would be added to
carry out these critical programs. This change caused Tribes to cut
into vital program operations to fund the administrative costs of
running these programs, including for grant administrators, while
adding extraordinary complexity through the parallel grant funding and
reporting process. Nationwide, IHS's change in position annually
reduces behavioral health program funding by 25 percent from what it
would be if full CSC funding were paid.
In the fiscal year 2017 appropriation, Congress removed the so-
called ``notwithstanding'' clause which IHS had relied upon as
justification for sweeping aside the Indian Self-Determination Act, and
ignoring that Act's mandate to add CSC funding to all IHS funds. To be
sure, Congress expected the agency to use its best judgment in how to
allocate this funding among the Tribes, but Congress did not expect the
agency to continue refusing to pay these funds through existing
compacts and contracts, and to continue refusing to add contract
support costs to these funds.
Yet, in this last funding cycle, that is exactly what IHS did
again. Nothing changed. In fact, things got worse as the use of grants
proliferated. In a February 16, 2018 letter IHS was unmoved by
Congress's action, saying ``IHS reaffirms its position that grants,
including the IHS SASP and the DVPP, are not eligible for CSC. Grants
are not programs, functions, services, or activities (PFSAs) funded
through the Secretarial amount, as defined by the ISDEAA.'' We are
therefore particularly grateful for Congress's action in the Omnibus
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2018. In the Manager's Report
accompanying the Act, Congress was clear as a bell:
ISDEAA Contracts.--The Committees encourage the transfer of
amounts provided to Tribal organizations for the Substance
Abuse and Suicide Prevention Program, for the Domestic Violence
Prevention Program, for the Zero Suicide Initiative, for
aftercare pilots at Youth Regional Treatment Centers, and to
improve collections from public and private insurance at
tribally-operated facilities to such organizations through
Indian Self-Determination Act compacts and contracts, and not
through separate grant instruments. This will ensure that
associated administrative costs will be covered through the
contract support cost process.
As of this date, we have still not heard whether IHS will abide by
Congress's instruction. It would be most unfortunate if yet another
round of contract support litigation became necessary to bring IHS to
heel.
IHS has also disrespected the government-to-government relationship
when it comes to setting contract support cost policy. In December
2017, IHS defied its own Manual mandating that advance Tribal
consultation must occur before any change could be made about CSC
policy. With no notice whatsoever, IHS announced it was immediately
suspending a key provision for calculating CSC deductions for so-called
duplicate Service Unit funding (Service Unit funding that IHS asserts
goes toward administrative overhead). In February 2018, IHS refused to
budge, and in March IHS explained at a CSC Work Group meeting that the
actions had been taken because of illegal overpayments to various
Tribes. But when we examined IHS's ``data,'' we learned--and IHS
admitted--that no overpayments had occurred, and that only one Tribe--
not a multitude of Tribes--had even raised an issue of concern to IHS.
Eventually the Tribal work group members worked through a Policy
amendment to address IHS's obscure concern. But it was a bitter lesson
about how far IHS will go in derogation of the government to government
relationship--claiming an emergency requiring action when, in fact,
there was no emergency at all.
And to make matters worse, when IHS did eventually announce Tribal
consultation, it included multiple other language ``options'' IHS had
developed unilaterally without any Tribal input that IHS is considering
adding to the Policy instead of that jointly developed by the
Workgroup. These IHS options attempt to limit the rights of Tribes that
had been preserved in the original policy.
A last example of IHS's continuing disregard for the law is its
attitude about ``duplication.'' Again, it is bitterly ironic that, just
when we've entered the era of full CSC funding, IHS chooses to adopt an
aggressive position that Tribal CSC payments are actually too high. IHS
today asserts in various negotiations that CSC payments cannot cover
all manner of costs if the Secretarial program amount could lawfully
have been spent on that those costs were the program being run by IHS.
This position is extreme and would wipe out most CSC funding. When IHS
asserted this position to refuse to pay some facility costs, the
Citizen Potawatomi Nation sued in Federal court and in short order IHS
folded. Yet IHS continues to raise this issue in other settings, and
less assertive Tribes are losing out in the process.
This agency attitude is all wrong. IHS should be defending and
advancing self-governance and self-determination; not trying to find
new and creative ways to undermine it.
Going forward, we hope the Committee will instruct IHS--once again:
--to pay all IHS funds (other than the Special Diabetes grants
controlled by other law) through ISDA compacts and contracts.
The practice of using grants much stop;
--to return to its core mission of supporting Tribes in achieving
greater self-determination and self-governance;
--to conduct itself honorably and with due regard for the government
to government relationship.
More generally, IHS must abandon the invention of ever new theories
for reducing contract support cost requirements, and refocus its
efforts on supporting Tribes to provide better and expanded healthcare
for their citizens.
More broadly, we bemoan the complexity of the IHS process, which
has created a considerable and unsustainable bureaucracy backed by
high-priced non-government accountants and auditors. Somehow the BIA
system, which annually pays out some $300 million dollars in contract
support costs, works just fine at a fraction of the cost and with far
many more contracts and Tribal contractors.
The BIA genuinely embraced the Committee's instructions 3 years ago
to adopt policies that are simple and straightforward, and to
streamline the process for determining and reconciling contract support
cost requirements. Tribes and agency personnel, alike, easily
understand the BIA's new policy, and the BIA's simple approach leads to
accurate CSC estimates. It also doesn't require extensive training, and
therefore has already led to improved agency business practices.
The IHS approach, by contrast, seems to strive for maximum
complexity. Consider that today, halfway through fiscal year 2018, IHS
has yet to make all CSC payment adjustments for fiscal year 2017. In
fact, IHS hasn't made all its CSC payment adjustments for 2016, 2015
and even 2014.
The IHS Policy is terribly over-complicated. It contains several
complex calculations, requires Tribes to submit additional
documentation to the agency each year, and necessitates two separate
CSC negotiation processes each year. Indeed, the policy is so
complicated that the agency apparently still has only one staff person
across the entire country who can answer policy questions and guide the
agency's policy interpretation. The agency's approach to training on
the new policy is also telling--instead of partnering with Tribes that
asked to be involved, IHS developed a series of YouTube videos that
completely ignore the Tribal position on ``duplication'' and
``allocation'' issues. The result is even more conflict in individual
negotiations.
As the Committee is well aware, the policy is so complicated that
IHS personnel were unable to get a firm grasp on CSC calculations last
year, overstating the national CSC requirement by $90 million. Clearly,
the agency's failure to simplify the CSC calculation process is
impacting IHS, too.
In sum, while both agencies have made real progress in improving
their management of their CSC accounts, we respectfully urge the
subcommittee to repeat its instructions to IHS to further simplify its
calculation and reconciliation processes, and to instruct the agencies
not to seek to reduce Tribal contract support cost entitlements.
To further simplify and streamline contracting activities, we also
respectfully suggest that the subcommittee urge the agencies to explore
using multi-year arrangements for fixed rates or fixed lump-sum amounts
subject to inflationary adjustments.
I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide this
testimony on behalf of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
Coalition.
[This statement was submitted by Melanie Fourkiller,
Representative.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to present the National
Trust for Historic Preservation's recommendations for fiscal year 2019
appropriations. My name is Tom Cassidy and I am the Vice President of
Government Relations and Policy. The National Trust is a privately-
funded nonprofit organization chartered by Congress in 1949. We work to
save America's historic places to enrich our future.
The Nation faces a challenging fiscal environment. The National
Trust recognizes there is a need for fiscal restraint and cost-
effective Federal investments. However, funding levels proposed in the
administration's budget request threaten to sharply curtail the ability
of Federal agencies to fulfill their responsibilities to manage
preservation, conservation, and recreation programs on Federal lands.
We look forward to working with this subcommittee as you address the
ongoing needs for investments to sustain our Nation's rich heritage of
cultural and historic resources that generate lasting economic and
civic vitality for communities throughout the Nation.
National Park Service: Historic Preservation Fund. The Historic
Preservation Fund (HPF) is the principal source of funding to implement
the Nation's historic preservation programs. The National Trust is
enormously appreciative of the strong funding levels the Committee has
provided in recent years, including last year's $96.9 million, the
highest level of HPF funding in history. We urge you to again reject
the administration's proposed funding level of just $32.6 million,
which would result in the lowest funding level for State Historic
Preservation Officers since fiscal year 1990, the lowest funding level
for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers since fiscal year 2007, and
eliminate five separate competitive grant programs funded in fiscal
year 2018. Inadequate HPF funding limits support for preservation
activities such as survey, nomination of properties to the National
Register of Historic Places, public education, as well as project
review required by the National Historic Preservation Act and for the
Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC), which Congress
retained in the recent tax bill.
We request that Congress provide a total fiscal year 2019 HPF
appropriation of $110.5 million. Within that funding, we recommend:
--$55 million for State Historic Preservation Officers for heritage
preservation and protection programs, including $2 million for
a new competitive grant program to digitize, map, and survey
historic and cultural resources.
--$15 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers to carry out
requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act,
including $2 million for a new competitive grant program to
digitize, map, and survey Tribal historic and cultural
resources.
--$15 million for competitive grants to document, interpret, and
preserve historical sites associated with the Civil Rights
Movement.
--$15 million for Save America's Treasures grants for the
preservation of nationally significant sites, structures, and
artifacts.
--$5 million for grants to Historically Black Colleges and
Universities to preserve and repair historic buildings.
--$5 million for preservation grants to revitalize historic
properties of national, State, and local significance.
--$500,000 for competitive grants for the survey and nomination of
properties associated with communities currently
underrepresented on the National Register of Historic Places
and National Historic Landmarks.
National Park Service: Operation of the National Park System. The
National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for 417 units of the
National Park System ranging from the battlefields where our ancestors
fought and died to recent additions like the Birmingham Civil Rights
National Monument and the Reconstruction Era National Monument. Over
the past 20 years, more than 40 new parks have been added to the park
system, many of which preserve historic places and themes that have
been underrepresented within the system. We strongly oppose the
President's proposed budget cuts for National Park Service Operations.
The administration's request of $2.154 billion--a cut of more than $323
million from fiscal year 2018--would result in decreased stewardship of
historic and cultural resources and reductions in visitor services at a
time when our national parks are more popular than ever. We encourage
the Committee to provide at least level funding from fiscal year 2018
of $2.47 billion. Within this funding, we recommend robust funding for
Resource Stewardship, including $1 million to provide the initial
funding for the newly established African American Civil Rights
Network.
National Park Service: Deferred Maintenance. The National Park
Service is responsible for maintaining a system comprised of more than
84 million acres that tells the stories of remarkable people and events
in our country's history. Unfortunately, after 100 years of operation
and inconsistent public funding, the National Park System faces a
deferred maintenance backlog estimated at $11.6 billion, of which 47
percent is attributed to historic assets. Deferred maintenance in our
national parks puts historic and cultural sites at risk of permanent
damage or loss, and in the absence of funding, the condition of these
assets will continue to deteriorate and become more expensive to repair
and preserve in the future.
--Construction. We support the administration's budget request of
$149 million for Line Item Construction projects, which
addresses the deferred maintenance for the NPS' highest
priority non-transportation assets with projects greater than
$1 million. This amount is a $20 million increase above the
fiscal year 2018 enacted level of $129 million.
--Repair and Rehabilitation; Cyclic Maintenance. We are enormously
appreciative of the Committee's commitment to enhancing these
accounts with significant investments since fiscal year 2016;
it is making a real impact on addressing the long-term
maintenance needs of the parks. We recommend $150 million for
Repair and Rehabilitation, an increase of $16 million above the
fiscal year 2018 enacted level of $134 million. We also
recommend $160 million for Cyclic Maintenance, an increase of
$19 million above fiscal year 2018. These investments support a
service-wide deferred maintenance strategy that directs funds
to high priority mission critical and mission dependent assets
required to maintain historic structures and that are essential
to abate growth of the deferred maintenance backlog. Additional
investments will contribute to the successful preservation of
historic sites and other resources in the National Park System.
--Dedicated Funding for Deferred Maintenance. We strongly support the
creation of a reliable, dedicated Federal funding source
distinct from annual appropriations to address the deferred
maintenance backlog, as provided in the bipartisan National
Park Service Legacy Act (S. 751/H.R. 2584) introduced in both
the Senate and House.
--Leasing Historic Structures in National Parks. We appreciate the
Committees' strong support of expanded use of historic leasing
authorities by the NPS. Leasing is a well-established tool that
can bring non-Federal resources to the rehabilitation and use
of under-utilized or abandoned buildings within the parks.
--Volunteerism. The National Trust recognizes that direct Federal
funding is insufficient to provide all the resources necessary
to maintain the parks. As part of our commitment to assist the
NPS with reducing the maintenance backlog of historic
properties, the National Trust launched the HOPE Crew (which
stands for the Hands-On Preservation Experience) initiative in
2014 to train young adults in preservation skills while helping
protect and restore historic sites. Youth and veterans are
trained in the skills necessary to perform preservation work in
the parks and other Federal lands through a cooperative
agreement between the NPS, other Federal land management
agencies, and several NGOs including the Student Conservation
Association and The Corps Network. Funds for these projects
come from different sources, including Repair and
Rehabilitation, Cyclic Maintenance, the Recreational Fee
program, concessionaires, historic leasing funds, and Section
106 mitigation. Since 2014, HOPE Crew has trained over 700
young people and veterans and engaged 3,000 volunteers at over
150 projects nationwide, completing 120,000 hours and helping
to support $18 million in preservation work. This work includes
rehabilitating structures at Martin Luther King, Jr. National
Historical Park, Little Big Horn Battlefield National Monument,
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and Shenandoah National
Park. Projects like these help reduce the maintenance backlog
while providing job skills and education for the next
generation of stewards of America's most important historic
sites.
National Park Service: Centennial Challenge Matching Grants. The
National Trust supports the Centennial Challenge, which provides
Federal funding to match donations for signature National Park Service
projects and programs, and urges the Committee to consider funding this
initiative at least at the fiscal year 2018 enacted level of $23
million. This funding will allow the NPS to leverage private
contributions to enhance visitor services and improve cultural and
natural resources across the parks in the Service.
National Park Service: National Heritage Areas. We recommend
funding for the Heritage Partnership Program and our National Heritage
Areas (NHAs) at the fiscal year 2018 enacted level of $20.321 million.
The administration's proposal to eliminate NHA funding would severely
impair the sustainability of the program and render many NHAs unable to
function.
Bureau of Land Management: Cultural Resources Management. The BLM
oversees the largest, most diverse and scientifically important
collection of historic and cultural resources on our Nation's public
lands, as well as the museum collections and data associated with them.
We recommend $19.131 million, a modest increase of $2 million above the
fiscal year 2018 enacted level. Increased funding is necessary to
fulfill BLM's statutory requirements for Section 106 reviews of land
use proposals and National Historic Preservation Act's (NHPA) Section
110 requirements for inventory and protection cultural resources. The
increase would support surveys of sensitive areas, site protection and
stabilization projects for sites vulnerable to unauthorized activities
and damage due to fire, erosion and changing water levels. Funding
would also support updated predictive modeling and data analysis to
enhance the BLM's ability to address large-scale, cross-jurisdictional
land-use projects. We recommend that the Committee encourage the BLM to
promote inventory information sharing with State Historic Preservation
Officers and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. The cultural
resources program also funds NHPA Section 106 review of 13,000 land-use
proposals each year, compliance with the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act, and Government-to-Government
consultation with Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Governments.
Bureau of Land Management: National Landscape Conservation System.
The BLM's National Landscape Conservation System (National Conservation
Lands) includes 36 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. This includes new additions such as
Bears Ears National Monument. We encourage the Committee to provide
$40.5 million to the base program for the National Landscape
Conservation System, an increase of $3.6 million above the fiscal year
2018 enacted level. An increase in base funding will prevent critical
damage to the resources found in these areas, ensure proper management
and provide for a quality visitor experience. We also support providing
at least level funding for wilderness management and national monument
management on Oregon and California Grant Lands. We urge you to reject
the administration's proposed cuts to these programs, which would
result in reduced visitor services, decreased maintenance and care of
trails, and fewer educational and interpretive resources.
Department-Wide: Land and Water Conservation Fund. The National
Trust supports robust funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF), and we urge the Committee to reject the drastic cut proposed
for the program in the administration's budget request. We encourage
the Committee to instead continue increasing LWCF toward the full $900
million from offshore mineral leasing revenues that is dedicated to
LWCF annually. Many of the Nation's most significant historic and
cultural landscapes have been permanently protected through LWCF
investments, including Martin Luther King Jr. National Historical Park,
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, and Hopewell Culture
National Historic Park. In total, more than $550 million has been
invested to acquire historic sites and 137,000 acres in 162 NPS units.
Within LWCF funding, we encourage the Committee to provide at least
level funding of $10 million for the American Battlefield Protection
Program.
Independent Agencies: National Endowment for the Arts and National
Endowment for the Humanities. We urge the Committee to reject the
administration's proposed elimination of funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National Endowment for the Humanities
(NEH) and instead maintain the fiscal year 2018 enacted level of
$152.849 million for each program. NEA and NEH funding is critical to
communities around the country. It supports efforts by the National
Trust's Historic Sites and others to tell a fuller American story and
engage visitors with history in compelling ways. For example, support
from the NEA has created programs like Art and Shadows at the Shadows-
on-the-Teche in Louisiana that put regionally-based artists in
residence at the site, resulting in programming that attracted new
audiences and served as a prototype for broader arts-focused
programming that now draws people from around the country to the town's
downtown commercial district. NEH support has brought teachers from
around the country to learn about history in the places that it was
made and to carry those experiences back to their classrooms, such as
exploring the intellectual underpinnings of the Constitution at James
Madison's Montpelier or discovering the rich, but largely unknown,
African American history in the President's neighborhood at Decatur
House.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the National Trust's
recommendations for the fiscal year 2019 Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies appropriations bill. I can be reached by email at
[email protected]. The mailing address for the National Trust
is 2600 Virginia Avenue NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20037.
______
Prepared Statement of National Wildlife Refuge Association
Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
On behalf of the National Wildlife Refuge Association and its
membership of representatives from Refuge Friends organizations and
concerned citizens, thank you for your support for the National
Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), particularly for the funding increase
for fiscal year 2018. We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments
on the fiscal year 2019 Interior Appropriations bill and respectfully
request:
--$586 million for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of
the NWRS;
--$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with
$150 million allocated for the FWS, including these high
priority requests:
--$10 million for Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area
(Florida);
--$6 million for Silvio O. Conte NFWR (Connecticut, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts);
--$3 million for Cache River NWR (Arizona);
--$2 million for Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming,
Idaho, Utah);
--$2 million for Blackwater NWR (Maryland);
--$2 million for Clarks River NWR (Kentucky);
--$8 million for Hakalau Forest NWR (Hawaii); and
--$8 million for the Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area (North
Dakota, South Dakota);
--$50 million for the Refuge Fund;
--$75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
--$15 million for the FWS Coastal Program;
--$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
(under DOI);
--$70 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
--$47.6 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
--$6 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund.
We understand our Nation's challenging fiscal constraints, but
cutting funding to programs that are economic drivers and job creators
in local communities only exacerbates an already difficult situation.
For example, the NWRS averages almost $5 in economic return for every
$1 appropriated. Budgets have not kept pace with rising costs, and the
gap between the funding needed to maintain these programs and the
funding appropriated has widened dramatically.
The Refuge System is currently responsible for 850 million acres of
land and water. Of that total, 750 million acres are included in the 5
Marine National Monuments created by Presidents Bush and Obama, yet
very little additional funding has been provided to these water
resources since their initial creation in 2006.
The Service is also expanding their outreach by working to make
conservation more accessible to the American public via urban refuges
and urban partnerships. To begin bridging these gaps, the Refuge
Association urges Congress to fund these critical programs that
leverage Federal dollars and serve as economic drivers.
National Wildlife Refuge System--Operations & Maintenance
The Refuge Association chairs the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 23 sporting, conservation,
and scientific organizations representing more than 16 million
Americans that supports increased funding for the Refuge System. CARE
estimates the NWRS needs at least $900 million annually to manage its
100 million land acres and 750 million acres of marine national
monuments. Yet the Refuge System is currently funded at roughly half
that amount--$486.7 million or 57 cents per acre. The Refuge System
cannot fulfill its obligation to the American public, our wildlife, and
53.6 million annual visitors without increases in maintenance and
operation funds.
Funding for the Refuge System has declined substantially from a
funding level of $503 million in fiscal year 2010 to its current $486.7
million--$93 million below what it needs to keep pace with inflation
and salary increases. This has forced the Service to cut back on
programs and create efficiencies whenever possible. Because of these
new efficiencies, the Service has cut its deferred maintenance backlog
in half from $2.7 billion to $1.16 billion as of the beginning of
fiscal year 2018. But budget cuts also led to the loss of 488 positions
since fiscal year 2011. Because most refuge lands and waters are highly
managed, this deterioration in staffing has had a dramatic impact
resulting in significant declines in habitat protection and management,
hunting, fishing, volunteerism and scientific research.
Visitation to all refuges jumped by 7 million between fiscal year
2013 and fiscal year 2017. However, visitor services staff has declined
by 15 percent, forcing a reduction in public programs and hours of
operation, yet there is more demand than ever for recreational
opportunities on refuges. Waterfowl hunting visits are up 7 percent
since fiscal year 2011 and wildlife observation visits are up 12
percent. Photography participation is up 52 percent and auto tour
visits are up 14 percent. Overall, more people are looking to recreate
on wildlife refuges, yet understaffed refuges struggle to provide those
opportunities.
Reductions in visitor services can be extremely troubling to
constituencies who want to visit. At Tualatin River NWR in Oregon,
elimination of the visitor services position cut all teacher training
workshops and community outreach. Prior to this loss, over 100 teachers
were trained each year at the refuge. Patuxent Research Refuge in
Maryland--the refuge closest to the Nation's capital --has closed its
visitor's center every Thursday due to budget shortfalls, reduced
programs for schools, and lost half its visitor services staff.
Equally troubling is a 15 percent drop in the number of volunteers
since fiscal year 2011. At a time when record numbers of Americans are
retiring and have the capability to give back, the Service's ability to
oversee their efforts has been curtailed. Volunteers provide an
additional 20 percent of work on our national wildlife refuges, yet
they are being turned away when the System needs them the most.
During these years of challenging budgets, the Refuge System's
potential to drive local economies and create jobs is of paramount
importance. Banking On Nature, a report issued by the FWS in 2013,
shows that even during the worst recession since the Great Depression,
the Refuge System saw economic output in local communities increase 20
percent to $2.4 billion, visitation increase 30 percent to 46.5
million, an average return on investment increase of 22 percent to
$4.87 for every $1 appropriated, and supported jobs increase 23 percent
to 35,000. As stated above, since this report was issued, visitation
has further increased another 7 million.
The Refuge Association appreciates the subcommittee's consideration
of our request of $586 million for fiscal year 2017 for National
Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance.
Strategic Growth--Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is an essential tool for
protecting the integrity of the Refuge System and is the primary
funding source for land and conservation easement acquisition by
Federal land agencies. Some in Congress have argued that public lands
like the Refuge System can't manage what they have and thus, all land
acquisition should end. However, land and conservation easements add
very little to operations and management costs, compared to other kinds
of protected lands. Meanwhile, in the past 20 years, refuge visitation
has grown by nearly 10 million people. The public is hungry for more
opportunities to recreate, but refuges are unable to fully fund the
necessary operations and management costs.
Increasingly, LWCF is being used to conserve working lands and
local culture through the acquisition of easements that secure
conservation protection while leaving the land in private ownership and
on the tax rolls. Easements are powerful tools that foster public-
private partnerships with ranchers, farmers and foresters to conserve
wildlife, habitat and a uniquely American way of life. Innovative
landscape-scale initiatives using easements have broad community and
State support in New England's Connecticut River Watershed, the
Everglades Headwaters, the Bear River Watershed, and the Dakota
Grasslands. These iconic landscapes remain privately managed,
generating tax income for local communities, securing our Nation's
food, and balancing resource use and resource protection for wildlife.
In many cases, however, land acquisition is required to conserve
intact and functional natural habitat. The Refuge System is responsible
for safeguarding population levels of a range of species, including
many that require specific habitat conditions, such as beaches for sea
turtles and isolated springs for endemic desert fish. Others require
multiple habitat types during their life cycle. By acquiring critical
habitat areas and linking conserved lands, the Refuge System enhances
the integrity of the System and strengthens our network of habitat to
give wildlife space and time to respond to changes, whether from
climate or changing land use patterns.
The Refuge Association calls on Congress to fund LWCF at $900
million per year, with $150 million provided in fiscal year 2019 to the
USFWS, including the projects enumerated at the beginning of this
statement and those advocated by Refuge Friends.
Commitment to Refuge Communities--Refuge Fund
The Refuge System uses net income derived from permits and timber
harvests to make payments to local communities to offset property tax
revenue lost when the federally-acquired lands are removed from local
tax rolls. The System relies on Congressional appropriations to the
Refuge Fund to compensate for the shortfall between revenues and tax
replacement obligations. However, declining revenues and lack of
appropriations have resulted in the Service paying less than 50 percent
of its tax-offset obligations since 2001. The negative impact on local
communities is felt even more starkly in difficult economic times and
reduced funding threatens the partnerships that are so important for
successful conservation.
The Refuge Association requests $50 million for the Refuge Fund.--
We also call for a review of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 as
amended, and consideration of conversion to a Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes
(PILT) program to be consistent with other Federal land management
agencies and to provide Refuge communities with more equitable
payments.
Partnerships--Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (Partners Program)
With 75 percent of all fish and wildlife species dependent upon
private lands for their survival, the Partners Program is one of the
most powerful tools for protecting wildlife where it lives. By building
effective partnerships between public agencies and private landowners
to conserve America's expansive working landscapes, the Partners
Program has implemented nearly 29,000 restoration projects in the past
25 years, restoring over 1 million acres of wetlands, 3 million acres
of uplands, and 11,000 miles of streams. The Partners Program leverages
Federal dollars, generating nearly $16 in economic return for every $1
appropriated for projects.
The Partners Program is playing a key role in conserving greater
sage-grouse habitat in the intermountain west. To this end, we request
an additional $78 million for the Interior agencies to implement
sagebrush steppe habitat conservation and monitoring efforts that will
leverage $300 million in Department of Agriculture investments.
The Refuge Association and the landowner-led Partners for
Conservation request $75 million for fiscal year 2017.--Such a funding
level would result in an additional $400 million worth of conservation
across the Nation.
Fish and Wildlife Service Grant Programs
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (Neotrop), and the State and Tribal
Wildlife Grants (SWG) have been incredibly beneficial for national
wildlife refuges. The NAWCA program delivers an average 3:1 match for
all Federal standard and small grants, and has restored wetlands on
wildlife refuges across the Nation. NWRA fully supports a return to
this program high water mark of $47.6 million.
The SWG program provides funding to State wildlife agencies to for
developing and implementing programs that benefit wildlife habitat,
including hunted and non-hunted species. This funding is critical for
research, wildlife surveys, species restoration, and habitat management
on State lands, all of which contribute to a system of healthy Federal
and State lands. The States are essential partners to the Refuge
System, and we support funding for this program of $75 million.
And in a similar vein, the Neotrop program protects neotropical
bird species across the Americas, with $62.2 million in Federal grants
being matched by $236 million in partner funds. As wonderful as refuge
lands are, wildlife conservation must also take place on State and
private lands, as well as in other countries, particularly for
migratory species.
We believe that with sound conservation policy, adequate funding,
and the power of more than 40,000 dedicated volunteers, the Refuge
System can fulfill its mission to provide wildlife dependent recreation
for Americans and protect the habitat for more than 700 species of
birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species and
more than 1,000 species of fish.
We look forward to working with Congress in 2018 and 2019 to
accomplish this goal and appreciate your consideration of our requests.
Please let our staff know if you have any questions.
______
Prepared Statement of the Native Village of Eyak
The Native Village of Eyak makes the following requests and
comments on the fiscal year 2019 Indian programs appropriations:
--Joint Venture Funding: Increase funding and reopen the Joint
Venture application program in 2019.
--Section 105(l) Leases: Identify sufficient funding for healthcare
facility leases under Section 105(l) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA).
--Contract Support Cost Funding: Continue to fund Contract Support
Costs at 100 percent.
--Advance Appropriations for IHS: Place IHS funding on an advance
appropriations basis.
--Subsidies for Telecommunications Connectivity: Support Tribal
efforts to end the cap on telecommunications subsidies.
--Fully fund BIA 638 compacts and increase tribal shares in
negotiated line items.
The Native Village of Eyak is a federally recognized Tribal
government located in Cordova, Alaska, on the southeast shores of
Prince William Sound in the North Gulf Coast. The Tribe is a co-signer
to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact with the Indian Health Service
(IHS) and operates a wide range of healthcare programs, including
primary care services and behavioral health. The Tribe also has a self-
governance compact under the ISDEAA with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Native Village of Eyak focuses on self-determination and self-
governance as a means of improving the lives and health of our Tribal
citizens. We are not only responsible for providing quality, available
healthcare services, but also for promoting opportunities and
partnerships for our citizens, protecting our traditional land and
natural resources, and for strengthening our culture.
joint venture funding
The IHS Joint Venture Program, authorized under the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act, helps Tribal programs leverage Tribal and IHS
funding for construction and staffing of needed healthcare facilities.
The unique partnership allows Tribes to cover the costs of design and
construction of such facilities, while the IHS provides funding for
staffing and equipment. The Native Village of Eyak would very much like
to participate in this program, as it needs a new health facility in
the very near future. We have a small grant to facilitate
communications with the City owned facility, we are working with ANTHC
on needs assessment tools and are looking at both Federal and non-
Federal funding. We thus request that Congress increase funding for the
IHS Joint Venture Program and that the application period be reopened
in 2019 so that the Tribe can submit an application in the competitive
process to hopefully join the program.
section 105(l) leases
The Tribe is concerned that the administration has again proposed
that the law be amended to avoid paying full compensation for leases
under section 105(1) of the ISDEAA. We understand from reviewing the
proposed bill language, in the IHS Administrative provisions, that the
Administration is seeking to overrule the Federal court's decision in
Maniilaq Association v. Burwell, 170 F. Supp. 3d 243 (D.D.C. 2016), in
which the court determined that Section 105(1) mandates full
compensation for leases of Tribal facilities that are being used to
carry out scopes of work under the ISDEAA. The administration's
proposed language would exclude Section 105(1) of the ISDEAA as a
source of entitlement to funding for leases, giving IHS full discretion
as to whether or not to fund such leases. The Native Village of Eyak
and other Tribes and Tribal organizations are looking to Section 105(1)
leases to address persistently underfunded facilities costs, including
for operation, maintenance, and replacement. We ask that the
Subcommittees reject the administration's proposed amendment to the
ISDEAA--as Congress did last year relative to the fiscal year 2018 IHS
appropriation bill--and that you handle this year's proposal in the
same manner.
contract support cost funding
Eyak would like to thank the Subcommittees for their leadership and
commitment to fully funding Contract Support Costs (CSC) for IHS and
BIA ISDEAA agreements. We appreciate the full funding of CSC over the
past few fiscal years, that the funding is indefinite, and that the
funding is in separate accounts in the IHS and BIA budgets. We have
also been pleased that the current administration has continued to
request that CSC be maintained as a separate appropriation account in
the IHS and BIA with an indefinite funding amount. We request that the
subcommittees continue to fully fund CSC accordingly.
However, we do have one concern to share related to CSC for IHS
programs. We understand that the administration has again proposed to
reinstate two provisions from the fiscal year 2016 Appropriations Act
for IHS: (1) that the ``carryover'' clause be read to deny the CSC
carryover authority granted by the ISDEAA; and (2) that the
notwithstanding'' clause be used by IHS to deny CSC for IHS's grant
programs (such as Substance Abuse and Suicide Prevention; Zero Suicide
Initiative; Domestic Violence Prevention; funding for the improvement
of third party collections; after-care pilot projects at Youth Regional
Treatment Centers; and accreditation emergencies). We think these
proposals are inconsistent with and contrary to the ISDEAA' s
provisions on CSC. Congress has refused these two proposals in the
past, and we request that it do so again for fiscal year 2019.
advance appropriations for ihs
The Native Village of Eyak requests that Congress place IHS funding
on an advance appropriations basis. Congress has done so for the
Veterans Administration health accounts, which are similar to the IHS
healthcare funding in that predictability, continuity, and certainty
are highly necessary for providing quality healthcare from year to
year. When IHS funding is subject to continuing resolution, as it has
been repeatedly over the last many years, the Native Village of Eyak
receives only portions of its funding at a time, making it difficult to
implement longer-range planning and to hire and maintain healthcare
professionals. Having advance appropriations would solve much of the
uncertainty that we have been experiencing over the last several fiscal
years where no full appropriations are enacted at the first of the
Federal fiscal year.
subsidies for telecommunications connectivity
Eyak understands that the subcommittees do not directly control
funding subsidies under the Federal Communications Commission and
Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). However, the USAC
recently implemented a pro-rata reduction in Rural Health Care funding
that subsidizes the extremely high costs of telecommunications and
Internet connectivity in Alaska, which is critical to our being able to
provide healthcare services. The funding cap has resulted in a reported
$50 million in cuts nationally, and an $18.1 million unplanned
shortfall for connectivity in Alaska--just for this year for Tribal
health programs in Alaska. The Tribe is being told to expect more than
twice that impact next year, which could exceed $35 million for Alaska
Tribal health programs. The Native Village of Eyak has used USAC
funding in the past, we were denied 1 year and sent in an ultimately
successful appeal. Due to the nature of the denials, which come in late
in the year, after significant amounts of money are already obligated.
The next year we put out for both broadband and Internet and received a
very high broadband bid. Due to the liability of being responsible for
these large amounts of money, we opted to only ask for the subsidy for
the Internet. We are affected by the funding gap, in two ways, we are
experiencing a small loss of funding and also, although our connections
are secure and HIPAA compliant, we don't have the dedicated tunnel that
T-1 lines offer. We thus request the subcommittees' support for
eliminating the cap and reinstating the full USAC subsidies to Tribal
health programs throughout the State of Alaska.
As Tribes become partners within the corrections and court system
in the State of Alaska, we have a need for more funding to adequately
staff Tribal Courts and run optimal programs. Eyak is experiencing
weather and climate change. Rivers and lakes that used to freeze all
winter freeze minimally or even stay open. Eyak is used to receiving
180 inches of rain on average per year and about 6 feet of snow
annually. This has decreased dramatically, which poses dangers to local
hydropower, commercial fishing and the ability to have adequate
drinking water. Increases in Natural Resources funding would allow our
Tribe to monitor baselines and implement research projects to study
these changes and how they impact our natural lifestyle.
Respectfully,
Darrel Olsen,
Tribal Council Chairman,
Native Village of Eyak.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nature Conservancy
usda forest service and doi wildland fire management
Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of
the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit recommendations for
fiscal year 2019 appropriations. The Nature Conservancy is an
international, non-profit conservation organization whose mission is to
conserve the lands and waters upon which all life depends. We have over
one million members in the United States and are focused on science-
based management of Federal lands and waters to help downstream and
forest dependent communities.
America's forests have tremendous national importance, but their
health puts them at severe risk unless we invest in proper stewardship
and forestry. America's forests store and filter more than half of our
Nation's water supply, provide jobs to nearly one million forest
product workers, generate $13.6 billion in recreation based economic
activity from USDA Forest Service lands alone, are habitat to thousands
of forest-dependent wildlife and plant species, offer a million square
miles to sportsmen and families for outdoor recreation, and are a major
carbon sink that sequester 15 percent of all fossil fuel emissions in
the United States.
The Conservancy is extraordinarily grateful for all of the
Committee's efforts to get the Wildfire Suppression Funding and Forest
Management Activities Act enacted as part of the fiscal year 2018
omnibus appropriations bill. Freezing the 10-year average fire
suppression funding cost calculation, coupled with accessing disaster
funding, will significantly decrease the extent to which the Federal
fire agencies will need to transfer funds, while additionally
stabilizing Department of the Interior and Forest Service budgets.
However, megafires, pests, drought, and sprawl will continue to
place forests at risk. And currently, an area larger than the State of
Oregon is in immediate need of restoration to return forest health--and
that is on national forests alone. Unfortunately, forest restoration
had been significantly obstructed by ballooning fire suppression costs.
To fully gain the benefits of this new fire funding fix the Committee
on Appropriations needs to continue to make wise and substantial
investments in public and State and private forests and fire risk
reduction. Additionally, Federal investments in science-based forest
management and assistance to dependent communities enhances jobs, rural
economic sustainability, and guarantees long term forest productivity
that benefits all Americans. Returns on forest restoration investments
are at least four-fold, and have many non-economic benefits as well.
Investing in the following Forest Service programs are critical to
meeting forest restoration goals:
Increase funding for Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
(CFLR) to $60 million.--The CFLR program is demonstrating that
collaboratively-developed forest restoration plans can be implemented
at a large scale with benefits for people and the forest. This is a
model approach that brings citizens, local government and Federal staff
together to determine effective management that is locally appropriate
and provides jobs, sustains rural economies, reduces the risk of
damaging fires, addresses invasive species, improves wildlife habitat,
and decommissions unused, eroding roads. The funding increase will
guarantee the existing signature projects covering over 17 million
acres can continue, and additional critical projects across America's
forests can begin.
Fund the Forest Service Hazardous Fuels program at no less than
$479 million.--Strategic, proactive hazardous fuels treatments have
proven safer and more cost-effective in reducing risks to communities
and forests by removing overgrown brush and trees, leaving forests in a
more natural condition resilient to wildfires. Drought conditions
increase the need for investment in this program to restore and
maintain fire adapted landscapes and habitats. The Conservancy
recognizes the Committee's continued support for this program through
its increased funding levels, particularly over the last few years.
Fund the DOI Hazardous Fuels program at no less than $178 million
and continue other vital DOI fire efforts.--It is also vital to
increase the efforts at the Bureau of Land Management, National Park
service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs,
which benefit from the DOI fire accounts. These vast public lands
provide endless benefits to Americans, but the investment of Federal
funding on their protection has lagged the past couple of years. The
Conservancy additionally recommends considering reinstating the
resilient landscapes program funded at $30 million to restore and
maintain fire adapted landscapes and habitats.
The Conservancy additionally recommends funding for programs that
support critical restoration programs on national forests. Effective
and durable restoration requires integrated approaches that address
threats and improve forest health and habitat values while supporting
forest-dependent communities.
--Wildlife & Fisheries Habitat Management maintained at a $140
million funding level to restore, recover, and maintain
wildlife and fish and their habitats on all national forests
and grasslands.
--Vegetation & Watershed Management funded at $185 million to promote
restoration through watershed treatment activities, invasive
plant species control, and reforestation of areas impacted by
wildfire and other natural events.
--Legacy Road and Trail Remediation (LRT) maintained at $50 million
to restore river and stream water quality by fixing or removing
eroding roads, while providing construction jobs, supporting
vital sportsmen opportunities, and reducing flooding risks from
future extreme water flow events.
--Land Management Planning, Inventory and Monitoring funded at $201
million, including consolidating the two previously separate
budget items. Consolidation will be more efficient for land
managers, while supporting the collaborative, community and
science based planning featured by the Forest Service 2012
Forest Planning regulation.
Fund Forest Health programs at a total of $111 million ($63 million
for Federal and $48 million for Cooperative).--Forest health protection
programs work to protect forests by minimizing the impacts caused by
invasive species. Across the Nation large-scale, non-native insect,
disease, and invasive plant outbreaks are damaging forest health. These
programs help reduce invasions of non-native pests that destroy iconic
American trees such as ash, hemlock, and California oaks.
Fund State Fire Assistance (SFA) at $86 million.--SFA provides aid
to communities for fuels treatments, firefighter capacity building,
fire prevention education, and pre-fire planning. The SFA program is an
important complement to the Hazardous Fuels program for Federal lands.
Fund Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) at $24 million.--Through
LSR, non-Federal lands have access for competitively selected projects
that leverage State funding, restore forests of national importance,
and, whenever possible, complement CFLR and other landscape scale
restoration efforts.
Fund Forest & Rangeland Research at $293 million.--Forest and
Rangeland Research offers vital scientific basis for policies that
improve the health and quality of urban and rural communities. This
program is vital for the long-term health and utility of our American
forests and rivers, particularly as we face an uncertain climatic
future.
Maintain funding for the Joint Fire Science Program at $7 million
and maintain funding under Wildland Fire Management.--This key, yet
small, program has proven a great success in supporting practical
science that reduces fire risk and enhances economic, ecological, and
social outcomes nationwide.
Fund Forest Legacy at a minimum of $67 million.--The Forest Legacy
program, in partnership with States, supports efforts to acquire
conservation easements and fee simple interests on privately owned
forest lands from willing sellers. These acquisitions leverage non-
Federal dollars and support long-term sustainable forestry while
protecting other ecological, watershed and recreational values for
local communities at risk of development or conversation to other uses.
[This statement was submitted by Cecilia Clavet, Senior Policy
Advisor.]
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit recommendations
for fiscal year 2019 appropriations. The Nature Conservancy is an
international, non-profit conservation organization working around the
world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and
people. Our mission is to conserve the lands and waters upon which all
life depends.
As we enter the fiscal year 2019 budget cycle and another year of a
challenging fiscal environment, the Conservancy wishes to thank this
subcommittee for the final fiscal year 2018 funding levels for
conservation programs. Our budget recommendations this year reflect a
balanced approach with funding levels consistent with fiscal year 2017
and fiscal year 2018 funding levels. Of particular note, we wish to
work with this subcommittee and the authorizing committees on
identifying a permanent funding solution for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. We also strongly support the emphasis on funding for
sage grouse conservation and urge Congress to continue support for
ongoing sage grouse conservation efforts.
The Conservancy would like to take the opportunity to thank the
Committee for their long-standing support of the fire funding fix in
the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill passed last month. The
passage of this much-needed funding solution means that dollars
appropriated by this committee to U.S. Forest Service and Department of
Interior Fire Management accounts can be used for their intended
purposes and not be drained to fight catastrophic wildfires in upcoming
fire seasons.
land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
The fiscal year 2018 Omnibus dedicated $425 million in
discretionary appropriations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
LWCF has strong bipartisan support and the Conservancy appreciates
Congress's commitment to funding important on-the-ground conservation
and recreation projects. The Nature Conservancy supports full funding
and reauthorization of LWCF through a blend of current and permanent
funding and looks forward to working with Congress to find a permanent
funding solution for LWCF.
forest legacy
We support no less than the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus funding level
of $67 million for the Forest Legacy Program.
endangered species
The Conservancy supports continuing funding of at least $31
million, consistent with fiscal year 2017 levels, for the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF), and requests the
subcommittee consider additional funding level request for permanent
funding. We also request your continuing support for Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) funding, specifically HCP Land Acquisition
Grants where the need has greatly outpaced available resources in
recent years.
state and tribal wildlife grants
The Conservancy supports the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus funding level
of $63.5 million for this program. Strong Federal investments are
essential to ensure strategic actions are undertaken by State, Tribal
and Federal agencies and the conservation community to conserve
wildlife populations and their habitats and to prevent species from
being listed as threatened or endangered.
wildlife conservation programs
The variety of wildlife conservation programs conducted by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) continue a long and successful
tradition of supporting collaborative conservation in the U.S. and
internationally. We urge the Committee to continue funding such
established and successful programs as the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act (NAWCA), Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
(NMBCA), the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, FWS Migratory Bird
Management Program and the FWS Coastal Program at no less than fiscal
year 2018 Omnibus funding levels. We support, at a minimum, sustained
funding for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and the
Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science programs. The
latter will help support DOI in addressing large-scale conservation
challenges across all ownerships, supporting collaborative problem
solving for some of our Nation's most challenging conservation issues.
We also request strong funding for the National Fish Habitat
Initiative.
international programs
The international conservation programs appropriated annually
within the Department of Interior are relatively small but are
effective and widely respected. They encompass the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service's (FWS) Multinational Species Conservation Funds, the FWS
Wildlife Without Borders regional and global programs, and the U.S.
National Park Service International Program. We urge that fiscal year
2019 levels for these programs remain equivalent to fiscal year 2018
Omnibus levels at a minimum.
national wildlife refuge system
The Conservancy supports stronger funding for the Refuge System's
Operations and Maintenance accounts. Found in every U.S. State and
territory, national wildlife refuges conserve a diversity of America's
environmentally sensitive and economically vital ecosystems, including
oceans, coasts, wetlands, deserts, tundra, prairie, and forests. The
Conservancy requests $586 million in for fiscal year 2019. This
represents the funding necessary to maintain management capabilities
for the Refuge System.
hazardous fuels and restoration
Strategic, proactive hazardous fuels and restoration treatments
have proven safer and more cost-effective in reducing risks to
communities and forests by removing overgrown brush and trees, leaving
forests in a more natural condition resilient to wildfires. The
Conservancy recommends investing in the USDA Forest Service's Hazardous
Fuels program at a $479 million level and DOI's Fuels Management
program at a level of $178 million, in addition to investing $30
million into a new Resilient Landscapes program designed to restore and
maintain fire adapted landscapes and habitats and repeating the
Committee's fiscal year 2012 instructions for allocating funds to
priority landscapes in both WUI and wildland settings. Additionally,
the CFLR program must continue to be funded and expanded to $60 million
and the Legacy Roads and Trails program funded at $50 million.
sage grouse conservation
The Conservancy requests continued investment to provide ongoing
efforts to restore and conserve sagebrush habitat and the Greater Sage-
grouse across Federal, State, Tribal and private lands. We support the
continued appropriation for sage grouse conservation provided through
the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus. These resources are needed to implement
on-the-ground projects and monitor habitat treatments, address
rangeland fire and broader wildland fire prevention, suppression and
restoration efforts, and facilitate the partnership and science
necessary for effective conservation. The BLM is facing perhaps the
single most challenging effort in its history in conserving key
sagebrush habitat, addressing identified threats to sage-grouse and
promoting sustainable economic development across some 165 million
acres in coordination with State and local managers and private land
owners. Additional resources for the Fish and Wildlife Service will be
used, inter alia, for developing voluntary prelisting conservation
agreements with private landowners who are ready and willing to
undertake critical conservation work for the sagebrush steppe ecosystem
on large blocks of private lands.
blm land management and renewable energy development
The Conservancy supports continued funding at fiscal year 2018
levels for BLM's initiatives to implement smart land management
approaches, which include Rapid Ecoregional Assessments, Resource
Management Planning, Regional Mitigation Planning, coordination with
LCCs, and the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy. Many BLM
programs contribute to these cross-cutting initiatives including:
National Landscape Conservation System--($50.65 million); Resource
Management Planning program ($60.125 million); Wildlife and Fisheries
management ($115.811 million request); and Threatened & Endangered
species management ($21.56 million request). Additionally, the
Conservancy supports continued funding for BLM's renewable energy
development program at the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus level of $29
million which includes implementation of the Western Solar Energy
Program. Collectively, these efforts will help BLM manage its lands
efficiently and effectively for energy development, species and habitat
conservation, recreation, and other uses to maximize the public benefit
from these lands.
environmental protection agency's geographic programs
EPA's geographic programs, including the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative, Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, and Gulf of
Mexico programs, make a significant contribution to protecting habitat
and water quality in the large landscapes where they work. These
programs have a proven record of supporting the States' voluntary
restoration efforts, and the Conservancy urges the Committee to
continue strong funding for these programs at the fiscal year 2018
appropriated levels.
colorado river basin recovery programs
The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and San
Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program take a balanced
approach to recovering four endangered fish species in the Colorado
River basin. The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs are
highly successful collaborative conservation partnerships involving the
States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as Indian
Tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and environmental interests.
These programs provide critically important Endangered Species Act
(ESA) compliance for over 2,450 Federal, Tribal, State, and private
water projects across the Upper Colorado River Basin. Through these
efforts, water use and development has continued in growing Western
communities in full compliance with the ESA, State water and wildlife
law, and interstate compacts. Implementation of the ESA has been
greatly streamlined for Federal agencies, Tribes and water users. The
Conservancy supports $1.53 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service
for the Colorado River Basin recovery programs, including recovery
funds for both the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as
well as fish hatchery needs associated with the recovery plans.
national streamflow network
The National Streamflow Network provides continuous streamflow
information at over 8,200 locations across the country and is managed
within the U.S. Geological Survey's Groundwater and Streamflow
Information Program. Water managers, scientists, and other decisions
makers, including within the Conservancy, rely on data from the
National Streamflow Network to plan for floods, droughts, and other
extreme events; design infrastructure, including the operation of
Federal reservoirs; facilitate energy generation; protect aquatic
species and restore habitat; and manage Federal lands. The Conservancy
supports funding in fiscal year 2019 to fully implement the National
Streamflow Network.
water infrastructure finance and innovation program
Subtitle C of Title V of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 provides authority for low-cost credit that can leverage
private investment for water infrastructure. The criteria include
whether a project protects against extreme weather events or helps
maintain the environment. The Nature Conservancy supports funding at
EPA at the full authorized amount of $50,000,000 to carry out this
program.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit The Nature Conservancy's
recommendations for the fiscal year 2019 Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribe
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Committee, 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
(Tribe) as the Committee evaluates and prioritizes fiscal year 2019
appropriations for the Indian Health Service (IHS), Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Forest
Service (FS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in relation to
the needs of Tribal nations. On behalf of the Tribe, I want to
acknowledge and thank this subcommittee for your efforts, on a
longstanding, bipartisan basis, to understand the needs of Indian
Country and advocate for increased appropriations to the many programs
in your jurisdiction that benefit our citizens, our Tribal governments,
and all members of our communities.
As with any government, the Tribe performs a wide array of work and
provides a multitude of services to its Tribal membership as well as
the community at large. The Tribe has a health clinic; a Tribal police
force; a social services department; and a comprehensive natural
resources program that does work related to forestry, wildlife
management, land services and land management, habitat restoration, air
quality and smoke management, water quality and sewer service, and also
operates one of the largest fisheries departments of any Tribe in the
Nation working on the recovery of listed species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). The Tribe has a comprehensive administrative
framework that provides extensive services on the Nez Perce
Reservation. These programs are necessary and vital for a sovereign
nation that preserves and protects the Treaty rights of the Nez Perce
People and provides day-to-day governmental services to its members and
surrounding communities.
The Tribe has long been a proponent of self-determination for
Tribes and believes our primary obligation is to protect the Treaty-
reserved rights of the Tribe and our members. All of the work of the
Tribe is guided by this principle. As a result, the Tribe works
extensively with many Federal agencies and proper funding for those
agencies and their work with, for, and through Tribes is of vital
importance. This work cannot be accomplished unless the U.S. continues
to affirm and follow through on its trust responsibility to Indian
Tribes by properly funding programs. The Tribe supports the National
Congress of American Indians' publication titled ``Investing in Indian
Country for a Stronger America,'' a comprehensive guide on
recommendations for fiscal year 2019 funding of Tribal programs.
environmental protection agency
The Tribe works closely with EPA on a large number of programs that
are essential to the health and safety of the 18,000 Tribal and non-
Tribal citizens residing within the Nez Perce Reservation and that also
protect the Treaty-reserved resources of the Tribe that the U.S. has a
trust obligation to preserve. These programs include: the Clean Water
Act 106 Program; the Clean Water Act 319 Program; Nonpoint Source (NPS)
Pollution Prevention Program; the Indian General Assistance Program;
the Brownfield Program; the Underground Storage Tank Program; the
Delegation of Nez Perce Federal Implementation Plan; the Clean Air Act
103 Grant-Nez Perce Tribe Air Quality Project; and the EPA Region 10
Pesticide Circuit Rider Program. In total, for fiscal year 2018 the
Tribe currently implements over $1.5 million in programmatic funding
under these programs. The Tribe recommends the Indian General
Assistance Program be funded at $75 million, the Tribal allocation
under the Clean Water Act 106 program be increased to 20 percent, $13
million for Tribal Air Quality Management, $80 million for the
Brownfields program, and $13 million be provided in lieu of the percent
cap on Tribal funding for NPS pollutant control.
indian health service
The Tribe currently operates Nimiipuu Health, a healthcare clinic
on the Nez Perce Reservation. The main clinic is located in Lapwai,
Idaho, with a satellite facility located 65 miles away in Kamiah,
Idaho. Nimiipuu Health provides services to approximately 4,000
patients each year. Annually, this computes to 40,000 medical provider
visits which do not include pharmacy or laboratory visits. This
workload is very costly. Our expenditure total for fiscal year 2017 was
$15,309,300 and Purchased/Referred Care (P/RC) costs for outpatient
services for fiscal year 2017 totaled $3,757,215.
For fiscal year 2019, the Tribe supports continuing the $5.5
billion in funding enacted for fiscal year 2018, at a minimum. This
funding amount will allow Tribes to pay costs, maintain current
services, and allow IHS, Tribal, and urban programs and facilities to
keep up with medical and non-medical inflation and population growth.
The Tribe appreciates the $33.8 million increase in funding for P/RC
provided in fiscal year 2018 and recommends that amount be preserved or
increased by $20 million to continue to meet the P/RC spending needs of
Tribal health facilities.
The Tribe supports $717 million for fiscal year 2019 contract
support costs and the inclusion of bill language to classify this
appropriation as indefinite so that additional funds may be provided if
needed, as it was in fiscal year 2018. In addition, because full
funding of these obligations is so important to Indian Country, the
Tribe supports reclassifying contract support costs for the BIA and IHS
as mandatory and not discretionary. However, this change in funding
should not be accomplished or be off-set by reducing other funding for
these agencies that would adversely affect services or programs.
Finally, this funding should not be unnecessarily reduced by excessive
set-asides for administration. The Tribe also recommends permanent,
mandatory funding of the Special Diabetes Program at $150 million per
fiscal year.
bureau of indian affairs
The Tribe appreciates the 7 percent increase in overall funding for
BIA in fiscal year 2018 and requests that amount be maintained for
fiscal year 2019. The Tribe also supports the indefinite appropriation
for contract support costs and that at least the $241.6 million
appropriated in fiscal year 2018 be provided in fiscal year 2019. These
costs should be reclassified from discretionary to mandatory. The Tribe
also requests the fiscal year 2019 Interior appropriations bill include
a ``Carcieri fix'' to address legal issues that have arisen related to
the transfer of land into trust which has created uncertainty over the
status of lands. This uncertainty only stifles and impedes economic
development in Indian Country.
In relation to the BIA Public Safety and Justice account, the Tribe
advocates for maintaining the $405.5 million in funding for law
enforcement, of which $31 million was for Tribal courts, that was
enacted within that account in fiscal year 2018. The Nez Perce
Reservation spans 1,200 square miles covering five counties and has a
mixture of Tribal and non-Tribal residents. The Tribe provides a full
service law and justice program. The Tribe has a fully trained and
staffed police force, a fully staffed Tribal court, a prosecutor, a
public defender, and other personnel to perform related administrative
functions. Currently, the Tribe contributes $1,882,576 annually to
cover the shortfall in BIA funding for the Tribe's law enforcement,
$527,984 for judicial services/probation, $390,832 for prosecutorial
services, $256,636 for public defender services, and $300,000 for
prisoner boarding. This supplemental funding is derived from Tribal
taxes on goods and fuel and Tribal gaming revenues that would otherwise
be used for other Tribal governmental services. The funding for these
programs needs to be maintained and ultimately increased to account for
shortfalls in funding the Tribe has to absorb in order to continue the
operation of these vital services on the Reservation.
The Tribe requests total funding of $35 million be provided for
Scholarships and Adult Education and Special Higher Education
Scholarships and that funding for the Johnson O'Malley program be
substantially increased from the $14.9 million provided in fiscal year
2018. Per student funding has decreased as the funding has remained
static for many years. These increases will help address the rising
costs of attending college. The Tribe also supports $2.5 million, if
not an increase, for Tribal Education Departments and increases for
Tribal Colleges and Universities that support institutions like
Northwest Indian College that operates a satellite campus on the Nez
Perce Reservation.
The Tribe also relies on the BIA for funding for our work related
to endangered species and protection of the Tribe's Treaty resources,
including Chinook and steelhead salmon. The funding is used to
supplement research efforts of the Tribe relative to other sensitive
species. The Tribe recommends a $1 million increase for the BIA
Endangered Species Program. This account provides Tribes with technical
and financial assistance to protect endangered species on trust lands.
Also, the Tribe recommends an increase of $2.8 million for BIA Natural
Resource Tribal Priority Allocations which will help increase Tribal
land and management capabilities.
In addition, the funding provided under the BIA Rights Protection
Implementation monies are critical to support the exercise of treaty
reserved, off-reservation hunting and fishing for Tribes. The Tribe
supports total funding in the amount of $40.2 million, the fiscal year
2018 enacted level, at a minimum. BIA single-line dollars provide the
foundation for core program administration and treaty rights protection
activities, such as harvest monitoring. These efforts are central to
the Tribe's fisheries management responsibilities as established by the
Treaties and further delineated in court decisions regarding
implementation of hunting and fishing Treaty rights. It is important to
understand that this funding is not for equipment but is used for job
creation.
The Tribe also supports $15.3 million in funding for the BIA Fish,
Wildlife and Parks. As stated earlier, the Tribe has invested a
significant amount of personnel and resources in the restoration of
salmon through our fisheries programs. The States of Oregon,
Washington, and Idaho, as well as sports fisheries, directly benefit
from this work. These programs have been successful with funding under
the Tribal Management and Development Program which is critical for the
Tribe's management of fish and wildlife. We recommend funding in the
amount of $14 million for the Tribal Management and Development
Program.
u.s. fish and wildlife service and u.s. forest service
The Tribe relies heavily on funding sources within the FWS and the
FS. First, the operations of Kooskia National Fish Hatchery are funded
by FWS. The Tribe manages this facility pursuant to the terms of the
Snake River Water Rights Act of 2004 (Act). FWS requires full funding
for the operations of this important facility to ensure the U.S. meets
its obligations under this Act. Second, the FWS-administered State and
Tribal Wildlife Grants program is an important and cost-effective
expenditure for the Government and is one of the few sources of funds
Tribes can tap into for wildlife research. Since 2005, we have received
five such grants that have allowed us to work on diverse issues such as
gray wolf monitoring, bighorn sheep research, rare plant conservation,
and Condor habitat research. Continued funding for the State and Tribal
Wildlife Grant program will allow recipient Tribes to build capacity
and maintain involvement in key conservation issues. The Tribe strongly
urges this subcommittee to increase funding for these competitive
grants to $66 million and increase the Tribal share by $2 million, as
they provide a large return for a small investment.
We thank the subcommittee for its efforts to include language in
the fiscal year 2018 Interior appropriations bill for wildfire disaster
funding that treats wildfires like other natural disasters and
emergencies to help prevent funds from having to be diverted from
forest management.
The Nez Perce Reservation and its usual and accustomed areas are
rich in natural resources and encompass eleven national forests. The
Tribe works closely with each forest's administration to properly
manage its resources on behalf of the Tribe. These range from
protecting and properly managing the products of the forest to
providing habitat for the vast wildlife in each one such as elk, deer,
bighorn sheep and wolves. Increased funding is necessary so that the FS
can meet these trust obligations and continue to work with Tribes on a
government-to-government basis without being hampered by lack of
funding to fill positions.
With regard to management of bighorn sheep, the Tribe would like to
note that the subcommittee has included report language over the last
several years that encourages research related to disease transmission
between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. The Tribe encourages this
type of research mandate to be restricted to laboratory settings and
not be allowed to occur in the field where impact and harm would be
more difficult to control. The bighorn sheep populations within the
Tribe's aboriginal territories are too fragile and too important to be
put at risk.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As you can see, the
Tribe does a tremendous amount of work in a variety of areas. It is
important that the U.S. continue to fund this work and uphold and honor
its trust obligations to Tribes.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Honorable Members of the
subcommittee, my name is Lorraine Loomis and I am chair of the
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). The NWIFC is comprised
of the 20 Tribes that are party to United States v. Washington \1\
(U.S. v. WA), which upheld the Tribes' treaty-reserved right to harvest
and manage various natural resources on and off-reservation, including
salmon and shellfish. On behalf of the NWIFC, we are providing
testimony for the record on the natural resources management and
environmental program funding requests for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) fiscal year 2019 appropriations. These programs support
the natural resource management responsibilities required of Tribes,
including the management of salmon fisheries, which contributes to a
robust natural resource-based economy and the continued exercise of
Tribal treaty rights to fish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United States v. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed
western Washington Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
summary of fiscal year 2019 appropriations requests
Bureau of Indian Affairs
--Provide $56.5 million for Rights Protection Implementation
(collective request)
--Provide $17.146 million for Western Washington Fisheries
Management
--Provide $3.207 million for Washington State Timber-Fish-Wildlife
--Provide $5.2 million for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
--Provide $2.4 million for Salmon Marking
--Provide $4.5 million for Evaluation and Research Activities--
Climate
--Provide $10.378 million for Fish, Wildlife & Parks Projects for
Hatchery Operations and Maintenance
--Provide $830,000 for the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and
Assessment Program within the Tribal Management/Development
Program Subactivity
--Provide $273.0 million for Contract Support Costs
--Provide $30.355 million for Cooperative Landscape Conservation/
Climate Resilience
Fish & Wildlife Service
--Provide $8.0 million for Tribal Wildlife Grants
Environmental Protection Agency
--Provide $96.4 million for General Assistance Program
--Provide $5.0 million for ``Beyond GAP''
--Provide $28.0 million for Puget Sound Geographic Program
justification of requests
Bureau of Indian Affairs
--Provide $56.5 million for BIA Rights Protection Implementation
Subactivity.--The 41 Tribes in the Great Lakes and Pacific
Northwest with similar treaty-reserved rights have collectively
identified that no less than $52.0 million for Rights
Protection Implementation (RPI) is necessary to support
essential Tribal treaty-reserved resource management. The NWIFC
has also identified an additional need of $4.5 million for RPI
Climate Change, bringing our total request for RPI to $56.5
million; $16.339 million above the fiscal year 2018 enacted
level of $40.161 million. A summary of the accounts of interest
to us within RPI is further identified below. However, please
note that a breakdown of these accounts for fiscal year 2018 is
not provided in the Indian Affairs fiscal year 2019 Budget
Justification.
--Provide $17.146 million for BIA Western Washington Fisheries
Management.--We respectfully request $17.146 million; an
increase of $7.142 million over the fiscal year 2017
enacted level of $10.004 million. Funding for this program
supports the Tribes to co-manage their treaty-reserved
resources with the State of Washington, and to continue to
meet court mandates and legal responsibilities. For
example, funding supports harvest planning, population
assessments, data gathering for finfish, shellfish,
groundfish, wildlife and other natural resource management
needs.
--Provide $3.207 million for BIA Washington State Timber-Fish-
Wildlife (TFW).--We respectfully request $3.207 million,
which would maintain the fiscal year 2017 enacted level.
Funding for this program is provided to improve forest
practices on State and private lands, while providing
protection for fish, wildlife and water quality. This
funding supports the Tribes' participation in the Timber,
Fish and Wildlife Agreement--a collaborative
intergovernmental and stakeholder process between the
State, industry and Tribes.
--Provide $5.2 million for BIA U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty.--
We respectfully request $5.2 million; an increase of
$183,000 over the fiscal year 2017 enacted level of $5.017
million. The Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) Act of 1985
charges the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission
(PSC) with the responsibility for implementation of the
PST--a bilateral treaty with Canada. Tribes assist the
Federal Government in meeting its obligations to implement
the treaty by participating in various fisheries management
exercises including cooperative research and data gathering
activities. This funding request will provide sufficient
resources to support Tribes to continue effective
participation in the bilateral PST process.
--Provide $2.4 million for BIA Salmon Marking.--We respectfully
request $2.4 million; an increase of $1.148 million over
the fiscal year 2017 enacted level of $1.252 million. Since
2003, Congress has required that all salmon released from
federally funded hatcheries are marked for conservation
management purposes and has provided funding to implement
this mandate. This funding allows Tribes to mark salmon at
Tribal hatcheries and to use these marked fish to
scientifically monitor salmon populations in western
Washington.
--Provide $4.5 million for BIA Evaluation and Research Activities--
Climate.--We respectfully request $4.5 million for
Evaluation and Research Activities--Climate for our member
Tribes. The fiscal year 2017 total enacted level for both
Great Lakes and Northwest Tribes was only $2.0 million
dollars. fiscal year 2016 provided a much larger total for
Great Lakes and Northwest Tribes at $5.442 million, of
which our member Tribes received $2.382 million. However,
even at fiscal year 2016 funding levels our allocation was
$2.118 million below identified needs. Funding for this
program will provide Tribes the capacity to identify,
respond and adapt to the impacts of our changing climate.
--Provide $10.378 million for BIA Fish, Wildlife & Parks Projects
Account for Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (within the
Fish, Wildlife and Parks Subactivity).--We respectfully request
$10.378 million specifically for Hatchery Operations and
Maintenance within the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Projects
account; an increase of $453,000 over the $9.925 million
provided for these programs in fiscal year 2017. Funding is
provided to Tribal hatcheries to support the rearing and
releasing of salmon and steelhead for harvest by Indian and
non-Indian fisheries in the U.S. and Canada. Hatcheries are a
necessary component of fisheries management because habitat
degradation has greatly diminished natural spawning
populations. As such, hatcheries are now essential for
maintaining the treaty right to harvest fish. Without
hatcheries, Tribes would lose their most basic ceremonial and
subsistence fisheries that are central to our Tribal culture.
Hatcheries also play a large role in rebuilding Pacific salmon
stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act. Funding for
Fish Hatchery Maintenance is provided to Tribes nationwide
based on the ranking of annual project proposals.
--Provide $830,000 for BIA Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and
Assessment Program (SSHIAP) (within the Tribal Management and
Development Subactivity).--We respectfully request $830,000;
$475,000 above the amount specified in the fiscal year 2018
omnibus to be transferred from the Forestry Program to the
Tribal Management/Development Program to support SSHIAP. SSHIAP
is a vital program to the western Washington Tribes because it
provides essential environmental data management, analysis,
sharing and reporting to support Tribal natural and treaty-
reserved resource management. It also supports our Tribes'
ability to adequately participate in watershed resource
assessments and salmon recovery work.
--Provide $273.0 million for BIA Contract Support Costs.--We
respectfully request $273.0 million; an increase of $37.0
million above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. We also
support the reclassification of Contract Support Costs (CSC) as
mandatory funding. Funding for this function is provided to
Tribes and Tribal organizations to ensure they have the
capacity to manage Federal programs under self-determination
contracts and self-governance compacts. These funds are
critical as they directly support our governmental functions,
which allow us to fully exercise our right to self-govern.
--Provide $30.355 million for BIA Cooperative Landscape Conservation/
Climate Resilience.--We respectfully request $30.355 million;
an increase of $20.399 million over the fiscal year 2018
enacted levels of $9.956 million. Funding for this program will
support Tribal capacity to participate in and provide input on
climate change issues that impact fisheries and other treaty-
reserved resources. It will also allow Tribes to provide their
perspective on climate change adaptation and resiliency
necessary to protect their treaty-reserved rights, which is
informed by both traditional ecological knowledge and
scientific research.
Fish & Wildlife Service
--Provide $8.0 million for FWS Tribal Wildlife Grants.--We
respectfully request $8.0 million for the nationwide Tribal
Wildlife Grants program; an increase of $3.791 million over the
fiscal year 2018 enacted of $4.209 million. Funding from this
competitive grant program is used to develop and implement
programs for the conservation of wildlife and their habitat,
including species of Native American cultural or traditional
importance. These grants are often critical to conservation
programs that work to avoid ESA listing.
Environmental Protection Agency
--Provide $96.4 million for EPA General Assistance Program (GAP).--We
respectfully request $96.4 million; an increase of $30.924
million over the fiscal year 2018 enacted level of $65.476
million. We also respectfully request accompanying bill or
report language that would improve flexibility in the GAP to
ensure individual Tribal priorities and implementation
activities would be eligible. The GAP builds Tribal program
capacity to begin to address environmental issues such as water
pollution, which impacts Tribal health, safety, and treaty-
reserved resources. However, GAP does not support Tribes to
implement those programs.
--Provide $5.0 million for EPA ``Beyond GAP''.--We respectfully
request $5.0 million for a regional pilot project known as
``Beyond GAP'' for the 29 Tribes in Washington. GAP and media-
specific EPA grant programs do not fully support Tribes to
develop, operate and implement essential environmental programs
necessary to protect their rights, resources, lands and health.
This request advances a longstanding EPA/Tribal partnership by
moving beyond mere Tribal capacity building to promoting Tribal
programs capable of implementing a broad range of management
activities. At the national scale, increases in Tribal
allocations for EPA Clean Water Act Sec. 104, Sec. 106 and
Sec. 319, and Clean Air Act Sec. 103 and Sec. 105 programs to
allow for media-specific implementation priorities is also
necessary.
--Provide $28.0 million for EPA Puget Sound Geographic Program.--We
respectfully request $28.0 million, which would maintain the
fiscal year 2018 enacted level. This Geographic Program
provides essential funding that will help protect and restore
Puget Sound--an estuary of national significance. Funding for
this program is essential for Tribes because it supports our
participation in a broad range of Puget Sound recovery work,
including, scientific research, resource recovery planning,
implementation and policy discussions on issues that affect our
treaty rights.
conclusion
We respectfully urge the subcommittee to continue to support our
efforts to protect and restore our treaty-reserved rights that in turn
will provide for thriving communities and economies. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Norton Sound Health Corporation
The requests of the Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC) for the
fiscal year 2019 Indian Health Service (I.H.S) budget are as follows:
--Recommend the I.H.S enter into a $9.6 M demonstration project with
Norton Sound Health Corporation to address the opioid and
alcohol abuse that will include construction and staffing for a
wellness and training center.
--Reform the I.H.S Joint Venture Construction Program to support
construction-ready projects and make eligible substance abuse
treatment centers for the program.
--Increase funding for opioid response grants specifically for Tribes
and Tribal Organizations.
--Increase funding for the small ambulatory clinic fund to assist
Tribes and Tribal Health Organizations with a source of funding
for replacement health clinics.
--Expand and streamline funding for sewer and water projects.
--Advanced Appropriations for I.H.S to facilitate efficient budget
planning, purchasing, hiring, and innovation for Tribal Health
Organizations.
Headquartered in Nome, Alaska, Norton Sound Health Corporation is
owned and managed by the 20 federally recognized Tribes of the Bering
Strait region. Our Tribal system includes a regional hospital and 15
village-based clinics, which we operate under an Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) agreement.\1\ Our
rural and remote Arctic region remains unconnected by roads, and we are
500 air miles from Alaska's economic hub of Anchorage. Our service area
encompasses 44,000 square miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our communities are culturally diverse, representing Yupik,
Siberian Yupik, and Inupiaq people. We are fortunate to continue to
live our way of life and practice our traditional customs that have
sustained our communities for millennia. Integral to community health
is our ability to hunt and gather both on our lands and the ocean that
surrounds us. We harvest and share across families and communities
bowhead whale, walrus, and various species of seals that migrate from
the Pacific Ocean to the Arctic Ocean each spring and fall. Our lands,
wetlands and rivers provide migratory birds, moose, caribou, reindeer,
and salmon species. The well-being, health and spirituality of our
people is intricately defined by where and how we live.
Recommend the I.H.S enter into a $9.6 M demonstration project with
Norton Sound Health Corporation to address the opioid and alcohol abuse
that will include construction and staffing for a wellness and training
center.
Alcohol and opiates continue to impact our families of the Bering
Strait region in pervasive and debilitating ways. The economic costs to
our society are real with increased high school and vocational drop
outs, the high rate of suicide (six times the national average) and
lost productivity. Substance abuse is present in 92 percent of cases
involving child protective services, meaning children are taken out of
their families and extended families, while the appropriate level of
care for local treatment services is unavailable for the majority of
parents to become healthy.
In Nome, 95 percent of referrals to the only women's shelter in our
region involve substance abuse. Without access to appropriate health
services, keeping our women safe from harm will continue to be a
challenge. Anvil Mountain Correctional Center (AMCC), located in Nome
has an operating budget of $5.7 million per year, supported by the
State of Alaska. With 95 percent of people brought to AMCC for
substance-related offenses, at $149.62 per inmate per day, the cost of
incarceration for these offenses is $5,403,556 per year (based on a 108
bed census).
Not unlike many other Native communities in the United States, our
families and communities continue to feel the impacts and gravity of
historical trauma which manifests itself in alcohol and substance
abuse. While many Federal decisions played a role in our past, it will
take the commitment and partnership of elected leaders today to change
the course of history. Our tribally elected leaders have recognized the
impacts of historical trauma in our region, and are transforming the
delivery of care by providing culturally sensitive, patient centered
care. Addressing substance abuse remains our top priority and we hope
to partner with I.H.S.
NHSC is developing a new Wellness and Training Center to provide a
full continuum of treatment locally, addressing substance use and
treatment options in a culturally sensitive manner.\2\ While general
outpatient services are a critical tool for addressing these concerns,
many times people need a higher level of care to receive the deep
clinical counseling required to combat a lifetime of substance abuse.
The services at the Center will include detoxification, outpatient and
intensive outpatient services, day treatment and sober housing. Our
families and communities continue to experience the death of loved ones
from addiction. This project is essential in the promotion of healing
and to mitigate substance abuse within our region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Norton Sound Health Corporation Community Needs Assessment,
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This multipurpose building will also house our Health Aide Training
Program, one of only four Health Aide Training sites in Alaska. Over 70
Health Aides are employed by Norton Sound Health Corporation and
deliver nearly 70 percent of the healthcare in the region. Their
training needs are comprehensive and must be maintained. This new
training space will allow for increased classroom sizes to sustain the
quality program, and provide a vocational training ground for some of
those who enter the treatment facility to address their substance
concerns.
NSHC has installed pilings for the new Wellness and Training Center
and has raised $2.2 M toward construction. The Center will be located
near the Norton Sound Regional Hospital in Nome. We have funded the
design work and initial phases of the project through grant funding and
donations, as well as through $1.9 M of NSHC's own funding. NSHC has
pledged another $2.5 M toward construction, but the outstanding cost of
the center remains at $9.6 M.
NSHC has been advocating for a Wellness and Training Center for the
past 5 years and applied for the Joint Venture Construction Program in
2016, but was deemed ineligible. We highly encourage this Committee
examine the eligibility of projects under the program to ensure the
I.H.S implements a program that incentivizes private and Tribal
investment in health facilities, as well as create an acute focus on
the need to address substance abuse across Indian Country.
NSHC requests that this comprehensive treatment facility be
identified as an emergent need for the Bering Strait Region and be
funded as a demonstration project, under Section 307 of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act (25 USC 1637). Additionally, NSHC requests
a reasonable staffing package to help sustain program operations in
addition to billing for third-party reimbursement. We also ask the
subcommittees to sustain increased funding through opioid grants to
fight the opioid epidemic crippling Tribes.
NSHC expresses gratitude for the availability of small ambulatory
clinic funding as a source of funding to support replacement clinics in
villages and would like to see continued increases to support this
fund.
Funding for Water & Sewer Projects. On behalf of our federally
recognized Tribes of our region, I would like to thank the Chairman for
supporting sanitation funds in both the EPA and Indian Health Service
budgets. Your continued commitment will make a difference for those
most impacted by a lack of running water and sewer: our children. The
CDC had documented that in Tribal communities without access to clean
water and flush toilets, rates of hospitalization for pneumonia,
influenza, skin infections, and lower respiratory tract infects are
significantly higher. Infants are 11 times more likely to be
hospitalized for respiratory infections and five times more likely for
skin infections.
Five communities in our region, Diomede, Wales, Shishmaref,
Stebbins, and Teller remain completely unconnected to any running water
and sewer. In three other of NSHC's communities, 30-50 percent of the
homes still lack service, and ongoing sewer and water upgrades and
maintenance backlogs remain concerns in seven communities. An estimated
465 homes in the Bering Strait region have no running water, nor flush
toilets. While there remains a $2 billion sanitation need in Alaska,
with 30 communities or 3300 homes unconnected, we face a $215 million
sanitation need in the Bering Strait region. The need for clean water,
and sanitation systems continues to be a silent crisis.
NSHC would like to direct this Committee's attention to some
concerning decisions made by the I.H.S in the management of their
sanitation funds. As it executes the Federal trust responsibility the
United States has with federally recognized Tribes, over the last 40
years, the I.H.S has prioritized service to Indian communities, and
pro-rated funds for Indians that live in non-Indian communities. Last
October without any formal notice in writing nor consultation, the
I.H.S changed their operation of the program removing the focus to
Native communities. We believe this action is a direct assault to the
Federal trust relationship, and urge that the Committee provide express
and clear direction to the I.H.S to maintain its historical operation
and focus on improving sanitation in Native communities.
There is much work to be done. As Congress considers infrastructure
expansion in the United States, NSHC urges it not forget the dire
public infrastructure needs in our Native communities. NSHC believes
that it is critical that our self-governance Tribes have the ability to
innovate how we address the sanitation needs of our communities. We
recommend establishing a program within the I.H.S that would allow
Tribes to be innovative in addressing the need for basic sanitation
systems. We thus request the subcommittees' support for establishing
such a program within the I.H.S, and for expanding the current funding
within the IHS budget that is allocated toward water and sewer
projects. In this day and age, we should not have communities, nor
homes within communities, that are unconnected to safe water and sewer.
Increasing temperatures are changing Alaska: thawing permafrost and
eroding costal and river shorelines are damaging and shortening the
operating life of critical public infrastructure in Native communities
including sanitation systems. The State of Alaska and the Federal
Government Accountability Office have identified 31 threatened Native
communities, 12 of which are looking at relocating their villages.
Funding for programs impacted by climate change, such as those related
to addressing flooding and erosion, must not be cut, and we ask the
subcommittees to help encourage the Federal funding agencies to be more
responsive to the need for research and development, in order to
address the sewer and water needs in these communities that are
threatened by climate change.
Advanced Appropriations for I.H.S. For several years, Tribal Health
Organizations have requested advance appropriations to facilitate
budget planning, purchasing, hiring, and innovation, similar to the
Veterans Administration enacted advanced appropriation in 2009. It has
become nearly normal for appropriations to become chronically late.
Both the VA and I.H.S provide direct medical care and both are the
result of Federal policies. It is extremely challenging to prepare an
annual operating budget without confirmed funding.
Thank you for your consideration of the concerns and requests of
the Norton Sound Health Corporation.
[This statement was submitted by Megan Alvanna Stimpfle, Self-
Governance Liaison.]
______
Prepared Statement of OPERA America
Madam 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 more than 2,000 organizational
and individual members. We strongly urge the subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies in the Committee on Appropriations to
designate a total of $155 million to the National Endowment for the
Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2019. This testimony and the funding
examples described below are intended to highlight the importance of
Federal investment in the arts, so critical to sustaining a vibrant
cultural community throughout the country.
The NEA is a great investment in in the economic growth of every
community. The NEA was established in 1965 with the mission to
``strengthen the creative capacity of our communities by providing all
Americans with diverse opportunities for arts participation.'' It has
continued to meet this mission for over 50 years, recommending more
than 2,400 grants in every Congressional District in the country in
fiscal year 2017. Sixty-five percent of direct grants went to small
(budgets under $500,000) and medium sized (budgets between $500,000 and
$2 million) organizations. Additionally, 40 percent of NEA-supported
activities took place in high-poverty neighborhoods and 36 percent of
NEA grants reached underserved populations, such as people with
disabilities and veterans. Between 2012 and 2015, NEA-supported
programs reached 24.2 million adults and 3.4 children on average each
year through 80,603 live events.
Funding from the NEA continues to support arts organizations and
their communities by providing a high return on investment. The ratio
of private and other public funds matching every NEA grant dollar is
approaching 9:1, generating more than $500 million in matching
supporting.
Before the establishment of the NEA, funding for the arts was
mostly limited to larger cities. The NEA is the only arts funder in
America, public or private, that supports the arts in all 50 States,
the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. Additionally, 40
percent of the NEA's program funds are distributed through State arts
agencies, reaching tens of thousands throughout the U.S. NEA funding
provides access to the arts in regions with histories of
inaccessibility due to economic or geographic limitations.
At the national level, the arts and cultural sector contributed
$763.6 billion to the U.S. economy in 2015, 4.2 percent of the GDP, and
counted 4.9 million workers who earned $372 billion in total
compensation. The tax-exempt performing arts organizations contributed
$9 billion to the U.S. economy and employed 90,000 workers, who earned
$5.6 billion in total compensation. Consumers spent $31.6 billion on
admissions to performing arts events.
Opera's increasing civic practice supports healthy and vibrant
communities. 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
communities of the cities they serve. Strong partnerships with local
schools extend the civic reach of opera companies as they introduce
children to a multi-media art form and discover promising young talent.
Founded in 1970, OPERA America is that national service
organization for opera and the Nation's leading champion for American
opera. OPERA America's membership includes 157 professional member
companies in the United States and Canada, located in 41 States, the
District of Columbia, and seven Canadian provinces.
--Economic Impact: In fiscal year 2016, OPERA America's member
organizations had expenses that totaled $1.1 billion, including
both personnel and non-personnel expenses. As 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organizations, opera companies depend on support from
private philanthropy and governmental sources. In fiscal year
16, private support totaled $510 million, representing 47
percent of total operating income; while total city, county,
State, and Federal Government support consisted of 7 percent of
total operating income.
According to data compiled by the NEA and the Bureau of
Economic Analysis' U.S. Arts and Culture Production Satellite Account,
revenues from opera companies totaled $955 million, suggesting that
opera companies comprise roughly 9 percent of the value added by tax-
exempt performing art companies.
OPERA America's members employed a total of 2,551 full-time,
8,119 part-time, and 18,698 contract staff in 2017.
--Communities Served: Opera audiences are growing more diverse. From
2008-2012, the percentage of African-American attendees
increased by 59 percent; and attendance by Latino audiences
increased by 8.3 percent. During those same years, audience
members in the 18-24 age bracket grew by 43.2 percent and those
in the 25-34 age bracket grew by 33.8 percent.
--Opera Works: Much of the success of opera's increasing audience is
the result of the creation of new works, telling uniquely
American stories. Since 1900, over 1,000 new operatic works
have been produced in North America, with more than 600 operas
premiering between 1995 and 2017. In the 2016-2017 season
alone, 30 North American operas premiered.
The two most frequently produced American operas in 2016-2017
include: As One, a chamber opera, depicts the experiences of its sole
transgender protagonist as she endeavors to resolve the discord between
her self and the outside world; and Dead Man Walking, based on the book
of the same name by Sister Helen Prejean. In fact, As One is also the
10th most produced opera in the U.S., in a list that includes Carmen,
La boheme, The Magic Flute, and Rigoletto.
nea grants at work
NEA grants are awarded to opera organizations through its core
programs: Art Works; Challenge America Fast Track Grants; and Federal/
State Partnerships. In fiscal year 2017, the NEA awarded 73 grants to
the opera field through the Art Works category, totaling $2,095,000.
OPERA America received an Art Works Grant to support programs and
services for the entire field of opera in addition to an Our Town grant
to help build opera companies' capacity to increase the scope and
intensity of their civic engagement. Led by an experienced faculty, a
powerful exchange of stories and case studies among members has created
a core of expert practitioners who will lead the field in a coordinated
effort to address important civic issues through reciprocal
relationships with other arts and non-arts organizations. Below are
just a few examples of the excellent initiatives. (Each organization
referenced received an NEA grant in fiscal year 2017.)
Cincinnati Opera
Through Cincinnati Opera's new 5-year initiative, CO Next: Diverse
Voices, the company is co-creating new works with non-arts partner
organizations. The first original work in this series, Blind Injustice,
will be developed in partnership with the Ohio Innocence Project and
the Young Professionals Choral Collective. The piece will tell the
stories of four exonerated prisoners. By reimagining how engagement and
artistic practice can function in relation to diverse constituencies,
Cincinnati utilizes opera in service of the needs of non-arts partners.
Houston Grand Opera
HGOco connects Houston Grand Opera's creative resources with the
diverse and vibrant community. The ``co'' in HGOco stands for company,
community, and collaboration. The Song of Houston initiative
commissions new chamber operas and song projects that resonate with
contemporary life in Houston and develops community projects that
foster collaborations with many Houston-area organizations. The most
recently completed initiative, The Veterans Songbook Project, provided
an opportunity for veterans to participate in workshops held in
collaboration with local veterans' service organizations and Houston-
based composers.
Michigan Opera Theatre
Arts and sports are important sources of pride and revitalization
for the city of Detroit. Michigan Opera will embrace both with ``Take
Me Out To the Opera!'' presented alongside its Midwestern premiere of
The Summer King, about baseball legend and Negro League player, Josh
Gibson. Giving voice to Detroit's past and present commitment to equity
and inclusion, this series of programs will explore the distinction of
arts and sports as institutional leaders in breaking racial barriers
during the era of segregation.
Opera Omaha
In the fall of 2017 Opera Omaha established the Holland Community
Opera Fellowship. This program engages four opera performers to reside
in Omaha for 2 years to perform and conduct service-oriented activities
to the benefit of the community. The Fellows are selected by a panel of
community members who help develop reciprocal relationships between
Opera Omaha and the organizations and neighborhoods served by the
program. Through this Fellowship, Opera Omaha seeks to build bridges
across the demographic and ideological divides in the community and
continue the company's shift to more community-responsive and co-
created programming.
Opera Theatre of Saint Louis
In order to better serve the community, Opera Theatre of Saint
Louis initiated conversations with local African American leaders
seeking honest feedback. The lack of diversity on Opera Theatre's stage
was identified as a key impediment to engaging audiences of color. To
address this issue, last year the company began tracking the diversity
of the young artists and principal cast members being hired. Opera
Theatre of Saint Louis is committed to changing their casting practices
to achieve diversity that is more representative of the Nation.
OPERA America is grateful for the $3 million increase to the NEA in
fiscal year 2018. The continued bipartisan support for the agency has
continued to support artists and audiences, allowing opera and the arts
to address critical issues, making communities healthier and more
vibrant.
We urge you to continue toward restoration and increase the NEA
funding allocation to $155 million for fiscal year 2019.
On behalf of OPERA America, thank you for considering this request.
[This statement was submitted by Marc A. Scorca, President and
CEO.]
______
Opposing the Inclusion of Any Anti-Environment Riders deg.
Prepared Statement Opposing the Inclusion of Any Anti-Environment
Riders in the Fiscal Year 2018 Omnibus Appropriations Bill
The Honorable Mitch McConnell The Honorable Paul Ryan
Majority Leader Speaker
United States Senate U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Charles E. Schumer The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Minority Leader Minority Leader
United States Senate U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Thad Cochran The Honorable Rodney P.
Chairman, Committee on Frelinghuysen
Appropriations Chairman, Committee on
United States Senate Appropriations
Washington, DC 20510 U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy The Honorable Nita M. Lowey
Ranking Member Ranking Member
Committee on Appropriations Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20515
RE: Appropriations Rider Pertaining to Alaskan ``Small Remote
Incinerators (SRIs)''
March 19, 2018
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer, Speaker
Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi, Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Leahy,
Chairman Frelinghuysen, and Ranking Member Lowey,
On behalf of our millions of members, we strongly oppose the
inclusion of any anti-environment riders in the fiscal year 2018
Omnibus Appropriations bill. Including damaging legislative provisions
in a massive must-pass funding bill harms our public health and
environment, and it undermines the democratic process.
We have specific concerns with a rider in the Senate's fiscal year
2018 Interior, Environment, and Related Appropriations bill that would
damage important clean air protections established by EPA in 2011 for
toxic pollution from commercial and industrial waste incinerators.
These protections secure significant climate and health benefits,
reducing 5,200 tons of sulfur dioxide, 5,500 tons of nitrogen oxide,
25,000 tons of carbon monoxide, 710 tons of direct particulate matter,
470 tons of hydrogen chloride, 4.1 tons of lead, 0.95 tons of cadmium,
and 260 pounds of mercury each year. The monetized value of the PM
health benefits alone was estimated at $310 million to $830 million per
year.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources:
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units 5-9, 5-23
(Feb. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 435 of the Bill, ``Small Remote Incinerators'' (SRIs),
would undo these protections as to certain commercial and industrial
waste incinerators in Alaska. By allowing these facilities to freely
emit particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and various hazardous air
pollutants including cadmium, dioxins, furans, hydrogen chloride, lead,
and mercury, the bill will expose communities and families that live
and work near such facilities to increased risks of cancer, heart
disease, stroke, and other serious illnesses. The Bill would also set
us on a dangerous path towards the piecemeal dismantling of clean air
protections that are meant to provide consistent protection to all
Americans.
Clean Air Act regulations pertaining to SRIs should be maintained.
In contrast with the significant health benefits of these standards,
the requirements for compliance are not particularly burdensome. The
D.C. Circuit noted that all of the 28 SRI facilities covered by EPA's
standards are located in Alaska, and concluded that ``no record
evidence suggests that the current SRI emission standards are not
achievable.'' \2\ It's clear that EPA has given--and continues to
give--serious consideration to compliance and cost concerns surrounding
these standards, and they have already withstood judicial scrutiny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ United States Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 622 (D.C. Cir.
2016)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are few responsibilities as fundamental for our Government as
ensuring the air we breathe is clean and safe. Passing an
appropriations package that includes Section 435's attack on the Clean
Air Act would endanger the health of people in Alaska and set a
dangerous precedent. By establishing special legislative exemptions,
the proposed amendments create the very ``race to the bottom'' and
health inequities that the Clean Air Act was designed to avoid. We urge
you to reject all anti-environment riders in the fiscal year 2018
Omnibus Appropriations bill, including section 435 on small remote
incinerators.
EDF Action
Earthjustice
Environmental Protection Network
Sierra Club
Greenpeace
Center for Biological Diversity
Alaska Wilderness League
The Wilderness Society
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) is concerned about
continuing 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 2019. The CWSRF is an effective loan
program that addresses critical water infrastructure needs while
benefitting the environment, local communities, and the economy.
OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support the
protection of water rights and promote the wise stewardship of water
resources statewide. OWRC members are local governmental entities,
which include irrigation districts, water control districts, drainage
districts, water improvement districts, and other agricultural water
suppliers that deliver water to roughly \1/3\ of all irrigated land in
Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management systems,
including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower
facilities.
fiscal year 2019 appropriations
We recognize that we must make strategic investments with our
country's scarce resources and maximize benefits to the American
people. 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 a highly efficient return on taxpayer
investment. Oregon, like many other States, continues to face high
levels of unemployment and the CWSRF funded projects provide much
needed construction and professional services jobs. Moreover, as a loan
program, it is a wise investment that allows local communities to
leverage their limited resources and address critical infrastructure
needs that would otherwise be unmet.
Nationally, there are large and growing critical water
infrastructure needs. In EPA's most recent needs surveys, The Clean
Watersheds Needs Survey 2012: Report to Congress and Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Fifth Report to Congress,
the estimated funding need for drinking water infrastructure totaled
$384 billion (in 2011 dollars) and wastewater infrastructure needs
totaled $271 billion (in 2012 dollars). Appropriations for water
infrastructure, specifically CWSRF, should not be declining but
remaining strong in order to meet these critical needs. In 2016 and
2017 appropriations for the CWSRF program were approximately $1.394
billion. We are concerned as we see this negative downward trend
continuing while the status of our Nation's water infrastructure
continues to decline.
We also continue to be highly supportive of expanding ``green
infrastructure,'' in fact, irrigation districts and other water
suppliers in Oregon are on the forefront of ``green infrastructure''
through innovative piping projects that provide multiple environmental
benefits, which is discussed in greater detail below. However,
continually reducing the amount of funds available for these types of
worthwhile projects has created increased uncertainty for potential
borrowers about whether adequate funding will be available in future
years. CWSRF is often an integral part of an overall package of State,
Federal and local funding that necessitates a stronger level of
assurance that loan funds will be available for planned water
infrastructure projects. Reductions in the CWSRF could lead to loss of
grant funding and delay or derail beneficial projects that irrigation
districts have been developing for years.
Additionally, OWRC is pleased that EPA continues ``strategic
partnerships'' with the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Services
(NRCS) and other Federal agencies to improve water quality and address
nonpoint source pollution. Oregon had one priority watersheds eligible
for funding through the National Water Quality Initiative in 2017 and
anticipates that additional watersheds will be included in the future.
As Oregon is a delegated State, the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) administers the CWSRF and is an important lead agency in
incentivizing voluntary efforts to improve these and other impaired
waterways in the State. DEQ and its administration of the CWSRF has
been an extremely valuable tool in Oregon for improving water quality
and efficiently addressing infrastructure challenges that are otherwise
cost-prohibitive.
cwsrf needs in oregon
The appropriations for the CWSRF program over the past few years
has been far short of what is needed to address critical water
infrastructure needs in Oregon and across the Nation. This has led to
fewer water infrastructure projects, and therefore a reduction in
improvements to water quality. DEQ's most recent ``Proposed Intended
Use Plan Update #2--State Fiscal Year 2018,'' lists 21 projects in need
of a total of $166,079,756 in Oregon alone. The Federal capitalization
grant funding awarded in fiscal year 2017 will total $14,977,000, which
is wholly inadequate to address and complete these much-needed
projects.
Now that irrigation districts are once again eligible for principal
forgiveness (which was recently reinstated with the passage of the WIIN
Act), seven irrigation districts submitted applications for funding in
2018. All totaled Oregon irrigation districts have submitted
applications to DEQ for over $63,000,000 for the design and
construction of multiple projects to improve water quality and quantity
associated with irrigation diversions, canals and pipelines throughout
the State. OWRC is hopeful that with an increase in money available,
there will be enough funding available to complete projects that will
not only benefit the environment and the patrons served by the water
delivery system, but also benefit the economy.
cwsrf and irrigation districts
OWRC and our members are highly supportive of the CWSRF, including
promoting the program to our members and annually submitting Federal
appropriations testimony to support increased funding for the CWSRF. We
believe it is an important funding tool that irrigation districts and
other water suppliers are using for innovative piping projects that
provide multiple environmental and economic benefits.
Many OWRC member districts have successfully received loans from
the CWSRF over the last several years and many more continue to apply.
Numerous irrigation districts and other water suppliers need to pipe
currently open canals, which reduces sediment and water temperature and
provides other water quality improvements as well as increasing water
availability for fish and irrigators by reducing water loss from the
delivery system. As an example of past success, in 2009, four
irrigation districts received over $11 million funding in Oregon from
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 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. Without the
irrigation district projects, it is likely that Oregon's CWSRF would
not have qualified for ARRA funding.
the importance and success of local watershed planning
Oregon's success in watershed planning illustrates that planning
efforts work best when diverse interests develop and implement plans at
the local watershed level with support from State government. Oregon
has recently revised their CWSRF rules; thus making conservation easier
and its benefits to be better achieved in the State. As the national
model for watershed planning, Oregon does not need a new Federal agency
or Executive Branch office to oversee conservation and restoration
efforts. Planning activities are conducted through local watershed
councils, volunteer-driven organizations that work with local, State
and Federal agencies, economic and environmental interests,
agricultural, industrial and municipal water users, local landowners,
Tribes, and other members of the community. There are over 60
individual watershed councils in Oregon that are already deeply engaged
in watershed planning and restoration activities. Watershed planning in
Oregon formally began in 1995 with the development of the Oregon Plan
for Salmon Recovery and Watershed Enhancement, a statewide strategy
developed in response to the Federal listing of several fish species.
This strategy led to the creation of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement
Board (OWEB), a State agency and policy oversight board that funds and
promotes voluntary and collaborative efforts that ``help create and
maintain healthy watersheds and natural habitats that support thriving
communities and strong economies'' in 1999.
conclusion
In conclusion, we applaud the CWSRF program for allowing Oregon's
DEQ to make targeted loans that address Clean Water Act issues and
improve water quality but also help incentivize innovative water
management solutions that benefit local communities, agricultural
economies, and the environment. This voluntary approach creates and
promotes cooperation and collaborative solutions to complex water
resources challenges. We respectfully request the appropriation of at
least $2 billion for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean
Water State Revolving Loan Fund for Fiscal Year 2019.
Sincerely,
April Snell,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) is writing to express
its strong support for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries
Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) Program and is requesting
that appropriations for this program be $15 million in fiscal year
2019, which is what FRIMA is currently authorized for. The FRIMA
program is an essential cost-share funding program that helps water
users and fishery agencies better protect sensitive, threatened, and
endangered fish species while ensuring water supply delivery to farms
and communities.
OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support the
protection of water rights and promote the wise stewardship of water
resources statewide. OWRC members are local governmental entities,
which include irrigation districts, water control districts, drainage
districts, water improvement districts, and other agricultural water
suppliers that deliver water to roughly \1/3\ of all irrigated land in
Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management systems,
including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower
production.
fiscal year 2019 appropriations
The FRIMA program meets a critical need in fishery protection and
restoration, complimenting other programs through the U.S Fish and
Wildlife Services (FWS), while leveraging State, local, and private
funds. The program provides vital cost-share funding that helps meet
fishery needs without placing the burden solely on the backs of farmers
and ranchers who rely on the same water source. Fish passage and fish
screens installations are a vital component to fishery protection with
several benefits:
--Keeps sensitive, threatened and endangered fish out of canals and
water delivery systems
--Allows fish to be safely bypassed around reservoirs and other
infrastructure
--Eliminates water quality risks to fish species
There are over 100 irrigation districts and other special districts
in Oregon that deliver water supplies to over 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, Steelhead, Bull Trout or other sensitive, threatened or
endangered species. The design and installation of fish screens and
fish passage to protect the myriad of fish species is often cost-
prohibitive for individual districts to implement without outside
funding sources.
Oregon irrigation districts anticipate no less than $25 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
(new species, new science) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service and the FWS. Upgrades are often
needed to modernize facilities with new technologies that provide
better protection for fish species as well as reduced maintenance and
increased lifespan for the operator.
background of the fisheries restoration irrigation mitigation act
(frima) program
FRIMA, originally enacted November 2000, created a Federal
partnership program incentivizing voluntary fish screen and fish
passage improvements for water withdrawal projects in Idaho, Oregon,
Washington and western Montana. The funding goes to local governments
for construction of fish screens and fish passage facilities and is
matched with non-Federal funding. Irrigation districts and other local
governments that divert water for irrigation accessed the funding
directly, while individual irrigators accessed funding through their
local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), which are local
governments affiliated with the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS).
FRIMA was reauthorized as part of the Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN) of 2016 for only $15 million,
well short of the estimated $500 million in fish screening and passage
needs in the Pacific Northwest alone. 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 and strongly support your efforts to reauthorize the FRIMA
program. The FRIMA legislation authorized $25 million annually, to be
divided equally among the four States from 2001 to 2012, which was when
the original authorization expired. The actual funding appropriated to
the FRIMA program (through Congressional write-ins) ranged from $1
million to $8 million, well short of the $25 million it was authorized
for and far short of what is needed to address fish passage and
screening needs across the region. However, that small amount funding
was used to leverage other funds and assisted the region in making
measurable progress towards addressing fish screens and fish passage
needed to protect sensitive, threatened, and endangered fish species.
FRIMA funding was channeled through FWS to State fishery agencies
in the four States, distributed using an application and approval
process based on a ranking system implemented uniformly among the
States, including the following factors: fish restoration benefits,
cost effectiveness, and feasibility of planned structure. All projects
provided improved fish passage or fish protection at water diversion
structures and benefitted native fish species in the area, including
several State or federally listed species. Projects were also subject
to applicable State and Federal requirements for project construction
and operation.
program benefits
FRIMA projects provide immediate protection for fish and fills a
large unmet need in the Pacific Northwest for cost-share assistance
with fish screening and fish passage installations and improvements. 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. Compared to other recovery strategies, the
installation of fish screens and fish passage infrastructure has the
highest assurance for increasing numbers of fish species in the Pacific
Northwest. Furthermore, the installation of these devices have minimal
impacts on water delivery operations and projects are done
cooperatively using methods that are well accepted by landowners and
rural communities.
The return of the FRIMA program will catalyze cooperative
partnerships and innovative projects that provide immediate and long-
term benefits to irrigators, fishery agencies, and local communities
throughout the Pacific Northwest. This program is also a wise
investment, with past projects contributing more than the required
match and leveraging on average over one dollar for each Federal dollar
invested. FRIMA provides for a maximum Federal cost-share of 65
percent, with the applicant's cost-share at 35 percent plus the on-
going maintenance and support of the structure for passage or screening
purposes. Applicants operate the projects and the State agencies
monitor and review the projects.
oregon's project benefits
Twenty-six fish screens or fish passage projects in Oregon were
previously funded using FRIMA for part of the project financing. These
projects have led to:
--Installation of screens at 17 diversions or irrigation pumps
--Removal or modification of 12 fish passage barriers
--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 ranged from just under $6,000
to $400,000 in size with a local match averaging 64 percent of the
project costs, well over 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 over one dollar for the
protection of fish species in the Pacific Northwest.
The following are examples of how Oregon used some of its FRIMA
money:
Santiam Water Control District Project: Fish screen project on a
large 1050 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 leveraged a $1,200,000 total project cost. Species
benefited included 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 of $372,000 leveraged a $580,000 total project
cost. Species benefited included 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 of $5,691 leveraged a total project cost
of $18,970. Species benefited included red-band trout, short-nosed
sucker and Lost River sucker.
conclusion
Providing appropriations for the FRIMA program will fill a vital
funding gap for fish screens and fish passage projects that are needed
to better protect sensitive, threatened, and endangered fish species,
which also benefits the economy, local communities, and the environment
we share. FRIMA funds projects that are ready to be constructed and
will provide both 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. The return of the
FRIMA program will catalyze cooperative partnerships and innovative
projects that provide immediate and long-term economic and
environmental benefits to irrigators, fishery agencies, and local
communities throughout the Pacific Northwest. We respectfully request
an appropriation of $15 million for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Fisheries Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act program for fiscal year
2019.
[This statement was submitted by April Snell, Executive Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Pacific Salmon Commission
Mr. Chairman, and Honorable Members of the Committee, I am Ron
Allen, the Alternate Tribal Commissioner and Chair of the Finance and
Administration Committee for the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon
Commission (PSC). The U.S. Section prepares an annual budget for
implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The integrated budget
details program needs and costs for Tribal, Federal, and State agencies
involved in the Treaty. Tribal participation in the Treaty process is
funded within the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget.
--In order to meet the increased obligations under the Pacific Salmon
Treaty Agreement, the 25 affected Tribes identified costs at
$5,200,000 for Tribal research projects and participation in
the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty process, an increase of
$857,278 over fiscal year 2017 enacted level. The funding for
Tribal participation in the Pacific Salmon Treaty is a line
item in the BIA's budget under Rights Protection
Implementation.
Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs, the U.S. Section
identified funding needs as follows:
--USFWS participation in the Treaty process is funded at $372,362 for
fiscal year 2017. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission's Regional Mark Center (PSMFC) receives support from
the USFWS to provide data services to the PSC process at a
level of $236,189 for fiscal year 2017. The U.S. Section
recommends increasing the funding for PSMFC by $150,000. The
recommended total for the two programs for fiscal year 2019 is
$758,551.
This base funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports
critically important on-going work and participation in the process.
The funding for Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission's Regional
Mark Processing Center is utilized to meet Treaty requirements
concerning data exchange with Canada. These program recommendations are
integrated with those of participating State and Federal agencies to
avoid duplication of effort and provide for the most efficient
expenditure of limited funds.
The U.S. Section of the PSC is recommending an adjustment to
support the work carried out by the 25 treaty Tribes' participating in
implementation of the Treaty. Programs carried out by the Tribes are
closely coordinated with those of participating State and Federal
agencies. Tribal programs are essential for the United States to meet
its international obligations. Tribal programs have taken on additional
management responsibilities due to funding issues with State agencies.
All participating agencies need to be adequately supported to achieve a
comprehensive U.S. effort to implement the Treaty.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service activities are essential so the
U.S. can maintain the critical database to implement the Treaty. The
work of the Regional Mark Processing Center includes maintaining and
updating a coastwide computerized information management system for
salmon harvest data as required by the Treaty. This work has become
even more important to monitor the success of management actions aimed
at reducing impacts on ESA-listed salmon populations. Canada has a
counterpart database. The U.S. database will continue to be housed at
the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Funding to support activities under the Pacific Salmon Commission
comes from the Departments of Interior, State, and Commerce. The U.S.
Section can provide a cross-cut budget summary to the Committee.
Adequate funding from all three Departments is necessary for the U.S.
to meet its Treaty obligations. All the funds are needed for critical
data collection and research activities directly related to the
implementation and are used in cooperative programs involving Federal,
State, and Tribal fishery agencies and the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans in Canada. The commitment of the United States is matched by the
commitment of the Government of Canada.
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 30 years, the work of the Pacific Salmon
Commission continues to be essential for the wise management of salmon
in the Pacific Northwest, British Columbia, and Alaska. For example,
upriver bright fall Chinook salmon from the Hanford Reach of the
Columbia River are caught in large numbers in Alaskan and Canadian
waters. Tribal and non-Tribal fishermen harvest sockeye salmon from
Canada's Fraser River in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in Puget Sound.
Canadian trollers off 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
Pacific Salmon Commission provides a forum to ensure cooperative
management of salmon populations. The agreements in the current Annex
Chapters for management of Chinook, Coho, Chum and transboundary
populations expire at the end of 2018. The Annex Chapter for management
of Fraser River Sockeye and Pink salmon expires at the end of 2019. The
U.S. and Canada are negotiating revisions to the current agreements. It
is critically important to have adequate resources for U.S.
participants to implement the revised agreements and protect our Tribal
Treaty resources.
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 because 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 has complemented
habitat conservation and restoration activities 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 continued these commitments and
the upcoming revisions will continue to build on these efforts. The
combination of these efforts is integral to achieving success in
rebuilding and restoring healthy, sustainable salmon populations.
Finally, you should consider 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 commercial, recreational
fisheries, and the economic diversity they provide for local economies
throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, is immense. The Commission
recently funded an economic study of the fisheries and determined that
this resource creates thousands of jobs and is a multi-billion dollar
industry. 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 due to the listings of Pacific
Northwest salmon populations under the Endangered Species Act. Given
these resources, we can continue to utilize the Pacific Salmon
Commission to develop recommendations that help with the development
and implementation of solutions to minimizing impacts on listed stocks.
We continue to work towards the true intent of the Treaty, and with
your support, we will manage this shared resource for mutual
enhancements and benefits.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my written testimony submitted for
consideration by your Committee. I want to thank the Committee for the
support that it has given the U.S. Section in the past. Please feel
free to contact me, or other members of the U.S. Section to answer any
questions you or Committee members may have regarding the U.S. Section
of the Pacific Salmon Commission budget.
______
Prepared Statement of PhilipsenBrenda deg.
Prepared Statement of Brenda Philipsen
Dear Committee Members:
As an American citizen and taxpayer, I am very upset at Congress'
inclusion of Section 116 language in the Omnibus spending bill.
This provision could strip up to 50,000 wild horses and burros of
Federal protections that were passed unanimously by Congress and have
been in place for nearly 50 years. Especially troubling is the section
authorizing of the killing of ``advanced age'' animals, which could
mean that thousands of healthy middle- to older-aged animals who
currently enjoy Federal protection will be destroyed. Other loopholes
include no provisions for accountability, transparency or accounting
for the fates of transferred horses and no penalty for violating the
provisions. Additionally, there is no prohibition on the transfer of
horses by receiving agencies to third parties that could then kill the
horses or burros for non-commercial purposes. Further, the provision
for ``immediate'' transfer could send thousands of unbranded, and
therefore untraceable, horses into the slaughter pipeline.
Language put in place by Congress to prevent commercial slaughter
and restrict euthanasia is well intended but ineffective and
unenforceable. Further, it is inappropriate to upend a unanimously
passed Act of Congress through a last minute spending bill. Americans
overwhelmingly oppose horse slaughter and support protecting wild
horses and burros on our public lands. Please honor the will of the
people by fixing the problem caused by this language this language when
the Omnibus expires on September 30, 2017.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico
Recommendations
1. IHS--Provide full funding and advance appropriations for the
Indian Health Service.
2. IHS--Maintain funding for Community Health Representatives.
3. IHS--$150 million in mandatory funding for SDPI.
4. BIA--Increase funding for disaster recovery and prevention
programs.
5. BIA--Establish a BIA Emergency Response Fund.
6. USFS--Increase support for Tribal Forest Protection Act
implementation.
7. BIA--$3 million for the BIA Endangered Species Program.
8. BIA--$30 million for the Tribal Climate Resilience Program.
9. DOI--$30 million for Department-wide Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives.
10. EPA--Provide full funding for the EPA General Assistance
Program.
11. BIA OSG--$2 million in baseline funding for the Office of
Self-Governance.
12. BIA--Maintain $1 million in dedicated funding for NAGPRA
implementation.
13. BIA--Increase funding for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices
under the NHPA.
Introduction
Thank you Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of
the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on the important topic
of Federal funding for American Indian and Alaska Native programs under
your jurisdiction. My name is J. Michael Chavarria and I am the
Governor of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, also serving in the capacity of
the Chairman for the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council and Vice-
Chairman for the All Pueblo Council of Governors (APCG). Santa Clara
Pueblo is located north of Santa Fe, New Mexico, in the foothills of
the Valles Caldera Park Service Unit. On behalf of my Pueblo, we thank
you and your staff for your hard work in protecting the interests of
Tribal nations in the Federal budgeting process. The Federal budget
plays an essential role in fulfilling the Federal Government's trust
and treaty obligations to Tribal nations by ensuring that critical
programs and services receive adequate resources to fulfill their
intended purpose. These programs are provided to Tribal nations because
of the unique political relationship that exists between our sovereign
governments.
As a Tribal leader, I have developed a deep understanding of our
community's pressing needs, as well as of the immense potential of the
Santa Clara People to succeed if given the appropriate level of
resources and support. To further these twin objectives of progress and
achievement, I offer the following fiscal year 2019 budget
recommendations for the subcommittee.
i. promoting access to high quality healthcare in indian country
Provide Full Funding and Advance Appropriations for the Indian
Health Service. The IHS strives to provide Tribal citizens with access
to high quality and comprehensive medical services. Unlike other
Federal healthcare agencies, such as Veterans Affairs, the IHS must
balance the delivery of services with years of under-resourcing and the
detrimental, lingering effects of sequestration under the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The sum of this equation is all too often
manifested in negative health outcomes for American Indian and Alaska
Natives who depend on the IHS for care. Full advance appropriations for
the IHS would promote greater stability in services, medical personnel
recruitment and retention, and facilities management. It would also
provide the IHS with parity to other Federal healthcare agencies that
have demonstrated success in delivering consistent medical services
under advance appropriations that have otherwise been interrupted by
budget-related complications like continuing resolutions. IHS
appropriations reform is urgently needed to provide Indian Country with
access to this same peace of mind and reliability in healthcare
services. We urge Congress to fully fund advance appropriations for the
IHS under the fiscal year 2019 budget and beyond.
Maintain Funding for the Community Health Representatives (CHR).
CHRs are a valued and valuable asset in the Indian healthcare systems.
Providers come from the communities they serve and have the necessary
Tribal cultural understanding to identify, respond to, and address our
Pueblo members' needs. They also serve as important sources of basic
healthcare services, disease prevention services, and health education.
We are deeply disturbed by the President's fiscal year 2019 proposal to
eliminate all funding for this unique and highly effective program. We
urge Congress to maintain funding for CHRs and promote community-
connected care in Indian Country.
Maintain $150 million in Mandatory Spending for the Special
Diabetes Program for Indians. As you are well aware, communities across
Indian Country are associated with tremendous, alarming, and
debilitating statistics related to incidences of diabetes and diabetes-
related complications among Tribal members. The Pueblo of Santa Clara
is no exception. SDPI is a critical program that has demonstrated
success in reducing incidences in diabetes and end-stage renal disease
in Tribal communities, as well as in preventing, treating, and managing
symptoms. We strongly urge Congress to maintain the current $150
million in SPDI mandatory funds.
ii. effective natural resources management
Increase Funding for BIA Disaster Recovery and Prevention Programs.
The stewardship of land, minerals, water and other natural resources is
key to both the economic well-being of Pueblo people and to their
cultural survival. As Tribal leaders, we strive to balance these
interests through beneficial partnerships and the effective management
of our natural resources. Nature, however, chooses her own course. Our
Pueblo has been devastated by not one but three catastrophic
wildfires--the 1998 Oso Complex Fire, 2000 Cerro Grande Fire, and the
2011 Las Conchas Fire. We have invested heavily in the development of
fire preparedness and suppression resources to protect life and
property. The BIA and other Federal agencies have worked closely with
us to carry out these activities and address what continues to be an
existential threat to our Pueblo. Because of these efforts, we are
proud to say that Santa Clara is home to top-tier Tribal forestry and
land management departments. We urge Congress to increase funding for
BIA natural disaster recovery and prevention programs to better protect
Tribal and Federal lands.
Establish a BIA Emergency Response Fund. Our experiences with
disaster relief highlight the need for Tribal nations to receive
assistance as soon as possible following a natural disaster. For many
Tribal governments, however, the upfront investment in emergency staff
and services, and the high cost-sharing requirements of certain Federal
programs present significant financial barriers. When added to the
unavoidable bureaucratic delays in distributing funds, it often takes
an unacceptable amount of time for communities to receive disaster
relief at a time when quick access to resources is of the essence. With
the increased intensity and scope of wildfires, floods, and other
natural disasters in recent years, we anticipate the need for these
resources will only continue to grow. For this reason, we recommend the
creation of a BIA Emergency Response Fund. The idea behind this fund
would be for the BIA to have readily at hand significant funding that
can be deployed as necessary to address short- and long-term disaster
recovery and disaster mitigation needs in Indian Country. We recommend
an initial amount of $5 million be allocated to establish a BIA
Emergency Response Fund within the Office of Trust Services.
Prioritize Implementation of the Tribal Forest Protection Act
(TFPA) in the USFS. The TFPA (Public Law 108-278) authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to give special consideration to tribally-
proposed Stewardship Contracting or other projects on Forest Service or
BLM land bordering or adjacent to Tribal lands to protect trust and
Federal resources from fire, disease, and other threats. These
stewardship agreements are an important tool for fighting the ever-
growing threat of wildfires in the West. Empowering Tribal governments
as caretakers to protect Tribal lands by managing adjacent Federal
lands is a smart policy. The TFPA was authorized, however, without a
designated funding mechanism. As a result, efforts to the implement its
beneficial provisions have been impeded. We urge the subcommittee to
provide $5 million in fiscal year 2019 in priority funding for the
implementation of the TFPAwithin the U.S. Forest Service.
Protect Wildlife with Restored Funding for the BIA Endangered
Species Program. The effective management and conservation of our
natural resources is not limited to the waters, soil, and trees that
form the rich landscape of Pueblo Country. We must also account and
appropriately care for the diversity of wildlife that is meaningful to
our culture and essential to maintaining our ecosystems' equilibrium.
The BIA Endangered Species Program provides Tribal nations with the
technical assistance and financial resources to protect endangered
species on Tribal lands through natural resources restoration and
management, as well as economic development. We recommend Congress
provide $3 million for the BIA Endangered Species Program in fiscal
year 2019.
Promote Sustainable Tribal Communities Through the EPA General
Assistance Program. EPA funding and grants enable our Pueblo to
administer and support an array of projects that improve the quality of
life for our people and safeguard the natural resources that provide us
with physical and spiritual sustenance. Without these funds, our Pueblo
would face tremendous hurdles in delivering essential services such as
clean drinking water and hazardous waste management to our people.
Among the most widely utilized EPA sources of funding is the Indian
Environmental General Assistance Program (GAP), which assists Tribal
nations in developing the internal capacity to manage their own
environmental protection programs. Cuts to the GAP will directly impact
front-line environmental staff working for Tribal governments and place
our natural and cultural resources at unacceptable risk. We support the
GAP's spirit of greater local control, cooperative Federalism, and
exercise of self-determination in allowing Tribal nations to manage
their resources. We strongly urge Congress to provide full GAP funding
to advance sustainable environmental protection measures in Indian
Country.
Maintain Funding for the Tribal Climate Resilience Program. Across
America, communities are facing mounting challenges related to our
progressively unstable natural environment. We have seen this in
catastrophic wildfires in the southwest, debilitating snowfalls in the
northeast, persistent droughts in the northwest, and severe floods in
the southeast. Invasive species, disappearing tree lines, and
accelerated rates of erosion are also taking an increasing toll on our
agricultural and natural resources. The BIA Tribal Climate Resilience
Program and Department-wide Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
(administered in agencies such as the BLM, FWS, NPS, BIA, and BOR)
provide Tribal nations with the tools to manage resource stressors and
develop adaptive management plans. Both programs prioritize
intergovernmental coordination to mitigate and prevent further
environmental degradation. Continuing these programs is critical not
only for Tribal nations, but for all Americans. We, therefore,
recommend Congress provide $30 million for the BIA Tribal Climate
Resilience Program and $30 million for Department-wide Cooperative
Landscape Conservation programs.
iii. support for tribal self-governance
Increase Funding and Support for the Office of Self Governance
(OSG). The Pueblo of Santa Clara is a self-governance Tribe, meaning we
have assumed control of many Bureau of Indian Affairs functions in our
community. We provide our Tribal members with a full range of
governmental and social services, including Tribal education, elder
care, public works, and traditional cultural practices to support their
spiritual and physical well-being. OSG plays a pivotal role in
supporting the exercise of our Tribal sovereignty by providing
financial assistance and compacting services to the 277 Tribal nations
participating in the program. Yet, the OSG is constantly operating at a
deficit--both financially and in personnel--that impairs its ability to
fully support self-governance Tribes and the delivery of essential,
timely services to our people. We recommend that Congress provide at
least $2 million as baseline funding for the Office of Self Governance
to fulfill its mission in serving self-governance Tribes.
iv. protecting tribal cultural patrimony
Maintain the $1 million in Dedicated Funding for NAGPRA
Implementation. The theft, trafficking, and sale in objects of Tribal
patrimony causes immeasurable harm to our way of life. An object of
Tribal patrimony is not meant to be simply displayed in a museum or
hung on the wall as art. It is a vital part of the community with both
presence and purpose. Congress has recognized the special status of
these objects and is working closely with Tribal nations to develop
appropriate Federal protections. The $1 million in dedicated funding
for NAGPRA implementation in fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018 is
contributing to tremendous progress in this area. We are happy to
report that Congress's support has translated into the creation of a
dedicated FTE position and Bureau-wide trainings on the nuances of the
law and the importance of Tribal patrimony. We look forward to
continuing to expand these achievements going forward. We strongly
encourage Congress to maintain the $1 million in direct funding for
NAGPRA implementation in fiscal year 2019.
Support Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs). The
preservation of Tribal sacred and cultural sites is a priority for the
Pueblo of Santa Clara and all of Indian Country. Such sites may be
found in natural geographic formations or in man-made markers and
monuments. Damage or destruction of these sites is often irreversible,
forever altering the way in which we can express ourselves as Pueblo
People. More Tribal nations are choosing to establish THPO equivalent
to State offices under the National Historic Preservation Act to
protect Tribal heritage. Our officers use their expertise to identify
sacred and cultural sites and coordinate with the appropriate officials
and third parties to ensure that they are conserved for future
generations. We appreciate that Congress has stood with Tribal nations
in rejecting proposed cuts to THPO funding and we urge the subcommittee
to include further support for this vital program in its fiscal year
2019 budget recommendation report.
______
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 2019 appropriations
for American Indian and Alaskan Native programs. My name is David Z.
Bean, Tribal Council Member for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. The
Puyallup Tribe is an independent sovereign nation having historically
negotiated with several foreign nations including the United States in
the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854. This relationship is rooted in
Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, Federal laws
and numerous Executive orders. The governing body of the Puyallup Tribe
of Indians is the Puyallup Tribal Council which upholds the Tribe's
sovereign responsibility of self-determination and self-governance for
the benefit of the 4,875 Puyallup Tribal members and the 25,000 plus
members from approximately 355 federally recognized Tribes who utilize
our services. The Puyallup Reservation is located in the urbanized
Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of Washington. The 18,061-acre
reservation is a ``checkerboard'' of Tribal lands, Indian-owned fee
land and non-Indian owned fee land. Our reservation land includes parts
of six different municipalities (Tacoma, Fife, Milton, Puyallup,
Edgewood and Federal Way).
The following written testimony being submitted to the U.S. House
Appropriations Subcommittee documents the Puyallup Tribe's views on the
President's fiscal year 2019 Federal budget. The focus of the written
testimony will be on the President's proposed budget for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). Within the
BIA budget, $2.4 billion is proposed for fiscal year 2019, a decrease
of $317 million from the fiscal year 2018 CR level. For the IHS, $5.424
billion is proposed, a decrease of $113 million below the fiscal year
2018 enacted level. Included in both budgets the President proposes to
fully fund Contract Support Costs (CSC) in fiscal year 2019. The budget
provides $231 million for BIA CSC and $822 million for IHS CSCs. We
appreciate the increased funding being proposed for the BIA and IHS and
funding CSCs at 100 percent. However, the years of inadequate funding
and the effects of inflation has impacted the Tribe's ability to fully
exercise self-determination and self-governance. As negotiations
proceed on the fiscal year 2019 budget and future appropriations,
efforts to insure adequate funding is provided for Indian programs will
be paramount. To preserve the increased funding levels realized in
recent years and contained in the proposed fiscal year 2019 budget for
the BIA and IHS, the increases should be viewed by Congress and the
administration as new ``base funding'' amounts with annual increases to
meet actual need. Specific issues and needs are;
department of interior--bureau of indian affairs
Public Safety & Justice: The fiscal year 2019 budget request
includes $350 million for BIA Public Safety & Justice. This represents
a $55 million decrease from the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. We are
requesting support from the Subcommittee to fund Public Safety &
Justice at the fiscal year 2018 enacted level of $405 million. The $94
million for Tribal and BIA detention and corrections funding is of
great importance to the Puyallup Tribe. In fiscal year 2009, the
Puyallup Tribe received a Department of Justice ARRA grant, in the
amount of $7.9 million to construct a 28 bed adult corrections
facility. Construction on the facility was completed in February 2014
and came online in May 2014. Over the past four (4) years the Puyallup
Tribe has worked closely with the BIA-Office of Justice Services
National and Regional staff on identifying the operating and staffing
costs associated with the Puyallup Tribe's new adult corrections
facility. The Puyallup Tribe submitted a Public Law 93-638 contract
request to the B.I.A. for Operations and Maintenance funding for the
new facility, including Pre-Award, Start-up, Transitional funding,
Staffing and O&M funding. The agreed upon estimated cost of operating
the facility was set at $2.6 million annually. The BIA base funding
offered to the Tribe in fiscal year 2018 was approximately $715,136 or
27 percent of actual need. We cannot support the President's proposed
fiscal year 2019 funding of $94 million, for Detention & Corrections.
The Puyallup Tribe requests support from the subcommittee to fund the
Tribe's Adult Corrections facility at the established true cost of
operations, estimated at $2.6 million annually. Further, we request the
subcommittee at a minimum fund Detention & Corrections at the fiscal
year 2018 enacted level.
In addition, we operate a Tribal Court program through a Public Law
93-638 contract with the B.I.A. In fiscal year 2015, our base funding
was increased from $45,000 to $194,996 and remains this amount for
fiscal year 2019. While this increase to our Tribal Court Base funding
is appreciated, it does not equal the amount of Tribal funds necessary
to fully operate the Tribal Court program. In fiscal year 2018, the
Tribe has allocated $1.172 million of Tribal funds for the Tribal Court
budget. The President's fiscal year 2019 budget proposes an $8 million
reduction. We are requesting support from the subcommittee to fund the
Tribal Courts program at the fiscal year 2018 enacted level.
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 2019, a minimum funding level of $8.562 million is
necessary for BIA Western Washington (Bolt) Fisheries Management
program. 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 continues to operate a number of salmon
hatcheries that benefit Indian and non-Indian commercial and sport
fisheries in the Pacific Northwest/Puget Sound. We work cooperatively
with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, neighboring Tribes,
Federal agencies and State fishery managers to insure the success and
sustainability of our hatchery programs. The Puyallup Tribe will
continue to advocate and secure increased funding for Fish Hatchery
Operations and Maintenance funding. The President's fiscal year 2019
budget proposes a $3.4 million reduction from the fiscal year 2018 CR
level for Fish Hatcheries Operations and Fish Hatchery Maintenance. We
request the subcommittee fund Fish Hatchery Operations and Maintenance
programs at $10.3 million for fiscal year 2019.
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 the funding recommendations of the NWIFC for the
fiscal year 2019 TFW Supplemental program and the U.S./Canada Pacific
Salmon Treaty program.
Education: The Puyallup Tribe operates the pre-K to 12 Chief Leschi
Schools which included a verified 2017-2018 School student enrollment
of 640 + 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 necessary to provide quality educational
services to the students and Tribal community. Additional, the cost of
operation and maintenance of the Chief Leschi School facilities
continues to increase in the areas of supplies, energy, structural and
student transportation costs. The President's proposed fiscal year 2019
budget request for the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is $741
million, a decrease of $173 million from the fiscal year 2018 enacted
level of $914 million. Once again the funding level does not meet the
actual operational needs of Tribal education programs. The Tribe will
continue to work with Congress, BIE and the National Congress of
American Indians to increase funding in fiscal year 2019, including;
Tribal Grant Support Cost for Tribally Operated Schools--$78 million;
Student Transportation--$73 million; School Facilities Accounts--$109
million in facilities operations and $76 million in facilities
maintenance; and Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF)--$431
million.
Operations of Indian Programs & Tribal Priority Allocations: The
President's fiscal year 2019 budget is in drastic need for increased
funding for the B.I.A. 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 on-going services at the ``local Tribal'' level, including;
natural resources management, child welfare, other education, housing
and other Tribal government services. These functions have not received
adequate and consistent funding to allow Tribes the resources to fully
exercise self-determination and self-governance. Further, the small
increases ``TPA'' has received over the past few years 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 $2.411 billion, an increase of $411 million over the President's
proposed fiscal year 2019 budget request and TPA at the fiscal year
2018 enacted level.
department of health and human services--indian health service
Inadequate funding of the Indian Health Service is the most
substantial impediment to the current Indian Health system. The
Puyallup Tribe has been operating healthcare programs since 1976
through the Indian Self-determination Act, Public Law 93-638. The
Puyallup Tribal Health Authority (PTHA) operates a comprehensive
ambulatory care program to the Native American population in Pierce
County, Washington. The current patient load exceeds 9,000, of which
approximately 1,700 are Tribal members. There are no Indian Health
Service hospitals in the Portland Area so all specialties and hospital
care have been paid for out of our contract care allocation. The
Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) allocation to PTHA remains inadequate to
meet the actual need. In fiscal year 2017, the Puyallup Tribe
subsidized PRC with a $2.8 million contribution. In fiscal year 2018,
the Tribal subsidy has grown to $6.2 million. Given that the PTHA
service population is only comprised of 17 percent Puyallup Tribal
members, Tribal budget priorities in fiscal year 2011 thru 2018 has
made continued subsidies to the PTHA financially difficult for the
Puyallup Tribe. The fiscal year 2019 budget requests $5.424 billion in
discretionary budget authority for the Indian Health Service. This
represents a $384 million increase above the fiscal year 2017 enacted
level, but $113 million below the fiscal year 2018 omnibus
appropriations. For Health Services programs the fiscal year 2019
budget requests funding for Clinical Services ($3.689 billion),
Purchased/Referred Care ($955 million), Hospitals & Health Clinics
($2.19 billion) and Contract Support ($822 million). The Puyallup Tribe
fully supports funding increases for existing I.H.S. programs and will
work Congress to continue efforts to increase funding for I.H.S. and
the critical programs administered by this Agency.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ramah Navajo School Board Inc. (RNSB)
On an annual basis, leaders of the Ramah Navajo School Board Inc.,
(RNSB) have been presenting to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment and related Agencies in Washington, DC.
Unfortunately, we were not selected to testify before the subcommittee
this year to present our oral testimony; however, we still have
piercing, continuing needs that we would like to discuss with you,
including: (1) Facilities Improvement Repairs; (2) School Replacement
Construction; (3) Water System Upgrade; (4) To return BIE to the
structure before the Reorganization; (5) To maintain fiscal year 2019
funding at no less than fiscal year 2018 levels; and (6) Maintain long
range school construction priority list.
Before we begin to elaborate on each of the items, we will refresh
your memory of the people of Ramah Navajo who live in a very remote
area in West Central New Mexico, on the Ramah Navajo reservation which
is in the vicinity of Pine Hill, New Mexico. Historically (1950's-
1960's), our children attended the public school in Ramah, New Mexico
as part of the Gallup McKinley County School District. Unimproved roads
on Ramah Navajo reservation made it difficult to transport our children
to school; therefore a dormitory was built near Ramah public school. In
1968, the public school in Ramah was closed and students were bussed to
Zuni, New Mexico, 50 plus miles one way. Doing this left Ramah Navajo a
few options: bus the children an additional 3 hours per day, or to send
their children to distance boarding schools located many miles away
from their homes. Neither option was acceptable to the Ramah Navajo
People.
Later in 1970, the Ramah Navajo people had a vision, and
determination to control their own destiny, in regards to educating
their own children. After consideration of all options, a delegation of
five (5) Navajo elders, who were the founding members of the RNSB,
petitioned Congress for assistance in forming their own educational
facility. They were successful in the endeavor, which eventually led to
the creation of the ``Indian Self Determination Act'' of Congress. All
buildings were turned over to Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for maintenance and repair, but BIE has
been very lax in the performance of their trust responsibilities, which
includes insufficient money to properly maintain our buildings and
infrastructure.
(1) Facilities Improvement Repairs
The majority of our buildings are nearly (50) fifty years old and
the current work orders entered in MAXIMO have a projected cost over
(5) five million dollars. In 2015, the school library and Kindergarten
buildings were closed due to black mold and water damage in both
buildings. The two buildings remain closed today, not usable by the K-
12 students. The gymnasium remains open however; the ceiling condition
poses serious health concerns due to the fiberglass insulation that is
uncovered which allows air borne particles to enter the atmosphere. We
also have water damage and black mold problems throughout the
buildings.
While examining the MAXIMO entries we find that, over the past
three (3) years, multiple entries were made for the library,
kindergarten building and the gymnasium totaling $2,952,786 for costs
to repair these three (3) buildings:
PRIORITY REPAIR PROJECTS: THREE BUILDINGS
Library Repairs..................................... $823,478
Kindergarten Repairs................................ $298,407
Gymnasium Repairs................................... $1,830,901
-------------------
Total Costs of Building Repair.................. $2,952,786
Proposed Public Lands Infrastructure Fund. We sincerely appreciate
that BIE-funded schools are included among the national parks and
national wildlife refuges as eligible for repairs and improvement
funding from the Trump administration's proposed Public Lands
Infrastructure Fund, however, we do have a number of questions and
concerns, including the following: (1) It is uncertain whether the
Public Lands Infrastructure Fund will garner Congressional support in
order to move forward; (2) Assuming that the Fund gains such support,
revenue projections are unpredictable and would require significant
increases in energy leases and development on public lands to achieve
the projected revenue streams; and (3) Royalty rates from energy leases
are decreasing, making it unlikely that revenue will increase above the
fiscal year 2018 baseline in the near future. We respectfully ask that
the subcommittees provide full, consistent funding for Facilities
Improvement and Repair and should additional funds become available
from the proposed Public Lands Infrastructure Fund to address the BIE
School System's $634 million maintenance backlog, we do not object.
(2) School Replacement Construction: Estimated Square Footage: 186,000
In light of our buildings being nearly fifty (50) years old, and
considering the overall condition of those buildings, a new school
would be a wiser decision, financially, rather than continuing to
repair old, deteriorating facilities. Even with the requested funding
for repairs, our buildings will still be in violation of existing laws,
including health and safety, ADA and Environmental regulations. These
building have exceeded their effective life.
Estimated Cost of a Replacement School: $86,393,213
(3) Water System Upgrade
Our water system is also antiquated; it remains an ongoing
challenge to insure that sufficient water is available to satisfy the
school, clinic and community. There were many days that the classroom
temperature was either so cold, or there was insufficient water to
support the student's needs; in those situations, we had no option but
to send our students home for their safety and wellbeing. We have
recently been notified by the BIE Safety Specialist that our water
system lacks the capacity, and production, to adequately operate our
fire suppression system on campus. Evaluation of the current water
system and estimated costs to upgrade the system and insure its
reliability, including wells, Pumps, Water lines, Tanks and Water
Treatment Plant are as follows:
WATER SYSTEM UPGRADE
Pre-Engineering Report.............................. $150,000
Design and Engineering.............................. $500,000
Construction........................................ $3,500,000
-------------------
Total Cost of the Water System Upgrade.......... $4,150,000
(4) Return BIE to the Structure Before the Reorganization
RNSB is steadfast in its commitment to self-determination and
believes that top-down reorganizations of offices, programs, and
budgets by the BIA and BIE run counter to the principles of local
control of local affairs. Since the earliest proposals were put forward
to reform and reorganize the BIE, we have filed letters and testimony
expressing our concerns. As the BIE Reorganization continues to move
forward, we continue to have concerns both with the process and content
of the Reorganization. In particular, the BIE reorganization process
has made clear that moving boxes around on an organizational chart does
not change organizational performance. Rather, a targeted focus on
improving services is what will make the difference. We respectfully
request that the BIE be returned to its original structure before the
Reorganization began to be implemented and that the Department of
Interior establish an advisory committee for its Indian education
programs that is made up of local tribal school officials whose schools
operate under Public Law 93-638, the Tribally Controlled Grant School
Act (Public Law 100-297) and other authorities. Such an advisory body
will help foster school-based reforms that would benefit students.
Additionally, on an ongoing basis, an advisory committee will help
improve communication, coordination and policy direction for Indian
education.
(5) Maintain Funding at No Less Than fiscal year 2018 Levels and
Protect the FACE Program
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 was enacted on February 9, 2018,
as Public Law 115-123. This law, among other things, increased the
domestic discretionary budget cap for both fiscal year 2018 and fiscal
year 2019. For 2018, we are deeply grateful to the subcommittees for
rejecting the Trump administration's proposed budget cuts and for
adding important increases under Education Construction for:
Replacement School Construction; Replacement Facility Construction; and
Facilities Improvement and Repair. These increases mean that faster
progress can be made on the 2004 and 2016 Replacement School Priority
Lists. Given that the discretionary spending cap was increased for
fiscal year 2019 as well, we respectfully ask the subcommittees to
continue the robust levels of funding for Education Construction and to
reject the harmful proposals from the Trump administration to zero out
important programs such as the Early Childhood and Family Development
BIE budget category commonly referred to as the ``FACE'' program. The
FACE program is designed to: (1) strengthen family-school-community
relations, (2) increase parent participation in education, and (3)
support parents in their role as a child's first and most important
teacher. We run a successful FACE-funded program that plays a key role
in preparing young children for a successful education. We were shocked
and saddened to see that the administration's proposal to zero this
critical program out.
(6) Maintain a Long Range School Construction Priority List
We would first like to thank the subcommittees for providing
important increases for Replacement School Construction; Replacement
Facility Construction; and Facilities Improvement and Repair and for
pressing the administration to draft the next School Replacement List
and engage in long-range building replacement planning. Unfortunately,
there are unsafe and decrepit schools all across Indian Country that
desperately need to be on this next list. We believe that the only way
this problem can be addressed is through good planning, oversight and
robust, consistent funding. We respectfully ask the subcommittees to
continue to provide robust funding each year and to continue to press
the administration not only to draft the replacement list but to create
a detailed lifecycle and replacement plan for all BIE school system
facilities.
Conclusion
All these many years, we have maintained our vision and
determination to control our own destiny when it comes to educating our
own children. To this end, we work to nurture and develop students who
will meet the challenges of today's ever changing society while
perpetuating their culture and language. We ask that Congress uphold
its trust and treaty responsibility and be our partner in this
endeavor. Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony on
these critical matters. Please contact Ramah Navajo School Board Inc.
President Marlene Martinez at: [email protected] with any
questions.
______
Prepared Statement of the Recording Academy
My name is Neil Portnow, I am the President/CEO of the Recording
Academy, an organization that represents 23,000 individual music
creators and professionals--songwriters, performers, studio
professionals, and others creatively involved in making music. I
appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony to the Senate
Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies and thank the Members of the committee for their
efforts to fully fund the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for
fiscal year 2018.
For fiscal year 2019, the Recording Academy requests that the
subcommittee funds the NEA at no less than $155 million.
As appropriators you are tasked with difficult decisions, but as
you set spending levels for the next year, please remember, as you did
for fiscal year 2018, why we must continue to support the arts.
American culture is our identity. Music and art make our Nation strong
and prosperous. It gives value to us as a nation beyond defined
borders, ensuring that America continues to be, to borrow a phrase from
American literature and invoked by President Reagan, the ``shining city
on a hill.''
For less than $1 per American per year, funding the NEA is truly
one of the most financially-sound investments our country makes. In
2016, NEA funds yielded more than $500 million in matching support--
leveraging outside funds at a ratio of 9:1. The agency is at the center
of our creative economy--a $700 billion industry that accounts for a
larger share of our GDP than the American construction or
transportation sectors. And with a $26 billion trade surplus, the
American arts industry serves as a powerful ambassador abroad; it
teaches our shared values and history in compelling ways, and it
connects us as a people and as a world.
When it comes to music, the NEA has been invaluable to the
development of music creators across the country, while helping
preserve America's rich music culture. The agency has provided more
than $400 million in funding to domestic music programs--from teaching
kids how to play an instrument to supporting festivals of international
acclaim. The NEA is an essential part of American music culture, and it
must be funded to ensure that Americans in all congressional districts
can continue to enjoy and participate in our rich musical and cultural
heritage.
That is why I implore you and your colleagues in Congress to fully
fund the NEA at a level of no less than $155 million for fiscal year
2019. Help protect and renew America's commitment to the arts and to
music. It's our collective responsibility to preserve what binds us and
to ensure that the whole world continues to benefit from one of our
most unique and economically and spiritually important assets--and
exports: American music.
For Additional Information
Michael Lewan
Director of Government Relations
[email protected]
______
Prepared Statement of the Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
April 26, 2018
The Honorable Lisa Murkowski
Chair
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
U.S. Senate
Dirksen Office Building, SD-131
Washington, DC 20510
Senator Murkowski:
This letter is written to express this agency's concern with the
administration's fiscal year 2019 budget request to Congress which
calls for steep cuts in funding to EPA, including a 33-percent
reduction in Federal grants to State and local air pollution control
agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), for a
total of $152 million. Such cuts would be devastating for many
programs, including to the Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
(RAPCA) in Dayton, Ohio.
RAPCA appreciates the work by Congress to avoid budget cuts to
State and local clean air agencies in fiscal year 2018, however RAPCA
urges Congress to approve additional funding in fiscal year 2019 to
carry out our important public health responsibilities.
Federal grants to State and local air quality agencies are the same
now as they were 14 years ago in fiscal year 2004--$228 million. If
adjusted for inflation, level funding would translate to approximately
$303 million in today's dollars. Therefore, we ask Congress to increase
State and local air grants by $75 million above fiscal year 2018 levels
(i.e., approximately $151 million above the administration's request),
for a total of $303 million.
RAPCA is part of the Public Health--Dayton and Montgomery County
organization and is the local air pollution control agency serving
Clark, Darke, Greene, Miami, Montgomery and Preble counties in
southwest Ohio. RAPCA is directly funded by U.S. EPA to implement the
Clean Air Act and we work closely with Ohio EPA to accomplish the
functions of issuing required air permits, conducting facility
inspections and monitoring air quality, among other Clean Air Act
requirements.
While great strides have been made in cleaning up the environment,
air pollution remains a serious threat to public health. It causes tens
of thousands of premature deaths in our country every year, as well as
tens of millions of cases of adverse health impacts, such as cancer and
damage to respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological and reproductive
systems. Under the Clean Air Act, State and local air pollution control
agencies have the ``primary responsibility'' for preparing
implementation strategies to address air pollution problems. These
tasks include, among others, air quality monitoring, planning and
modeling, compiling air emission inventories, adopting regulations,
analyzing data, and inspecting facilities. In southwest Ohio, for
example, we are particularly concerned about ozone pollution and
assuring compliance of high-profile facilities such as the Stony Hollow
Landfill and the Fairborn Cement Plant in addition to being responsive
to industry business needs with regards to assisting facilities with
obtaining requisite construction air permits. Accordingly, we work with
the local Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Organization (MPO), the Miami
Valley Regional Planning Commission to issue ozone air pollution
advisories to alert the public when needed, as well as performing
enhanced inspections and ambient air monitoring of high-profile
facilities, in addition to meeting ``routine'' Clean Air Act
requirements.
There are many challenges facing our agency in meeting the Clean
Air Act requirements. Reductions in staffing levels and training, as
well as staff retirements and retention are major obstacles to
accomplishing our mission to protect public health. Since 2012, RAPCA
has reduced staff by over 30 percent and additional cuts of the
magnitude proposed by the administration would devastate our program
and our ability to protect vulnerable populations from the harmful
effects of air pollution as well as provide timely services to the
regulated communities.
Maintaining the air pollution control program locally provides
stakeholders in our region with opportunities for input to a local
entity responsible for the air program. RAPCA staff is committed to
serving the community in which we live and dedicated to being more
responsive to the requests from the public, the media, the business
community, and to providing timelier service than the State. RAPCA is
part of the Dayton region and we seek to improve the quality of life
for all residents.
RAPCA is doing its best to improve air quality and provide quality
services to the regulated community but adequate Federal funding is
critical. Please help promote public health by ensuring Federal grants
to State and local air quality agencies are increased to keep pace with
inflation. RAPCA recommends Congress provide fiscal year 2019 grants in
the amount of $303 million ($151 million above the administration's
request) to maintain level funding from fiscal year 2004 levels,
adjusted to inflation. Thank you for any assistance you can offer in
this matter.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Marsee, RAPCA Administrator
cc:
Chairs of Appropriations Committees
Chairs of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittees
Senator Rob Portman, Ohio
Senator Sherrod Brown, Ohio
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, 9th District of Ohio
Congressman Michael Turner, 10th District of Ohio
Congressman David Joyce, 14th District of Ohio
Congressman Warren Davidson, 8th District of Ohio
______
Prepared Statement of the Restore America's Estuaries
Restore America's Estuaries is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization that has been working since 1995 to restore our Nation's
greatest estuaries. Our mission is to restore and protect estuaries as
essential resources for our Nation. Restore America's Estuaries is an
alliance of community-based coastal conservation organizations across
the Nation that protect and restore coastal and estuarine habitat. Our
member organizations include: American Littoral Society, Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Save the Sound--a
program of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Galveston Bay
Foundation, North Carolina Coastal Federation, EarthCorps, Save The
Bay--San Francisco, Save the Bay--Narragansett Bay, and Tampa Bay
Watch. Collectively, we represent over 250,000 members nationwide.
As you develop the fiscal year 2019 Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies appropriations bill, Restore America's Estuaries and
our members encourage you to provide the following funding levels
within the Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for core
programs that significantly support coastal community and ecosystem
resilience and local economies:
--$15 million for USFWS Coastal Program
(Interior: USFWS: Resource Management: Habitat Conservation: Coastal
Program)
--$27 million for USEPA National Estuary Program
(USEPA: Water: Ecosystems: National Estuary Program/Coastal
Waterways)
These non-regulatory investments strengthen and revitalize
America's coastal communities by protecting and restoring habitat,
improving local water quality, and enhancing resilience. Healthy
coastlines protect communities from flood damage and extreme weather,
improve commercial fisheries, safeguard vital infrastructure, and
support tourism and recreational opportunities.
usfws coastal program
The Coastal Program (CP) is a voluntary, incentive-based program
that provides technical and financial assistance to coastal communities
and landowners to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat on
public and private lands in 24 priority coastal ecosystems throughout
the United States, including the Great Lakes. The Coastal Program works
collaboratively within the USFWS to coordinate strategic priorities and
make landscape-scale progress with other Federal, State, local, and
non-governmental partners and private landowners. Since 1985, the
Coastal Program has:
--Partnered with more than 5,000 Federal, Tribal, State, and local
agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, and
private landowners.
--Restored 557,790 acres of wetland and upland habitat and 2,625
miles of stream habitat.
--Protected more than 2.1 million acres of coastal habitat.
--Provided technical assistance to a diverse range of conservation
partners.
Our coastal communities and ecosystems are on the front lines of
changing coastal conditions and increasing extreme weather. Support for
the USFWS Coastal Program helps interested communities and partners
address the new set of challenges facing coastal communities. The
Coastal Program is the USFWS's key conservation tool delivering on-the-
ground habitat restoration and technical assistance. Despite the
Program's relatively small cost, it has a tremendous impact. In 2015
alone, the Coastal Program, along with 455 local partners, completed
266 projects restoring or protecting more than 90,000 acres of wetlands
and uplands and 194 miles of stream habitat. A recent estimate by USFWS
Coastal Program staff shows that the program leverages, on average, $8
non-Federal dollars for every Federal dollar spent. This makes the
Coastal Program one of the most cost-effective habitat restoration
programs within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Coastal Program stimulates local economies by supporting jobs
necessary to deliver habitat conservation projects, including
environmental consultants, engineers, construction workers, surveyors,
assessors, and nursery and landscape workers. These jobs generate
indirect economic activities that benefit local hotels, restaurants,
stores, and gas stations. In total, the Coastal Program estimates that
the average project supports 60 jobs and stimulates 40 businesses
resulting in nearly thirteen dollars in economic returns for each
dollar of Federal investment. Additionally, restoration jobs cannot be
outsourced and $0.90 of every dollar spent on restoration stays within
the State.
In Puget Sound, Washington, the Coastal Program invested $20,000 to
support a project to clean up and remove old and abandoned fishing gear
from the water, resulting in a direct economic impact to the local
economy of $51,000. Lost and abandoned fishing gear like nets, lines,
crab and shrimp traps pose many problems for people, fish and marine
animals. Each year, derelict crab pots are estimated to trap and kill
372,000 Dungeness crabs, resulting in losses to the fishery of $1.2
million--30-40 percent of the value of the annual commercial catch of
Dungeness crab in Puget Sound. This project removed 84 gillnets--
preventing the loss of approximately 370,000 crabs and returning an
estimated value of well over $1.5 million to the crab fishery alone.
In San Diego Bay, California, the Coastal Program provided funding
and technical assistance to project partners to restore 300 acres of
wetland, mudflat, and upland habitat to benefit more than 90 species of
resident and migratory birds. Project partners transformed highly
degraded salt ponds into lush habitat by breaching levees, regrading
soils, and planting native vegetation. Just days after the completion
of the project, tens of thousands of birds descended on the newly-
restored habitat to rest, roost, and feed. Not only did this project
restore a ``Globally Important Bird Area,'' as designated by the
American Bird Conservancy, but it also created 130 jobs and generated
$13.4 million for the local economy.
At recent funding levels of approximately $13.4 million, the
Coastal Program is able to provide technical assistance and support to
partners, but can only provide limited project dollars. A modest
increase over the amount included in the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus would
help the Coastal Program increase their capacity to leverage willing
and interested partners to deliver highly-effective and site specific
habitat conservation and restoration programs that prevent Federal
listing of species, promote species recovery, enhance coastal
resilience, and boost local economies.
Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support and funding
for the USFWS Coastal Program and asks that you provide $15 million for
fiscal year 2019.
usepa national estuary program
The National Estuary Program (NEP) is a non-regulatory network of
voluntary community-based programs that safeguards the health of
important coastal ecosystems across the country. The program utilizes a
consensus-building process to identify goals, objectives, and actions
that reflect local environmental and economic priorities.
Currently there are 28 estuaries located along the Atlantic, Gulf,
and Pacific coasts and in Puerto Rico that have been designated as
estuaries of national significance. Each National Estuary Program
demonstrates real environmental results through on-the-ground habitat
restoration and protection and their efforts are tailored to the
specific local environmental and economic realities. Collectively, NEPs
have restored more than 1.5 million acres of land since 2000.
NEPs work to ensure that Federal agencies work together with State,
regional, NGO, and private partners to better manage ocean and coastal
resources for the benefit of the Nation. Community partners are
involved throughout the decisionmaking process to reduce conflicts,
redundancies, and inefficiencies that waste time and money, and to
ensure that restoration and conservation efforts are stakeholder-
driven. NEPs play a key role in implementing national policies that
result in better, more cost-effective coastal management that benefits
States and local communities.
Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support of the
National Estuary Program and asks that you provide $27 million for
USEPA National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways in the fiscal year
2019 cycle.
conclusion
Restore America's Estuaries greatly appreciates the support this
subcommittee has provided in the past for these important programs.
These programs effectively accomplish on-the-ground restoration work
which results in major benefits:
1. Economic Growth and Jobs.--Coastal habitat restoration creates
between 17 and 33 direct jobs for each million dollars invested,
depending on the type of restoration. That is more than twice as many
jobs as the oil and gas sector and road construction industries
combined. The restored area supports increased tourism and valuable
ecosystem services, including flood mitigation, shoreline protection,
and enhanced fisheries, among others.
2. Leveraging Private Funding.--In 2015, Federal investment in the
USFWS Coastal Program leveraged non-Federal dollars at a ratio of 34 to
1. The NEPs leveraged non-Federal dollars at a ratio of 15 to 1. In a
time of shrinking resources, these are rates of return we cannot afford
to ignore.
3. Resiliency.--Restoring coastal wetlands knocks down storm waves
and reduces devastating storm surges before they reach the shore,
protecting lives, property, and vital infrastructure for the nearly 40
percent of Americans that live in coastal communities.
We greatly appreciate you taking our requests into consideration as
you move forward in the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process. We
stand ready to work with you and your staff to ensure the health of our
Nation's estuaries and coasts.
[This statement was submitted by Jeffrey R. Benoit, President and
CEO.]
Contact information:
Leigh Habegger
External Affairs Senior Manager
Restore America's Estuaries
2300 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 603
Arlington, VA 22201
[email protected]
______
Prepared Statement of the Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian
Health, Inc.
I am Teresa Sanchez and I am the Board Vice-President for
Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc. located in Southern
California. I am also a member of the California Area Tribal Advisory
Council and a member of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify concerning the health needs of Tribal
beneficiaries in southern California.
We are thankful for the support of Congress and the funding
provided by the Subcommittee in the recently enacted fiscal year 2018
Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 115-141, to improve the
health status of our people. This is why it is so disappointing to see
that funding for Community Health Representatives (``CHRs'') has been
eliminated from the President's 2019 budget for the Indian Health
Service (IHS). We are adamantly opposed to such cuts, as the CHR
program has been one of the most successful during our 50 years of
operation. We also oppose the elimination of the Health Education
program.
Our organization provides services to Native Americans across two
of the largest counties in the Country. We employ nine CHRs that are a
critical part of our program. Each CHR is specifically trained in home
healthcare and they fill an important gap, providing care to patients
outside the Doctor's office. For instance, CHRs:
--Ensure patients follow the Doctor's orders, such as eating
properly, taking their Medications timely and appropriately,
and exercising when needed;
--Talk through tough healthcare decisions with patients; and
--Direct patients to outside resources, such as local food pantries
or housing assistance.
The list could go on and on. The loss of CHRs would be simply
devastating to many Native American Communities that are located far
from health clinics in urban areas. We therefore ask this Committee to
keep the CHR and the Health Education program fully funded for fiscal
year 2019 and thereafter.
Another serious and long-term problem we face is the lack of IHS
facilities construction funding. The three main IHS construction
programs have largely excluded California Tribes.
For instance, Tribes often sit on the priority list for decades
without ever receiving funds to build a new clinic. While the fiscal
year 2018 Appropriations Act contained $497 million of new IHS
construction funding, half of these funds were designated for Joint
Venture Construction projects and related staffing packages. No
California Tribes were approved for such projects, leaving almost no
new money for California and no associated staffing dollars. Indeed,
only one California Tribe has ever participated in the Joint Venture
Program, and that was many years ago. Why? Because IHS developed the
selection criteria without consulting with California Tribes.
Additionally, the 2017 Appropriations Act capped funding for the
Small Ambulatory clinic program at $5 million, so no California Tribes
received grants from the program that year. We appreciate that the
subcommittee has identified $15 million for small ambulatory clinics
construction in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus measure, within the
$243.48 million appropriation for Health Care Facilities Construction.
Our request is simple. We need help getting construction funds to
California Tribes. We would like to see California Tribes receive a
share of the fiscal year 2018 small ambulatory clinic and other IHS
construction funds to address healthcare facility space needs in our
Tribal communities.
Lastly, we need help getting the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to
complete a lease of our clinic land. We have previously expressed our
concerns regarding the BIA's lack of responsiveness and delays in
processing this lease. Members of the House of Representatives,
Congressmen Aguilar, Garamendi and the Staff of Congressman Ruiz and
Congresswoman McCollum heard our concerns and agreed to write a letter
to the BIA. We thank them for their help in removing these barriers.
Thank you for affording the Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian
Health, Inc. the opportunity to submit testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sac and Fox Nation
On behalf of the Sac and Fox Nation thank you for the opportunity
to present our requests for the fiscal year 2019 budgets for the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Indian Health Service (IHS), and for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Sac and Fox Nation is home
of Jim Thorpe, one of the most versatile athletes of modern sports who
earned Olympic gold medals for the1912 pentathlon and decathlon.
Like all Self-Governance Tribes, we were impacted by the Federal
Government's refusal to pay full contract support costs (CSC) for
contracted and compacted programs since the statue was enacted. We
appreciate that all arrearages are now up to date and ask that CSC be
fully paid annually under the new budget structure without imposing any
corresponding reduction in direct services to any Tribe. We continue to
request full funding for CSC on a mandatory basis and that these funds
will be made a permanent, indefinite appropriation.
In general, all Tribal programs especially BIA and IHS line items
should be exempt from any budget recessions, sequestrations and
unilateral budget reductions that are not equally assessed to other
funding beneficiaries.
Tribal Specific Requests:
A. +$35,000 increase to our Tribal General Assistance Program
(GAP)--EPA--The GAP program the Sac and Fox Nation is currently
administering is $125,000. It was announced April 9, 2019 that the
program will be cut by $10,000 (8 percent) for fiscal year 2019.
B. +$20,000 increase to our solid waste and recycling funding and
request to lift the 2020 Moratorium on solid waste and recycling under
the GAP--EPA.
C. +$35,000--EPA--The country's largest system of pipeline
infrastructure (the ``Pipeline Crossroads of the World'' in Cushing
Oklahoma) is in Sac and Fox jurisdiction and we need funding to monitor
our natural resources and ensure the safety of our citizens.
D. $5.35 million to Fully Fund Operations and Maintenance of the
Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC)--Public Safety
and Justice--Office of Justice Services--Detention/Corrections Facility
Operations and Maintenance Account--BIA.
TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS
A. +$35,000 TO OUR TRIBAL GENERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (GAP)--EPA
We request a $35,000 increase to support sufficient staff (1.5-2
FTEs) and to meet the needs of the community. The demand for Office of
Environmental Services has escalated and created a shortage of
available resources to fulfill the demand.
B. +$20,000 INCREASE TO FUND SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING
In May of 2013, the U.S. EPA released the GAP Guidance, to help set
a national framework for how GAP funding may be used. Included was the
directive that GAP funds could no longer be spent on the operation and
maintenance of solid waste implementation activities, including the
construction of facilities, trash collection, transportation, backhaul,
and disposal services. EPA required that Tribes build self-sustaining
solid waste programs supported by other funding sources by 2017. Tribal
leaders, community representatives, regional and statewide communities
made their concerns known to the EPA and expressed deep concern that
the 2017 deadline would be too quick to transition to an alternative
model to fund solid waste management. A key message by Tribal leaders
was that no other funding sources were set in place of GAP to cover the
services that Tribes had been providing for their communities since
2002. The issue was brought before Congress in 2015 and in the fiscal
year 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act an extension was granted,
giving Tribes until 2020 to transition to different funding sources for
their solid waste operations and backhaul. Beginning in fiscal year
2021, Tribal solid waste programs will no longer be able to use GAP
funds for these specific efforts. EPA recently announced during the
last Tribal Environmental Coalition in Oklahoma meeting on 3/27/18,
that the 2020 Moratorium is being lifted. Sac and Fox Nation supports
removing/lifting of the 2020 moratorium that will no longer prohibit
the use of GAP funding to support solid waste programs.
C. +$35,000--PIPELINE CROSSROADS OF THE WORLD--LOCATED IN THE SAC AND
FOX JURISDICTION NEEDS FUNDING TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN MONITOR
OUR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENSURE THE SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS
While many owners and operators of the pipelines in and around
Cushing believe there is no legal obligation to work with Tribes, the
Sac and Fox Nation feels very differently and expect the United States
to uphold its treaty and trust obligation to ensure the health and
safety of our Tribal citizens. The environmental impacts to our
community are significant and life threatening, and have sometimes been
fatal. Oil is frequently referred to as the ``sacred cow'' but our most
``sacred is our people''! Tribes continue to believe that it is the
responsibility of the United States Government to honor the trust
responsibility and protect us from environmental pollution, yet our
pleas for help continue to fall on deaf ears. It is unfortunate that we
have to seek legal remedies while our people continue to be subject to
contamination of our soil and water.
D. $5.35 MILLION TO FULLY FUND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SAC
AND FOX NATION JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER (SFNJDC)--BUREAU OF
INDIAN AFFAIRS--PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE--OFFICE OF JUSTICE
SERVICES--DETENTION/CORRECTIONS FACILITY OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT
The Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) requires the Department of the
Interior (DOI)--Indian Affairs (IA) to develop guidelines for approving
correction centers for long term incarceration, as well as work with
the Department of Justice on a long-term plan for Tribal detention
centers. In the absence of appropriations to fully fund and fully
implement TLOA, the intent of Congress and the effectiveness and
benefits of TLOA to Tribal courts, law enforcement and detention
programs in Indian Country are less of a reality and more of what
Tribes have experienced in the past--an unfulfilled trust obligation.
We do not understand the Federal Government's desire to fund the
construction of more detention facilities while our beds remain empty.
In 1996, the Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC)
opened its doors as the first regional juvenile facility specifically
designed for American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/AN), as well as the
first juvenile facility developed under Public Law 100-472, the Self-
Governance Demonstration Project Act. At that time, the BIA made a
commitment to fully fund the SFNJDC operations; however this commitment
was never fulfilled. Even though the Nation continues to receive and
use Federal dollars to address the issue of juvenile delinquency and
detention for Tribes in the Southern Plains Region and Eastern Oklahoma
Region, it has never received sufficient funds to operate the facility
at its fullest potential. As with all Tribal programs, ours is
indicative of the ``trickle-down effect'' resulting in limited funding
to pay for incarceration fees coupled with even less capability to
transport juveniles to be transferred to our facility.
Full funding would allow the Nation to provide full operations
including (but not limited to):
--Juvenile detention services to the 46 Tribes in Oklahoma, Kansas,
Texas and Louisiana;
--Rescue more of our at-risk youth and unserved youth in need of a
facility like the SFNJDC;
--Re-establish programs we have lost due to inadequate funding such
as: On-site Mental Health Counseling; Transitional Living,
Vocational Training, Horticulture, Life Skills, Arts and
Crafts, Cultural Education and Activities, Spiritual Growth and
Learning;
--Offer job opportunities in an area that is economically depressed;
and,
--Fully staff and expand staff training to address high volume of
staff turnover which will allow for continuity in operations
and service delivery.
The lack of adequate funding from the BIA and decreases in base
funding have mushroomed into underutilization and erosion of the
programs our facility was built to offer. The current funding level
represents only approximately 10 percent of what is needed to fully
fund the SFNJDC operations and maintenance. Additional funding in the
amount of $5.35 million, over what Sac and Fox already receives in base
funding ($508,000), would fully fund the facility at a level to address
the need of juvenile delinquency in the quad State area and create
opportunities for employment for more Tribal members.
The SFNJDC is a 50,000+ square foot, full service, 24 hour, 60 bed
(expandable to 120 beds) juvenile detention facility that provides
basic detention services to all residents utilizing a classification
system based on behavioral needs to include special management, medium
and minimal security.
Through a partnership with the local High School, students are
afforded an education at the public school level, including a
graduation ceremony and issuance of a certificate upon successfully
achieving the State requirements. Additionally, the Sac and Fox Nation
has an on-site Justice Center providing Law Enforcement and Tribal
Court services and the Nation also operates an on-site health clinic
which provides outstanding medical services that include contract
service capabilities for optometry, dental and other health-related
services.
2. NATIONAL REQUESTS--BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
A. Concern: lack of access to administrative law judges for
probate.
B. The Sac and Fox Nation was one of the first Tribal governments
to implement VAWA. But, we cannot take full advantage of VAWA because
we don't have the funding to pay for incarceration/rehabilitation for
individuals convicted under VAWA.
C. Fully fund all provisions of the TLOA that authorizes
additional funding for law and order programs that affect Tribal
nations.
D. Allocate $83 million in additional funding to the BIA to
increase base funding for tribal courts, including courts in Public Law
280 jurisdictions, and to incrementally move towards fully meeting the
need for Tribal court funding.
E. Increase funding for Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) law
enforcement and detention by at least $200 million over the fiscal year
2017 funding level of $353 million, including an increase in funds for
officer recruitment and training and for Tribal detention facilities
operations and maintenance.
F. Increase Tribal Base Funding (instead of through grants).
Provide increases via Tribal base funding instead of through grants to
Tribal governments. Grant funding, particularly inside the BIA, is not
consistent with the intent of Tribal self-determination.
3. NATIONAL REQUESTS--INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
A. $6.4 billion Mandatory Funding (maintain current services) a 33
percent increase over the fiscal year 2016 planning base.
B. Opioid Funding--Increase funding and include Tribal set asides
in any funding decisions to States. Addressing the opioid epidemic is a
nationwide priority. American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) face
opioid related fatalities three times the rate for Blacks and Hispanic
Whites.
C. Oppose moving Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) into
the discretionary spending from the mandatory account.
The Sac and Fox Nation supports the National Requests of the
National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Health Board
and the National Indian Education Association.
Thank you for allowing me to submit these requests on the fiscal
year 2019 budgets.
[This statement was submitted by Kay Rhoads, Principal Chief.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Self-Governance Communication & Education
Tribal Consortium
On behalf of the Self-Governance Communication & Education Tribal
Consortium (SGCETC), I am pleased to provide the following written
testimony regarding funding priorities for Self-Governance Tribes
participating in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Indian
Health Service (IHS). Today, 272 federally-recognized Tribes and Tribal
Organizations exercise Self-Governance authority within DOI and 360
federally-recognized Tribes and Tribal Organizations exercise Self-
Governance authority within IHS to operate and manage health programs.
SGCETC recognizes the hard work this subcommittee has committed over
the last few years to uphold the Federal trust responsibility and
Tribal sovereignty. It is only through continued partnership and open
communication that Tribal governments can achieve self-sufficiency and
self-determination. We hope that the subcommittee will continue to
champion Indian Country's priorities and to empower Tribal governments
to meet the needs of Tribal citizens.
As such, Self-Governance Tribes make the following recommendations
to strengthen Tribal governments, economies, and programs:
Hold Tribal Programs and Services Harmless From Future Sequestration,
Budgetary Rescissions, or Reductions
Tribal governments experienced heavy budgetary cuts as a result of
the 2012 sequester. These cuts affect direct services to Tribal
citizens, which include, but are not limited to, public safety, social
welfare, and healthcare services. As you begin to deliberate the fiscal
year 2018 appropriations for the BIA and IHS, Self-Governance Tribes
first, ask your support to urge Congress to restore Tribal funding cuts
and, second, to uphold the Tribal trust responsibility and amend the
Budget Control Act of 2011 to exempt Tribal funding from future
sequesters.
Mandatory Funding for Contract Support Costs
Self-Governance Tribes deeply appreciate the work that this
subcommittee and others have done to achieve full funding for contract
support costs (CSC). Tribal governments can now improve and expand
services for Tribal citizens rather than decrease or eliminate services
to cover indirect costs necessary to properly manage programs. Under
the indefinite appropriation structure created by the fiscal year 2016
Consolidated Appropriation Act, Tribal direct services are protected
from reductions. Self-Governance Tribes ask that, at a minimum, the
subcommittee protect this structure, but further request that the
subcommittee consider moving CSC funding to a mandatory category to
further protect from any future reductions.
bureau of indian affairs
Increase Tribal Base Budgets and Recurring Funding as Opposed to Grant
Funding
Tribal Self-Governance is the most successful policy in the history
of Tribal-Federal relations because it stimulates efficient and
effective government spending. Increases to Self-Governance Tribal Base
Budgets will allow Tribes to fund core Tribal government programs such
as community and economic development, natural resource management, and
community safety. However, Self-Governance Tribes have noticed a
troubling trend that DOI and BIA are moving one-time funding
opportunities to grants that are restrictive in nature--undermining
core Self-Governance tenants. This trend allows DOI to heavily regulate
the administration of Tribal programs and prevents grants from being
transferred through Self-Governance Agreements, which in turn, hinders
Tribal governments' ability to re-design programs to better meet the
needs at the local level and impedes economic self-sufficiency.
Fully fund Fixed Costs and Tribal Pay Costs
Most Federal agencies receive annual increases to their Fixed Costs
levels each year to address inflationary costs associated with Fringe
Benefits and Pay Costs. However, historically, Tribes are treated
differently resulting in significant job losses. Self-Governance Tribes
request that the subcommittee fully fund Fixed Costs and Tribal Pay
costs and treat Tribes the same as our Federal counterparts who, prior
to Self-Governance, operated similar programs to those that are now
managed by Tribal governments.
Increase Funding for Tribal Courts, Including Those in Public Law 280
Jurisdictions
Each year Self-Governance Tribes rank public safety as one of our
highest priority need areas. Self-Governance Tribes often use other
one-time funding or Tribal discretionary funding to support this public
service without a regular tax base like other governments and despite
the Federal trust responsibility to create safe communities. As
recently as 2015, BIA estimated that only 6 percent of the total need
for Tribal courts is currently funded. Self-Governance Tribes request
that the subcommittee implement an incremental plan in order to close
the gap between funding and the significant need in Tribal communities.
Instruct Indian Affairs to Internally Transfer Recurring Funding to the
Office of Self Governance to Properly Execute Its Mission
The Office of Self Governance has 14 staff members who distribute
$450 million to nearly half of all federally-Recognized Tribes
participating in Self-Governance, negotiate annual funding agreements
with eligible Tribes and consortia, coordinate the collection of budget
and performance data from Self-Governance Tribes, and resolve issues
that are identified in financial and program audits of Self-Governance
operations. However, Indian Affairs currently provides just $1.5
million on a recurring basis for an office that needs at least $1.9
million to support a full staff. We request that the subcommittee
include language that instructs Indian Affairs to internally transfer
recurring funding to OSG in order to fully fund staff.
Fund the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program, Surety Bonds, and Development
Bonds at a Minimum of $15 Million
The Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development's (OIEED)
Division of Capital Investment oversees the Indian Loan Guarantee
Program and loan subsidy program, and has authority to support surety
bonding for Indian contractors. The Loan Guarantee Program promotes
Tribal sovereignty, Tribal and Native-owned business, and economic
development unlike SBA-certified support. Additionally, the OIEED
operated revolving credit facility has a $15 return from private sector
lenders for every $1 in Federal funds. With a small addition to the
program's annual credit subsidy, the total amount of financing
available in Indian Country could rise from $100 million to $250
million. As this administration and Congress prioritizes rebuilding
America's infrastructure and creating America's job, this relatively
small investment could have a huge impact in Indian Country and rural
America.
indian health service
Support Mandatory Funding for IHS
The mission of the IHS is to raise the health status of American
Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) to the highest possible level. This
mission stems from the Federal trust responsibility to provide health
services, resulting from treaties, court decisions, and other
agreements whereby Tribes ceded vast amounts of land. This trust
responsibility is not only a moral and ethical obligation, but also a
legal responsibility of the Federal Government to Tribes and AI/AN.
Despite this responsibility, the IHS budget remains in discretionary
appropriations. To ensure that the Federal obligations are more
consistently met and to bring parity with other Federal health
programs, Self-Governance Tribes recommend that the IHS appropriation
be moved to instead be a mandatory appropriation.
Support Advanced Appropriations for IHS
Since fiscal year 1998, there has been only 1 year (fiscal year
2006) when the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies budget was
enacted by the beginning of the fiscal year. Providing sufficient,
timely, and predictable funding is needed to ensure the Federal
Government meets its obligation to provide healthcare for AI/ANs and
bring IHS to parity with other Federal agencies that provide healthcare
and receive advanced appropriations, such as the Veterans Health
Administration. Enacting advanced appropriations for the IHS will
provide more stable funding and sustainable planning for the entire
system by appropriating funding 2 years in advance.
Advocate for an Increase in Funding To Support Current IHS Services
Current services include mandatory cost increases necessary to
maintain those services at current levels. These ``mandatories'' are
unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, pay costs,
contract support costs, phasing in staff for recently constructed
facilities, and population growth. If these mandatory requirements are
not funded, Tribes have no choice but to cut health services, which
further erodes the quantity and quality of healthcare services
available to AI/AN people. We urge the Committee to fully fund the IHS
Budget Formulation Workgroup recommendations to maintain current
services.
Restoration of the Community Health Representative (CHR) Program
The President's proposed budget includes elimination of the CHR
program--one of the most critical and important services provided to
our Tribal citizens. The Community Health Representative (CHR) Program
is a unique concept for providing healthcare, health promotion, and
disease prevention services. CHRs are great advocates, in part, because
they come from the communities they serve and have Tribal cultural
competence. Their dedicated work has assisted many to meet their
healthcare needs. We strong urge restoration of funding for the CHR
program.
Modernization of the Resource Patient Management System (RPMS)
The RPMS is essentially the health information technology system of
the IHS. It is significantly supported by the Veterans Health
Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VISTA). Planning is
well underway for the Veteran's Affairs (VA) to replace VISTA with a
commercial, off-the-shelf system, and the President's budget for 2019
includes a significant request for this initiative. Without software
and development support from VISTA, RPMS may no longer be viable or
economical for the IHS to maintain. Self-Governance Tribes request an
additional appropriation amount to plan for modernization of the
Resource Patient Management System (RPMS), or conversion to a new
system to avoid impacts on the provision of care.
Increase Funding for Purchased/Referred Care Program
The Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) Program pays for urgent,
emergent, and other critical services that are not directly available
through IHS and Tribally-operated health programs. At current funding
levels, most IHS and Tribally-operated programs are only able to cover
Priority I (life and limb) and some Priority II services required for
AI/AN patients. The current strain on PRC programs is not likely
lighten as the industry trend to construct smaller, outpatient
ambulatory care centers grows. Self-Governance Tribes urge the
subcommittee to consider this priority area to increase access to
critical care for AI/AN patients.
Increase Facilities Funding
Self-Governance Tribes recommend that the subcommittee work to fund
increases to the IHS Facilities funding, including increases for
Maintenance & Improvement, Sanitation Facilities Construction, Health
Care Facilities, and Environmental Health Support. Dedicated funding
and coordination of other Federal agency funding to increase the number
of facilities and take care of current facilities is critical to
meeting Indian Country's growing need for quality healthcare and
curbing public health concerns in rural and remote communities like
Alaska.
environmental protection agency
Increase Funding for the Indian General Assistance Program
The Indian General Assistance Program (IGAP) allows Tribes to
leverage environmental programs to best serve their communities. Many
of these programs include protecting communities, managing natural
resources, initiating energy efficiency activities, and small scale
renewable energy projects. In 1999, $110,000 was set as the average
cost for a Tribe to sustain a basic environmental program. However,
this amount has not kept up with inflation, leaving Tribes with just 67
percent (67 percent) of the buying power in 2017. An additional $98
million is needed to close the inflationary gap.
Increase the Tribal Set-aside for the Safe Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (SRF) to 5 Percent of the National Drinking
Water SRF
Access to basic modern amenities such as running water, sewage, or
electricity, are an afterthought for many American citizens, however
many AI/ANs do not have the same luxury. According to the U.S. Census
Bureau, approximately 12 percent of Tribal homes do not have safe or
basic sanitation facilities, which is twenty times as high as non-
Native homes. The lack of access to basic sanitation facilities poses a
serious risk to the public health of Tribal communities. we ask that
the subcommittee increase the Tribal set-aside to provide additional
opportunities to build necessary infrastructure to support safe
drinking water require all agencies with similar funding to coordinate,
with IHS as the lead agency, to ensure that all AI/ANs have safe water.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to share the appropriations
priorities of Self-Governance Tribes with the subcommittee. We look
forward to your continued partnership.
[This statement was submitted by the Hon. W. Ron Allen, Chairman,
Self-Governance Communication & Education Tribal Consortium, and Tribal
Chairman/CEO, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Shoalwater Bay Tribe
The requests of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe (Tribe) for the
fiscal year 2019 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies budget are
as follows:
--Appropriate $500,000 through the Tribe's self-government agreement
with the BIA to address additional planning efforts in the
second phase of a necessary Tribal relocation.
--Contract Support Costs (CSC) Funding
--105(l) Clinic Leases
--IHS Advance Appropriations
--No Rescissions
--Special Diabetes Prevention Initiative
Background.
The Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe provides this written testimony on
fiscal year 2019 funding for programs affecting Indian Tribes which are
funded through your subcommittee. My name is Charlene Nelson, and I am
the Chairwoman of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe which is located
2,800 miles west by northwest of where we are meeting today on the
beautiful north shore of Willapa Bay, facing out to the Pacific Ocean.
My own personal history matches closely with many of you serving on
this subcommittee, as I understand you consistently are tasked with
determining how to fund and shape Federal programs that positively
impact the health, environment, and learning of American people. I
worked for decades in the field of education. As a former commercial
fisherman in Alaska, I came to understand the economic potential of a
healthy environment. Prior to my service on Tribal Council, I worked in
the Tribe's Health and Women's Wellness Program, learning firsthand
that vibrant and successful Indian communities are not possible without
first attending to human health.
Relocation Assistance.
I am here today to talk to you about survival. In this case, the
survival of our Tribe, its lands, homes, businesses, and its people.
This is my second term as Chairwoman of the Shoalwater Bay Tribe.
During my prior period chairing the Tribe, I spent the vast majority of
those 10 years spearheading an effort to help the Tribe and surrounding
area survive the threat of coastal erosion. As a result of those
efforts, the Army Corps of Engineers worked with the Tribe to construct
an erosion control embankment south and west of the Reservation. The
embankment went into service 5 years ago and this winter it took a
beating and is now a new concern of the Tribe and the Corps. The
embankment had temporarily halted the erosion that directly threatened
the Reservation and State Highway 105, which connects the surrounding
Tokeland community to schools, grocery stores, healthcare, banks, and
housing. But that erosion has regained momentum and there is no clear
sense of how long Highway 105 will survive.
But through the process of fighting for the Tribe's survival from
coastal erosion, we learned a great deal. We learned, among many other
things, that essentially the entire Reservation, with one small
exception on Eagle Hill, is no higher than 6 feet above the ordinary
high water mark of the Willapa Bay tides. The low elevation of the
entire reservation puts it squarely within a tsunami zone that ensures,
in the case of a tsunami event, that the Reservation would be wiped
out. Think about that for a moment--an entire Tribe wiped out in an
instant.
Attached to this testimony is a map entitled Exhibit A that lays
out the Tribe's intentions: to continue the preliminary engineering,
planning and initial funding to construct a road to an upland
elevation, out of the tsunami zone, to begin the relocation process of
the Tribe. The cost to carry out this next phase of work is $500,000,
and the Tribe is seeking this subcommittee's support in developing a
funding vehicle to support these efforts through the Tribe's existing
BIA self-governance compact.
Exhibit A shows a part of the Reservation at the bottom left
intersection, as well as Highway 105 in yellow. The new road, to the
north east of the main reservation, will provide access to a higher
elevation land base that the Tribe owns that is safe from the threats
of coastal erosion and tsunami.
This relocation project will require a number of partners, the
Tribe, State, Interior Corps of Engineers. While our request today is
for planning and implementation money for the Tribe from the BIA, other
temporary efforts are under serious consideration. For instance,
realizing how dire she situation is, the State and Corps of Engineers
have under serious and immediate consideration a joint project for a
dynamic revetment to help protect the berm which is endangered because
the wave action is now split where it hits the shore and part goes
north and part comes toward the berm.
We appreciate these efforts but the Tribe also needs the resources
to be actively involved in what ultimately is our own relocation.
Contract Supports Costs
We greatly appreciate the House and Senate Interior appropriations
subcommittees work over the past several years in making a reality the
full payment of Contract Support Costs (CSC) by both the IHS and the
BIA. We are also very pleased that the administration--both the current
and the previous one--has followed suit and requested that CSC be
maintained as a separate appropriations account in IHS and in BIA and
with an indefinite funding of `such sums as may be necessary''. This
action has been crucial to the strengthening of Tribal governments'
ability to successfully exercise their rights and responsibilities as
governments.
In both fiscal year 2017 and 2018 Act, however, the administrations
proposed to reinstate provisions from the Fiscal Year 2016
Appropriations Act for IHS which are contrary to the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act with regard to CSC. The
first is the ``carryover'' clause that could be read to deny the CSC
carryover authority granted by the ISDEAA; the other is the
notwithstanding'' clause used by IHS to deny contract support cost for
their grant programs--Domestic Violence Prevention; Substance Abuse and
Suicide Prevention; Zero Suicide Initiative; after-care pilot projects
at Youth Regional Treatment Centers; funding for the improvement of
third party collections; and accreditation emergencies. We are grateful
that Congress has not gone along with those two proposals and are
hoping and expecting that you will have the same reaction for the same
tired administration requests for fiscal year 2019.
105(l) Clinic Leases.--We are concerned by the administration's
proposed request to amend the law in order to avoid full compensation
for leases under section 105(l) of the ISDEAA. The proposed bill
language in the IHS Administrative provisions is designed to overrule
the decision in Maniilaq Association v. Burwell, 170 F. sup. 3d 243
(D.D.C. 2016) which held that section 105(l) of the ISDEAA provides an
entitlement to full compensation for leases of Tribal facilities used
to carry out ISDEAA agreements. The proposed language would exclude
section 105(l) of the ISDEAA as a source of entitlement to funding for
section 105(l) leases, leaving it entirely within the discretion of the
IHS. Tribes and Tribal organizations increasingly rely on section
105(l) leases to address chronically underfunded facilities operation,
maintenance, and replacement costs. Congress declined to include such a
provision in the fiscal year 2018 IHS appropriation bill and we ask
that you treat this year's repeat proposal the same way.
IHS Advance Appropriations.--We ask for your support in placing the
budget for the IHS on an advance appropriations basis. Under advance
appropriations we would know a year in advance what the budget would be
and importantly, would not be continue to be constrained by the start
and stop level funding of Continuing Resolutions, each of which
requires the same processing and manpower for each partial payment as
one full apportionment. Even if CRs had not become the norm, having
advance notice of funding levels would aid greatly in our health
programs planning, recruitment, retention, and leveraging of funds.
Finally, we note again that the Veterans Health Administration accounts
have been receiving advance appropriations since fiscal year 2010. Both
the VA and the IHS provide direct medical care and both are the result
of Federal policies. The IHS budget should be afforded the same budget
status consideration as the VA medical programs.
No Rescissions.--We have heard the talk of possible fiscal year
2018 rescissions and must object to that. After this year's enactment
of the Bipartisan Budget Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2018, it would be outrageous to break these Congressional budget
agreements and to interrupt the planning that is taking place among
Tribes and Tribal organizations (and others) with regard to facilities,
staffing, and services. We are grateful for the increases in the IHS
and BIA fiscal year 2018 budgets made possible by those Acts, increases
that should be maintained in the fiscal year 2019 appropriations bills.
Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI).--The administration
proposed, with no real explanation of why, that a number of health
programs' funding be changed from a mandatory to a discretionary
status. Among them is the SDPI program, and we are concerned that it
could lead to a reduction in funding for this critical program which
has demonstrated good results in Indian Country. The fiscal year 2019
administration's proposal is for level funding of $150 million for SDPI
in discretionary funding in the Indian Health Service budget. We
understand it these funds would, if the administration's proposal is
approved, come out of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittees'
allocations. The current SDPI authorization extends through fiscal year
2019 and we hope that the authorization can be made permanent and at an
increased funding level of $200 million or higher.
[This statement was submitted by Charlene Nelson, Chairwoman.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Society of American Foresters
The Society of American Foresters (SAF) sincerely appreciates this
subcommittee's steadfast commitment to giving forestry and natural
resources professionals the tools and support they need to improve the
health and productivity of our Nation's public and private forests. On
behalf of SAF's 11,000 members across the country, please accept this
written public testimony on fiscal year 2019 appropriations for the
USDA Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the Interior (DOI).
Just as forests are fundamental to our Nation, so too are the
professionals who study, manage, and care for these precious resources.
Founded in 1900 by Gifford Pinchot, SAF is the premier scientific and
educational organization in the United States--promoting science-based,
sustainable management and stewardship of the Nation's public and
private forests. SAF members include public and private sector natural
resource professionals, researchers, CEOs, administrators, investment
advisors, educators, and students.
Americans rely on the 751 million acres of public and private
forests in the U.S. to provide clean and abundant air and water, forest
products, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, forage
and range resources, energy, and scenic beauty. SAF is eager to work
with Congress, Federal agencies, and partners to identify reasonable
solutions to increase the pace and scale of management on Federal
lands, find new ways to work with private landowners, work across
boundaries, keep forests as forests, incentivize active management, and
deliver practical innovations to meet future challenges and market
demands.
SAF's top priorities for fiscal year 2019 include a range of
programs within USFS and DOI. With our forests facing unprecedented
threats, these requests will assist forest managers and scientists in
improving the health of our forests nationwide and providing a
multitude of benefits for generations to come.
saf top federal priorities for fiscal year 2019
1. Increase funding for USFS Forest and Rangeland Research to no
less than $307 million, with no less than $83 million for the Forest
Inventory and Analysis program.
2. Continue to improve forest health and reduce wildfire risks
through increasing the pace and scale of forest management on Federal
lands.
3. Maintain funding support for USFS State and Private Forestry
Programs at or above the fiscal year 2018 funding levels.
4. Support Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Public Domain Forestry
and Oregon & California Railroad Grant Lands funding levels at no less
than $10 million and $113.7 million, respectively.
Forestry Research.--Investments in forestry research are essential
for the future health and sustainability of the Nation's forests, which
include 22 million small private forest landowners. Although this
testimony focuses on USFS Forest and Rangeland Research programs, SAF
also recognizes and supports the full array of forestry research
efforts led by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Geologic Survey, and others including land-grant
institutions and other universities. USFS Research and Development
(USFS R&D) research conducted at the five USFS research stations, the
International Institute of Tropical Forestry, and in the Forest
Products Laboratory is crucial. Federal forestry research develops new
products and practical innovation; identifies forest ecosystem
disturbance response and forest resilience; helps responses to shifting
social demands and demographic changes; and quantifies the
contributions of forests to air and water quality. Without USFS
leadership, investigation of these critical research needs would
largely be left unfulfilled. Clear and relevant research helps
eliminate uncertainties and builds consensus on management actions
potentially avoiding litigation and enabling more projects to move
forward.
If forest research capacity in the U.S. continues to decline,
forest managers will not be able to meet current and future challenges
with existing science and technical information. Continuing the trend
of reductions in the USFS R&D budget will result in significant gaps in
knowledge and in poor management of resources at a time of
unprecedented threats posed by wildfire, drought, insects, disease, and
invasive species. SAF supports a funding level of $307 million for USFS
R&D, with emphasis on prioritization of research projects uniquely
suited to R&D expertise furthering agency and partner objectives.
FIA Funding.--SAF strongly supports the funding increases for the
USFS R&D Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program FIA is the
backbone of U.S. forestry--providing the only national census of
forests across all ownerships. Through FIA, USFS, with State forestry
agency, university, and private sector partners, collects and analyzes
forest data to assess trends on issues such as forest health and
management, fragmentation and parcelization, and forest carbon
sequestration. The data and information collected by FIA serve as the
basis for identifying trends in forest ownership; assessing fish and
wildlife habitat; evaluating wildfire, insect, and disease risk;
predicting the spread of invasive species; determining capital
investment in existing forest products facilities and selecting
locations for new forest product facilities; and identifying and
responding to priorities identified in State Forest Action Plans. The
critical need for current information about the condition of our
forests, with greater emphasis on the role of forests in maintaining
and improving air quality, underlies the need for FIA program capacity
to be increased in fiscal year 2018 and beyond. SAF requests additional
investment in FIA with a funding level of at least $83 million. We urge
the subcommittee to ensure that this increase does not come at the
expense of other research programs, and provide direction for future
increases to allow the program to keep pace with ever-growing and
diverse information needs.
Fire Science Program.--SAF has concerns with the proposed
elimination of the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) in the
administration's fiscal year 2019 budget coupled with reductions in the
National Fire Plan Research and Development (NFP R&D) will negatively
impact the joint research program with over 200 Federal agency,
university, and nongovernmental partners. Eliminating JFSP and reducing
funding for the NFP R&D will hinder exploration of fire research and
negatively impact efforts to restore resilience to the landscape. SAF
urges the subcommittee to restore the JFSP funding level to $6.9
million and maintain the NFP R&D at the funding level included in the
fiscal year 2018 Omnibus bill.
Wildfire Funding and Federal Forest Management.--We appreciate this
subcommittee's longstanding support and tireless efforts to change the
way wildfires are funded. Thank you for helping to finally the pass a
wildfire funding fix that treats wildfires like other natural
disasters. SAF expects to work with this subcommittee over the next 2
years to ensure that this new approach to funding wildfires is
implemented, and that reduction of costs and transparency in fund
expenditures continue to be pursued.
While passing a wildfire funding fix was a huge step forward, it is
only one piece of the more complex and long-term process of improving
forest health and reducing wildfire risks. SAF is pleased with the
continued commitment to increasing the pace and scale of management on
Federal lands with the USFS harvest target of 3.7 billion board feet,
up from approximately 3 billion board feet in recent years. With up to
82 million acres in the National Forest System (NFS) still in need of
restoration; however, SAF urges this subcommittee to encourage the
agency to use all available tools to increase restoration levels by
implementing more projects on Federal lands. USFS should expand
collaboration with rural communities, partners, and industry to meet
and exceed management goals outlined in forest plans. Authorizations in
the 2014 Farm Bill and the 2018 Omnibus facilitate quicker responses to
areas devastated by insects and disease, expand the use of Stewardship
Contracting, and take advantage of Good Neighbor Authority and other
mechanisms that work across boundaries to achieve shared objectives.
Additionally, support for streamlining and enhancement of efficiencies
through the Environmental Assessment and Decision-Making efforts should
help to improve forest and community resilience. However, decreases in
NFS Forest Products program, Capital Improvement and Maintenance, and
the administration's proposed elimination of the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Program could impede fulfillment of targets
critical to economic sustainability and growth of local communities.
Hazardous Fuels.--A comprehensive approach to averting wildfire
threats and improving forest resilience is imperative. The Hazardous
Fuels and Fire Risk Management line items in the USFS and DOI budgets
are integral to restoring forest health and reducing the costs of
wildfire suppression. Through restoring and maintaining fire-resilient
landscapes and communities, these programs support the goals of the
National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. SAF appreciates
this subcommittee's consistent support for wildfire management and
encourages it to allocate funds to address wildfire risks inside and
outside the wildland-urban interface. In addition to preventing and
mitigating wildfire risks, these programs serve as an important source
of jobs, maintain critical forest products processing capability,
especially in rural communities, and expand markets for the use of
biomass residuals as renewable energy through efforts like the USFS
Woody Innovations Grant Program. SAF supports funding the USFS
Hazardous Fuels Program at $430 million and $184 million for DOI.
State and Private Forestry.--SAF encourages this subcommittee to
recognize the importance of USFS State and Private Forestry (S&PF)
programs. The Urban and Community Forestry, Landscape Scale
Restoration, Forest Stewardship, and Forest Health Management programs
provide important technical and financial assistance to private
landowners and the resource managers responsible for managing more than
60 percent of America's forests. Investments in these programs are
leveraged by landowners, State and local agencies, and a variety of
non-governmental organizations to help to build healthy and thriving
forest resources that benefit all citizens. Likewise, the International
Forestry program provides critical expertise, identification of new and
diverse market opportunities for U.S. forest products, and advice to
countries across the globe raising awareness of goods and services
forests and U.S. exports can provide. Eliminating, consolidating, or
drastically cutting funding for these programs would have profound
adverse impacts on people and communities across the country--
particularly in rural communities--and will jeopardize the essential
benefits all citizens rely on forests to provide. SAF recommends that
these programs be at least maintained at fiscal year 2018 levels.
Public Domain Program.--Finally, SAF is encouraged by the
recognition of the important work of the BLM Public Domain Forestry
(PD) program. SAF asks this committee to consider amending the
extension of the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund
authorization in the 2015 Omnibus Bill to beyond 2020. SAF is concerned
with the proposed funding reduction for the Oregon & California
Railroad Grant Lands (O&C) in the President's proposed budget. SAF also
requests that this subcommittee consider a provision to expand the 3000
acres insect and disease categorical exclusions to include the Bureau
of Land Management through designation of the Secretary of Interior
through the amendment of Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 in the
2014 Farm Bill. SAF supports $10 million for the PD program and $113.7
million for the O&C program. We also urge this subcommittee to extend
authorization of the Emergency Insect and Disease Designations through
requests from Governors to the Secretary of the Interior as well as the
Secretary of Agriculture through amendment of the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act.
Thank you for your consideration of these important requests. SAF
and its extensive network of forestry and natural resources
professionals stand ready to assist with further development and
implementation of these efforts and ideas.
[This statement was submitted by Dave Lewis, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Southcentral Foundation
My name is Katherine Gottlieb and I am the President and Chief
Executive Officer of Southcentral Foundation (SCF). SCF is the Alaska
Native Tribal health organization designated by Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
and eleven federally-recognized Tribes--the Aleut Community of St. Paul
Island, Igiugig, Iliamna, Kokhanok, McGrath, Newhalen, Nikolai,
Nondalton, Pedro Bay, Telida, and Takotna--to provide healthcare
services to beneficiaries of the Indian Health Service (IHS) pursuant
to a government-to-government contract with the United States under
authority of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(ISDEAA), Public Law 93-638. SCF is a two-time recipient of the Malcolm
Baldridge National Quality Award for health (2011 and 2017).
SCF, through our 2,300 employees, provides critical health
services, including pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, Native men's
wellness, dental, behavioral health and substance abuse treatment to
over 65,000 Alaska Native and American Indian patients. This includes
52,000 people living in the Municipality of Anchorage, the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough to the north, and 13,000 residents of 55 rural Alaska
Native villages. Our service area encompasses over 100,000 square
miles, an area the size of Wyoming. More so than any other affiliation
of Tribes, Alaska Native people have assumed the broadest
responsibilities under the ISDEAA to own and manage healthcare systems
which, together with the Alaska Public Health System, serve 150,000
Alaska Native and American Indian people and thousands of non-Native
residents in rural Alaska.
I want to thank this subcommittee, especially Chairwoman Lisa
Murkowski, our Senator, for its leadership in securing significant
increases in Federal appropriations for the Indian Health Service for
fiscal year 2018, a total of $4.82 billion for IHS Services and
Facilities (excluding Contract Support Costs), a $580 million increase
over the fiscal year 2017 enacted level, and nearly $800 million above
the administration's request for fiscal year 2018. My remarks today are
simple: continue to increase Federal appropriations for IHS programs
and services until health disparities between Alaska Native and
American Indian people and other Americans are extinguished. At
present, IHS per capita spending on healthcare for Alaska Native and
American Indian people is about one-third of the average national per
capita healthcare spending level. Today, we are also fighting an opioid
epidemic which is taking a disproportionate toll on Alaska Native
people. As Senator Murkowski noted: ``Alaska may be a rural State, but
we are not shielded from this epidemic.'' With a service population of
65,000, our resources are wholly insufficient in comparison to the
crisis.
We are extremely troubled by the current administration's recent
comments and actions that seek to undermine the sovereign status of
Alaska Native and American Indian Tribes. We therefore ask that the
subcommittee reject efforts by the administration to eliminate or cut
appropriations to Indian healthcare programs. This subcommittee
appropriated $450 million for programs such as the Community Health
Representatives Program, the Health Education Program, the Tribal
Management Grants Program and other programs that fund Indian
healthcare in the Fiscal Year 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act,
passed only a few weeks ago. Investing in Native healthcare will only
improve the health of the Nation's first peoples.
SCF's testimony concerning the administration's fiscal year 2019
budget for IHS would be quite different were it not for the actions by
this subcommittee and Congress to rebuke, in passing the fiscal year
2018 omnibus appropriation measure, the harmful cuts the administration
proposed in fiscal year 2018 to Federal programs serving Alaska Natives
and American Indians. We are confident that the subcommittee and the
Congress will, in fiscal year 2019, advocate for continued increases in
Federal programs serving Alaska Native and American Indian people and
reject the administration's proposal to cut or eliminate important IHS
programs and services.
1. Continue to Provide Increases for Behavioral Health Programs
Last year, we stressed to this subcommittee how important it was to
increase funds for behavioral health. Alaska Native and American Indian
people are disproportionately represented in substance abuse,
especially opioid addiction, and suicide statistics. According to the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and recently confirmed by IHS Chief
Medical Officer, Rear Admiral Michael E. Toedt, Alaska Native and
American Indian people ``had the highest drug overdose death rates in
2015 and the largest percentage increase in the number of deaths over
time from 1999-2015 compared to other racial and ethnic groups.''
During that time, deaths rose more than 500 percent among Alaska Native
and American Indian people. The CDC also found that the suicide rate
among Alaska Native people is almost four times the U.S. general
population rate and at least six times the national average in some
parts of the State.
This subcommittee supported a combined $16 million increase in
fiscal year 2018 for the Mental Health ($100 million) and Alcohol and
Substance Abuse programs ($228 million), a 5 percent increase over the
fiscal year 2017 enacted level. We are pleased to see that the
administration requests an increase for these programs in fiscal year
2019 by an additional $12 million ($340 million total). We recommend
the subcommittee increase these programs by at least 15 percent above
the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. Behavioral health funds are
critical to our most vulnerable population--our youth. SCF runs several
programs that provide mental healthcare for Alaska Native youth which
focus on building academic, vocational and leadership skills through
culturally-appropriate methods. It is our firm conviction that only by
addressing the root causes that drive individuals to drug misuse and
addiction--domestic and child abuse, poverty and unemployment--can we
heal them.
We appreciate the administration including $150 million in the
fiscal year 2019 budget for an Opioid Prevention, Treatment and
Recovery program for Alaska Native and American Indian people. We
recommend that these funds be distributed among Tribes and Tribal
organizations as additions to our self-governance compacts and
contracts. Alaska Native healthcare providers, like SCF, recognize that
the size of the opioid and substance abuse problem in Alaska demands
resources. Federal officials recently testified that far too few people
suffering from addiction receive care. In a hearing last December
before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, Federal health
officials stated: ``It is well-documented that the majority of people
with opioid addiction in the U.S. do not receive treatment, and even
among those who do, many do not receive evidence-based care. Accounting
for these factors is paramount to the development of a successful
strategy to combat the opioid crisis.'' With insufficient funds to
address behavioral health challenges, we cannot reach those who suffer
from substance abuse, those struggling with PTSD, our military
veterans, or victims of violent crime. Prevention, education, and
timely medication-assisted treatment (MAT) programs remain our most
potent tools to raise a new generation of Alaska Native people who
practice positive, life-affirming behavioral traits and who will, in
turn, pass on these life skills to their children and grandchildren.
With our available funds, we established The Pathway Home, a
voluntary, comprehensive, and individualized mental health program for
adolescents aged 13 to 18 years. The Pathway Home teaches life skills
to these Alaska Native youths so that they discontinue harmful
behavior. Many of these youths have already experienced childhood
trauma or seen family members struggle with drug and alcohol
dependency, which puts them at greater risk of turning to drugs and
alcohol. The Pathway Home creates a loving and supportive community
environment and it is heartwarming to see how proud the graduates of
this program are to go back out into the world with these new skills
and new hope.
We applaud the efforts by Senators Alexander, Murray, Daines,
Baldwin and others, that are putting forth legislation to address the
opioid, meth and heroine crisis in Indian Country, and amend the 21st
Century Cures Act to make Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations direct
recipients of Federal funds now being awarded to the States within the
State Response to the Opioid Abuse Crisis program by establishing a
Tribal set-aside.
2. Reduce the Disparity in Federal Healthcare Expenditures for Alaska
Native and American Indian People
In our testimony last year, we asked the subcommittee to prioritize
general program increases which are shared equally by all Tribal
programs. We are pleased to see that in the fiscal year 2018
appropriations for the IHS, the subcommittee included significant
increases shared by all Tribal programs, such as a $110 million
increase for Hospitals and Health Clinics, a $33.8 million increase for
Purchased/Referred Care, a $6.3 million increase for Public Health
Nursing, a $1.6 million increase for Urban Indian Health, and a $91.7
million increase in funding for Facilities Maintenance and Improvement.
We also appreciate your acknowledgment that housing shortages in Alaska
contribute to the high vacancy rates for medical personnel, especially
in rural areas. For that reason, we appreciate the $11.5 million in the
fiscal year 2018 omnibus for staff quarters and the $15 million for the
Small Ambulatory Program for clinic construction.
For fiscal year 2019, we urge the subcommittee to prioritize
general program increases. By the estimate of the National Indian
Health Board (NIHB), IHS funding is only about 1/5 of the total Tribal
needs budget of $30 billion. So long as appropriations for the Indian
Health Service reside within the Interior, Environment and Related
Agencies, this subcommittee will always be challenged to appropriate
sufficient funds to address the healthcare disparities between Alaska
Native and American Indian people and the rest of the population.
3. Continue to Support Increases for Section 105(l) Lease Payments
As SCF testified last year, we recommend that the subcommittee
create within the Direct Operations account a new subaccount to pay
required Section 105(l) lease payments to Tribes and Tribal
organizations that make tribally-owned or leased facilities available
for IHS-financed health programs. This action is still necessary. For
the second time, and in the face of two Federal court decisions
addressing IHS's legal obligation to fund Section 105(l) leases, the
administration's fiscal year 2019 budget asks Congress for statutory
text, included in the Administrative Provisions concerning the IHS, to
legislatively override Section 105(l), and the courts, and insert a
``notwithstanding'' clause which would make all lease payments by the
Secretary entirely discretionary on the part of the IHS. In short, the
IHS would secure the right to use Tribal facilities to operate IHS-
funded programs without paying for them which they had been doing for
years by short-funding Village Built Clinic leases.
We urge the subcommittee to again reject IHS's efforts to repeal a
key provision of the ISDEAA through the appropriations process. This
subcommittee fully appreciates the challenges we face to build and
maintain hospitals and clinics in unforgiving climates. Too often, lack
of funds shortens the useful life of these vitally important
structures. The cost to replace a hospital or clinic in Alaska is
staggering. If Tribes and Tribal organizations are to extend the useful
life of hospitals and clinics, we must be given the resources to
properly operate and maintain them. Facilities worth having are worth
maintaining.
Also, despite the obligation of the IHS to fully fund 105(l)
leases, we have found the IHS to be slow to finalize these leases
because they are not given enough money to fund all of the leases they
are now clearly required to pay for. We continue to urge you to
increase appropriations for Section 105(l) leases.
4. Contract Support Costs
With regards to Contract Support Costs, we appreciate the
subcommittee's use of an indefinite appropriation, and the
subcommittee's direction to IHS, in the fiscal year 2018 Conference
Report, that transfers of Substance Abuse and Suicide Prevention
Program and other funds be awarded to Tribes through Indian Self-
Determination Act compacts and contracts, and not through separate
grants, so that associated ``administrative costs'' will be covered
through the contract support cost process.
In 2017 and this year, we have also been witness to the IHS making
unilateral policy changes concerning its CSC policy, already an overly
complicated process. It requires Tribes to submit additional
documentation to IHS and engage in two separate CSC negotiations each
year. We urge the subcommittee to direct the agency to simplify its CSC
policy and not attempt to reduce the award of CSC funds to Tribes
through an unnecessarily complex methodology.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf
of Southcentral Foundation and the people we serve.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium
My name is Charles Clement and I serve as the President/CEO for the
Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium (SEARHC). I am honored for
the opportunity to provide written testimony concerning SEARHC's
priorities for the fiscal year 2019 appropriations for the Indian
Health Service (IHS). SEARHC is most appreciative to Chairwoman
Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and the Members of the subcommittee
for championing the health needs of Alaska Natives and American Indians
in the recently enacted fiscal year 2018 omnibus measure, Public Law
115-141. The appropriation includes critical funding increases to IHS
Facilities and Services funding which SEARHC and countless Tribes and
Tribal organizations assume under Indian Self-Determination Act
compacts and contracts.
SEARHC is a non-profit Tribal health consortium, comprised of 15
federally-recognized Alaska Native Tribes, serving the southeast Alaska
communities situated along the Southeast panhandle of Alaska. Our
service area stretches over 35,000 square miles (about the size of
Maine), and with no roads connecting many of the rural communities we
serve, we work hard to provide quality health services to our
communities.
Through our 25-bed acute care Mt. Edgecumbe Hospital (MEH) located
in Sitka, the Ethel Lund Medical Center in Juneau, and a network of
some 27 community clinics, SEARHC performs a wide array of services to
our patients including medical, dental, behavioral health, physical
therapy, radiology, pharmacy, laboratory, nutritional, audiology,
optometry and respiratory therapy services. We also provide
supplemental social services, substance abuse treatment, health
promotion services, emergency medical services, environmental health
services and traditional Native healing.
In fiscal year 2017, we logged 183,493 outpatient visits
organization-wide, which include visits to our family and general
practice, nursing clinics, behavioral health clinics, emergency
department, telemedicine, radiology, rehabilitation and optometry
services, nutrition, social services and specialty and surgery clinics.
For the period 2016 through 2017, 100 babies were born at MEH.
The urgent healthcare needs of our Tribal members are heightened in
areas like Southeast Alaska. Our communities are isolated and
transportation and facilities costs are high. Travel to MEH requires a
lengthy combination of automobile, ferry, and airplanes. Travel takes
at least a day and often involves an overnight trip. Inclement weather
delays travel even further.
We are therefore grateful for the subcommittee's rejection of the
administration's proposed 18 percent cut in Facilities funding for
fiscal year 2018 and appropriation of $322 million above the fiscal
year 2017 enacted level for the current fiscal year. We appreciate the
subcommittee's similar rejection of the administration's proposed
reduction of $120 million to the IHS Services budget for fiscal year
2018, from the fiscal year 2017 enacted level, and decision to
appropriate $378 million above the administration's fiscal year 2019
funding request.
SEARHC is in the process of securing title to the lands and
buildings within the Mt. Edgecumbe Sitka campus so that we may more
easily secure finances to replace our outdated hospital. The estimated
cost exceeds $32 million. With leadership by Senators Murkowski and
Sullivan, the Senate passed S. 825 on November 29, 2017. The measure
simply transfers title to the 19-acre parcel to SEARHC for continued
health services. We anticipate House action on the measure this
session. Sufficient IHS Facilities and Services funding is critical to
our mission.
ihs facilities funding
In a 2016 Facilities Needs Assessment report the IHS sent to
Congress, the agency noted that: ``Aging facilities risk code
noncompliance, lower productivity, and compromises for healthcare
services. Aging has pushed up costs of maintenance and essential
repairs. . . . At the existing replacement rate, a new 2016 facility
would not be replaced for 400 years.'' Needless to say, we can't wait
that long. As the 2016 assessment further noted, older IHS facilities
cannot adequately handle the needed level of services, even if fully
staffed, and the resulting ``facility capacity bottleneck'' limits
services well below the level required for current Alaska Native and
American Indian populations. Modern facilities, with better designs,
operate at lower costs and improve patient wait times, which remains a
concern to us and to Congress.
We are therefore deeply disappointed by the administration's
proposed fiscal year 2019 budget for the IHS Facilities account of
$505.8 million, roughly $40 million below the fiscal year 2017 enacted
level and $362 million below the fiscal year 2018 enacted level which
Congress and the President approved a few weeks ago.
We urge the subcommittee to again prioritize IHS Facilities and
Services funding in the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. We see no
alternative to overcoming chronic and historical health disparities
between Alaska Natives and American Indians and the rest of the country
without increasing funding. Per capita spending for Alaska Natives and
American Indians is about one-third the national health spending level
($2,834 versus $9,990).
Several years ago, in testimony to the subcommittee, we made four
recommendations to help address the health disparities that exist among
Alaska Natives and American Indians and the rest of the population
caused by outdated health facilities and limited staffing and
equipment.
First, we asked Congress to replace aging IHS facilities like the
MEH and to rank projects based on need rather than order of receipt to
replace such facilities.
Second, we asked appropriators to tackle the chronic shortfall in
appropriations for IHS's Facilities funds. This is a tall order.
According to a recent Facilities Needs Assessment report by IHS
presented to Congress, the agency estimated that it would cost $10.3
billion (2016) to construct an additional 18 million feet of new and
replacement health facility space. That represents a 25 percent cost
increase just from 2011, when the estimate was $8 billion. The Alaska
Region's facilities space needs total 2.27 million at a cost of $2.16
billion, about 21 percent of all IHS Facilities requirement needs in
the country. According to the 2016 IHS assessment, the Alaska Region
ranks first in estimated cost requirements for health facility space
and third in total square footage.
Third, we asked the subcommittee to provide staffing and equipment
funds in the IHS appropriation for tribally-renovated IHS facilities as
authorized under section 1634 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
(IHCIA). Section 1634 allows Tribes to renovate IHS facilities and
authorizes IHS to provide staffing and equipment, or to place the Tribe
on a separate priority list for such funds, when the renovation or
modernization is approved by the IHS Area Director. Congress has,
however, never funded this IHCIA program. We again urge the
subcommittee to include at least $10 million for the section 1634 IHCIA
program. SEARHC would be delighted to be the Alaska demonstration
project for the initiative in fiscal year 2019.
Finally, we urged the subcommittee to appropriate additional funds
to allow IHS to enter into more Joint Venture (JV) projects. The JV
project provides IHS funds to staff facilities built with Tribal funds.
SEARHC submitted a JV proposal to build a facility on Prince of Wales
Island. Like 24 other applicants in a field of 37, our project was not
chosen, although it received a high score. The JV model is not working
sufficiently when only a third of projects are funded.
At nearly 70 years old, the Mt. Edgecumbe Hospital is the oldest
facility in Alaska and one of the oldest Tribal health facility in the
Nation. This is nearly twice as old as the average IHS hospital (40
years) and more than six-and-a-half times the age of the average U.S.
hospital (10.6 years). The MEH was constructed toward the end of World
War II by the War Department and focused largely on tuberculosis
treatment through the 1950s. The hospital is in poor condition and ill-
suited to a 21st century model of healthcare dominated by primary and
ambulatory care facilities.
As noted above, the subcommittee responded in fiscal year 2018 with
a $378 million increase in IHS Services and Facilities funding above
the fiscal year 2017 enacted level and full funding of Contract Support
Costs (CSCs). We applaud the subcommittee's strong endorsement of
Tribal health needs. But for SEARHC to realize our goals of a well-
staffed and equipped replacement health facility for the MEH, and a
critical access hospital to serve the Prince of Wales Island
communities, including Craig and Klawock, the subcommittee must sustain
and build on these important funding increases to the IHS budget in
fiscal year 2019 and future years.
ihs services
SEARHC appreciates the administration's effort to increase fiscal
year 2019 appropriations to the IHS, but we fail to understand why the
administration would eliminate Preventive Health programs such as the
Community Health Representatives Program and the Health Education
Program, which Congress funded at $62.88 million and $19.87 million,
respectively, in fiscal year 2018, or reduce the budget for the Urban
Health Program by $1 million, and eliminate the Tribal Management
Grants. In no instance did the administration seek input from or
consult with affected Tribes and Tribal organizations. While we
appreciate the administration including $150 million in the fiscal year
2019 budget for the Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) and
$150 million for Opioid Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Support
(OPTRS), without modern hospitals and clinics, or the required funding
for staffing and equipping these facilities, our challenge to improve
the health of our communities is made more difficult.
contract support costs
A great deal of progress has been made on the issue of Contract
Support Costs (CSCs), thanks in large part to this subcommittee. We
appreciate the subcommittee retaining CSCs as an indefinite
appropriation to ensure full funding to Tribes. We further appreciate
the subcommittee, in its Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year
2018 omnibus appropriation, including language directing the IHS to
award Substance Abuse and Suicide Prevention funds, the Domestic
Violence Prevention Program, and the Zero Suicide Initiative, and
related programs, through Indian Self-Determination Act compacts and
contracts, rather than separate grant instruments which the IHS has
used to avoid the payment of CSC funds.
With regard to IHS's CSC policy, we remain concerned that the IHS
is working outside the framework of the CSC Work Group, and its
developing unilateral policies without consultation with Tribal
representatives to the Work Group. The IHS's CSC policy is
unnecessarily complicated and imposes additional administrative burdens
on Tribal healthcare providers. The agency is falling behind in making
fiscal year 2017 CSC adjustments, has not completed CSC adjustments for
prior years, and miscalculates future CSC needs. These facts lead us to
the conclusion that the IHS is working too hard to find ways to reduce
such payments to Tribes.
We ask the subcommittee to instruct the IHS to redirect its
energies to better ensuring that Tribal healthcare providers have the
administrative resources we require to carry out live-saving health
services to our patients, rather than thinking of ways to limit the
payment of these important administrative support funds.
Thank you for affording SEARHC the opportunity to present our
views.
______
Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe
On behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribal Leadership and citizens, it
is an honor to provide our funding priorities and recommendations for
the fiscal year 2019 budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and
Indian Health Service (IHS). We request that Tribal program funding
throughout the Federal Government be exempt from future sequestrations,
rescissions and disproportionate cuts.
We express gratitude to the Committee for its foresight and
leadership to fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC) in the BIA and
IHS. Although full funding in 2014 and 2015 was risky and did impact
some other Tribal funding, in the fiscal year 2016 enacted spending
bill you included an estimated amount to fully fund the CSC needs in
2016 and 2017. Under the new budget structure, going forward, the full
CSC that Tribes are entitled to will be paid and other programs will
not be reduced if payments are underestimated in the President's
budget. The Squaxin Island Tribe agrees that maintaining this structure
achieves the Nation's legal obligation to fully pay CSC and those
payments should not be achieved by reducing direct services to any
Tribe. We further request that the BIA and IHS CSC be reclassified to
mandatory (permanent) funding.
SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE Specific Requests:
1. $500,000 Shellfish Management Program--BIA
2. $2.5 Million to Build and Operate an Oyster and Clam Nursery
for Southern Puget Sound--BIA
3. $2.5 Million Increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center
(NWITC) Residential Program in IHS
REGIONAL Requests and Recommendations:
Squaxin Island Tribes supports the Regional Budget Requests of the
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI), the Northwest Portland
Area Indian Health Board (NPAIHB) and the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission (NWIFC).
NATIONAL Requests and Recommendations:
Squaxin Island Tribe supports the National Budget Requests of the
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the National Indian
Health Board (NIHB).
NATIONAL Requests and Recommendations--Bureau of Indian Affairs:
1. BIA Rights Protection--Increase funding to $52 million for the
BIA Rights Protection Implementation
2. Fully Fund Fixed Costs and Tribal Pay Costs
3. Increase Tribal Base Funding (instead of through grants)
4. Law Enforcement:
a. Allocate $83 million in additional funding to the BIA to increase
base funding for Tribal courts.
b. Increase funding for BIA law enforcement and detention by at least
$200 million over the fiscal year 2017 funding level of $353 million.
NATIONAL Requests and Recommendations--Indian Health Service
1. Oppose moving Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI)
funding into discretionary spending from the mandatory account.
2. IHS mandatory funding (maintaining current services)--Provide a
total of $6.4 billion for the Indian Health Service in fiscal year
2019, a 33 percent increase over the fiscal year 2016 planning base.
3. $150 million for Opioid Funding--Increase funding and include
Tribal set asides in any funding decisions to States.
4. Purchased and Referred Care (PRC)--Provide an increase of
$474.4 million.
squaxin island tribe background
We are native people of South Puget Sound and descendants of the
maritime people who lived and prospered along these shores for untold
centuries. We are known as the People of the Water because of our
strong cultural connection to the natural beauty and bounty of Puget
Sound going back hundreds of years. The Squaxin Island Indian
Reservation is located in southeastern Mason County, Washington and the
Tribe is a signatory to the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. We were one of
the first 30 federally-recognized Tribes to enter into a Compact of
Self-Governance with the United States.
Our treaty-designated reservation, Squaxin Island, is approximately
2.2 square miles of uninhabited forested land, surrounded by the bays
and inlets of southern Puget Sound. Because the Island lacks fresh
water, the Tribe has built its community on roughly 26 acres at
Kamilche, Washington purchased and placed into trust. The Tribe also
owns 6 acres across Pickering Passage from Squaxin Island and a plot of
36 acres on Harstine Island, across Peale Passage. The total land area
including off-reservation trust lands is 1,715.46 acres. In addition,
the Tribe manages roughly 500 acres of Puget Sound tidelands.
The Tribal government and our economic enterprises constitute the
largest employer in Mason County with over 1,250 employees. The Tribe
has a current enrollment of 1,040 and an on-reservation population of
426 living in 141 homes. Squaxin has an estimated service area
population of 2,747; a growth rate of about 10 percent, and an
unemployment rate of about 30 percent (according to the BIA Labor Force
Report).
squaxin island tribe specific requests/justifications
1. $500,000--Shellfish Management--BIA
The Squaxin Island Tribe faces an ongoing budget deficit to
maintain and operate the shellfish program at its current level of
operation--a level that leaves 20 percent of treaty-designated State
lands and 80-90 percent of private tidelands unharvested due to lack of
funding. To address this shortfall and enable effective growth and
development of the program, an annual minimum increase of $500,000 is
requested. Shellfish have been a mainstay for the Squaxin Island people
for thousands of years and are important today for subsistence,
economic and ceremonial purposes. The Tribe's right to harvest
shellfish is guaranteed by the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. Today, we
are unable to fully exercise our treaty rights due to lack of Federal
support for our shellfish management program.
2. $2.5 Million--Build and Operate an Oyster and Clam Nursery for
Southern Puget Sound--BIA
A shellfish nursery is a capital project that is both proven and a
cost effective technology that takes small oyster and clam seeds and
provides a safe and controlled environment for the seeds to grow to a
size that can survive integration onto a regular beach placement.
Aquaculture is expected to provide almost two-thirds of the fish
intended for global consumption by 2030. Aquaculture involves the
breeding, rearing, and harvesting of freshwater and marine species of
fish, shellfish, and aquatic plants. Producers farm in all types of
water environments including ponds, rivers, lakes, oceans, and land-
based, closed recirculating-water systems. The Squaxin Island Tribe is
uniquely positioned to meet the demand for increased seed production in
the shellfish industry. Ocean conditions are affecting the shellfish
industry as a whole; ranking ocean acidification as the top concern.
Ocean acidification is making it hard for the tiny organisms to make it
through the most important stage of their life. They may eat as much
algae as they can, but with current ocean conditions, such as the
decreasing pH of the water, they cannot eat enough to get the energy
they need to grow their shell and increase body mass. In addition, due
to weather and/or other environmental factors, the regional shellfish
growers in southern Puget Sound continue to face a shortage of viable
seed for their shellfish farms.
Our original treaty-designated reservation, Squaxin Island, is a
restricted-access area, and therefore an ideal location for such a
nursery because it will not be disturbed by residents or recreational
boaters. This project would be a capital cost of approximately $2.5
million. The Tribal in-kind contribution to the effort would include
land, shoreline and operating costs. Comparable land and shoreline, if
privately owned, would be easily valued in the higher millions. The
Squaxin southern Puget Sound oyster and clam nursery will be an
extension of another project that was created through a U.S. Department
of Agriculture appropriation two decades ago for the Lummi Tribe, which
created an oyster and clam hatchery in Northern Puget Sound.
3. $2.5 Million Increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC)
Residential Program--IHS ``D3WXbi Palil'' meaning ``Returning
from the Dark, Deep Waters to the Light"
The Squaxin Island Tribe has been operating the Northwest Indian
Treatment Center (NWITC) since 1994. The Center, given the spiritual
name ``D3WXbi Palil'' meaning ``Returning from the Dark, Deep Waters to
the Light'', is a residential chemical dependency treatment facility
designed to serve Native Americans who have chronic relapse patterns
related to unresolved grief and trauma. NWITC serves adult clients from
Tribes located in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. Since the original
Congressional set-aside in the IHS budget for alcohol and substance
abuse treatment for residential facilities and placement contracts with
third-party agencies in 1993, NWITC has not received an adequate
increase in the base IHS budget. With the well-documented nation-wide
rise in prescription opioid and heroin abuse, it is more critical than
ever to increase the NWITC's annual base in order to sustain the
current services to the Tribes of the Northwest. AI/AN face opioid
related fatalities three times the rate of non-Natives. An increase of
$2.5 million would restore lost purchasing power, ensure adequate
baseline operating funds and allow NWITC to continue to meet the needs
of Native Americans and their communities.
national requests and recommendations--bureau of indian affairs
1. BIA Rights Protection--Increase funding to $52 million--This
Subactivity Account has a clear and direct relationship with the
Federal trust obligation to Tribes. This program ensures compliance
with Federal court orders by implementing effective Tribal self-
regulatory and co-management systems. The benefits of these programs
accrue not only to Tribes, but to the larger communities as well. In
addition, this program supports implementation of the United States/
Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty.
2. Fully Fund Fixed Costs and Tribal Pay Costs--Partial funding or
failing to fund Pay Costs for Tribes has devastated Tribal communities
by causing critical job losses. Over 900 Tribal jobs have been lost and
an estimated 300 more jobs will be permanently lost on an annual basis
if 100 percent Pay Costs are not provided. The Tribal losses are being
further exacerbated by recent projections of costs that have been
significantly underestimated. We strongly urge full funding of fixed
costs and Tribal pay costs.
3. Increase Tribal Base Funding (instead of through grants)--Grant
funding, particularly inside the BIA, is not consistent with the intent
of Tribal self-determination. Tribal leaders have grown increasingly
frustrated by the increase in Indian Affairs funding offer through
grants. Allocating new funds via grants marginalizes and impedes Tribal
Self-Determination and Self-Governance. Provide increases via Tribal
base funding instead of through grants to Tribal governments.
4. Law Enforcement:
a. Allocate $83 million in additional funding to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs to increase base funding for Tribal courts, including courts in
Public Law 280 jurisdictions, and to incrementally move towards fully
meeting the need for Tribal court funding; and,
b. Increase funding for Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) law
enforcement and detention by at least $200 million over the fiscal year
2017 funding level of $353 million, including an increase in funds for
officer recruitment and training and for Tribal detention facilities
operations and maintenance.
national requests and recommendations--indian health service
1. Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI)--Oppose moving SDPI
funds into discretionary spending from mandatory spending. That will
mean SDPI will compete for other Indian program funding annually, as
opposed to being funded automatically. Need to have Tribal
consultation.
2. IHS mandatory funding (maintaining current services)--Provide a
total of $6.4 billion for fiscal year 2019, a 33 percent increase over
2016 planning phase. If these mandatory requirements are not funded,
Tribes have no choice but to cut health services, which further reduces
the quantity and quality of healthcare services available to AI/AN
citizens.
3. $150 million for Opioid Funding--Increase funding and include
Tribal set asides in any funding decisions to states. Addressing the
opioid epidemic is a nationwide priority. American Indians and Alaska
Natives face opioid related fatalities three times the rate on non-
Indians. Tribal governments must be included in major agency-wide
funding decisions, including to states, to treat and prevent opioid
misuse.
4. Purchased and Referred Care (PRC)--Provide an increase of
$474.4 million. The Purchased/Referred Care program pays for urgent and
emergent and other critical services that are not directly available
through IHS and Tribally-operated health programs when no IHS direct
care facility exists, or the direct care facility cannot provide the
required emergency or specialty care, or the facility has more demand
for services than it can currently meet.
Thank you for accepting the fiscal year 2019 budget requests and
recommendations for the Squaxin Island Tribe.
[This statement was submitted by Ray Peters, Intergovernmental
Affairs Liaison.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe appreciates the opportunity to submit
written testimony concerning the President's fiscal year 2019 budget
for Indian programs within the Department of the Interior and the
Indian Health Service. We would like to thank this Committee for
supporting Indian Tribes. Our testimony will focus on healthcare,
public safety, education, and infrastructure.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has a government to government
relationship with the United States of America, reflected in our 1851
and 1868 Treaties. These Treaties underscore the United States' ongoing
promises and obligations of to the Tribe. Our testimony today is
submitted with those promises and obligations in mind.
The Standing Rock Sioux Reservation encompasses 2.3 million acres
in North and South Dakota. Approximately 8,500 of our 16,000 Tribal
members, and 2,000 non-members, reside in eight communities spread
across our rural Reservation. The Tribe's primary industries are cattle
ranching and farming. The Tribe struggles to provide essential
governmental services to our members. The Tribe's desire is to provide
jobs and improve the economic standard of living on our Reservation.
Despite the Tribe's best efforts, our unemployment rate remains
above 80 percent. In fact, over 40 percent of Indian families on our
Reservation live in poverty--more than triple the average U.S. poverty
rate. The disparity is worse for children, as 52 percent of the
Reservation population under age 18 lives below poverty, compared to 16
percent and 19 percent in North and South Dakota, respectively. The
Federal programs to aid Tribes and their members--established and
promised by treaty--are essential. We ask the government to honor its
commitments by adequately funding these Federal programs enacted for
our benefit, so that our members may enjoy a standard of living
comparable to that enjoyed by the rest of the Nation.
Our specific requests are as follows:
Indian Health Service.--We greatly appreciate the $500 million
increase Congress provided in IHS funding for fiscal year 2018. We
depend on IHS to care for our 16,000 enrolled Tribal members, many of
whom suffer from diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension.
The Tribe requests increased funding for substance abuse response
and treatment throughout Indian Country. The Standing Rock Sioux
Reservation, like all of Indian Country, is facing an opioid and
methamphetamine abuse crisis. Opioid addiction can be life long and
must be treated as a behavioral health illness. Tribes need additional
mental health specialists and substance abuse counselors to combat this
issue in a holistic and productive way.
The Tribe knows that this Committee supports Indian Country and in
particular our health priorities, but we want to be sure to voice our
strong objections to the administration's proposal to eliminate the
Community Health Representatives Program (CHRs). CHRs are the frontline
for medical care in our communities. They conduct wellness checks on
our elders, ensure that our children make their dental appointments,
and provide our members with rides to medical appointments. Without
these dedicated professionals, many of our members would not get the
care that they need.
Child Protective Services.--Services to assist child victims are
sorely lacking. The statistics demonstrate an overwhelming need.
According to the Department of Justice, Indians have the highest rate
of victimization in the Country. According to the 2016 ACF Report on
Child Maltreatment, Indian children account for almost 30 percent of
the abuse cases in North Dakota and almost 45 percent of the cases in
South Dakota. However, we are only 5.5 percent of the population in in
North Dakota and 9 percent in South Dakota. Finally, according to the
Anne Casey Foundation, in 2015, 27 percent of the children in foster
care in North Dakota were Indian and in South Dakota the statistic is
even more startling at 49 percent of the children in that State's
foster care system are Indian.
The Tribe's Child Protection Service program works very hard to
address the needs of our children facing this crisis. But there are
only two investigators for this program to protect our children in
eight widely scattered communities across our Reservation. The CPS
program is outstanding, but it is overwhelmed by the scope and
magnitude of the problems it must address. Where child victims need to
be placed in a different environment for their safety, there are far
too few alternatives. For example, for a service population of about
8,000, there are only six approved foster homes on the Reservation.
These homes are always at capacity, so we have no choice but to place
some of these children--who have faced the trauma of violence in the
home--off the Reservation, compounding trauma to the victim. There is
simply an inadequate supply of safe housing alternatives for children
who must be moved for their own safety.
We urge the Committee to increase funding for both BIA social
services and ICWA programs. Without these resources, we will not be
able to meet the needs of our most vulnerable population.
BIA--Public Safety and Justice.--Public safety is a priority for
the Tribe. We applaud the final fiscal year 2018 enacted appropriations
levels for Public Safety and Justice totaling $405 million, and urge
the Committee to reject the administration's unwarranted reductions and
continue to support increases for next year. As you know, funding is
essential for public safety in Indian Country.
Law Enforcement.--The Tribe has seen firsthand that adequate law
enforcement funding is key to reducing crime. A number of years ago,
the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe was selected to participate in the High
Priority Program Goals initiative, which dramatically increased law
enforcement positions on our Reservation. This had a significant
positive impact in reducing crime. Increased numbers of police officers
allowed proactive policing rather than reactive policing. This
initiative enabled officers to be assigned within each Reservation
community, which meant quicker response time to calls and more positive
relationships between law enforcement officers and the communities they
served. The increased law enforcement presence and patrols has deterred
crime and resulted in our members feeling safer. The data confirms
this. When compared to the number of violent crimes (homicide, rape,
robbery, assault) that occurred between 2007 and 2009, the additional
staffing reduced such crimes by approximately: 7 percent in 2010, 11
percent in 2011, and 15-19 percent in 2012. The initiative demonstrated
the critical importance that adequate law enforcement staffing can have
in our community.
HPPG ended after fiscal year 2013 and the Tribe's law enforcement
personnel were reduced from the numbers that served us so well. We now
have only 11 officers patrolling our entire 2.3-million-acre
Reservation. We have only 1 School Resource Officer to serve the eight
schools on the Reservation. This at a time when the need for public
safety and security in our schools is at an all-time high. We strongly
support an increase in funding for fiscal year 2019 for law enforcement
services at Standing Rock.
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).--We urge you to reject the
administration's proposed cuts for BIE programs. Standing Rock relies
on BIE funding for three Tribal grant schools--the Standing Rock
Community School (K-12), Sitting Bull School (K-8), and Rock Creek
School (K-8). The Standing Rock Community School is operated through a
Joint Powers Agreement between the Standing Rock Tribal Grant School
and the Fort Yates Public School District. The Fort Yates Public School
District, like other public schools on the Reservation (Cannonball,
Selfridge, McLaughlin, McIntosh, and Wakpala), depends on Federal
impact aid to cover the costs of the public school's share of the
school operations. The children in the schools on the Reservation are
among the most at-risk students in the Nation. At seven out of eight
Public and Tribal Grant Schools on our Reservation, 100 percent of the
students are eligible for the Free or Reduced Lunch Program. At the
remaining school, 90 percent of students are eligible for the Free or
Reduced Lunch Program. The high rate of our student eligibility for the
Free or Reduced Lunch Program documents that the majority of our
families live at or below poverty level.
A critical source of funds for the operation of our Tribal grant
schools is the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Formula funds.
The funds cover the costs of the schools' instructional programs,
including salaries for teachers, teacher aides, school administrative
staff and other operational costs. ISEP has not seen any meaningful
increase in years. As a result, there has been a significant negative
impact on the effectiveness of the schools' instructional programs.
Academic programs are marginal at best and provide limited services to
the students. It has become more difficult to attract and retain
qualified staff. If the schools serving Indian children are to be
effective and if our students are to succeed, and be college and career
ready, ISEP funding must be increased.
The near flat line funding for virtually all aspects of BIE
programs does not account for population growth, increased costs, or
inflation. Student Transportation funding, intended to cover the costs
of buses, fuel, maintenance, vehicle replacements, and drivers, has
remained at the same level for years. Proposed cuts to BIE funding are
unjustified. The substantial increases in fuel costs alone make it
impossible to cover such costs. For Standing Rock, funds are further
strained because we are a rural community, where bus runs for many of
our students may take 1\1/2\ to 2 hours each way and can include travel
on unimproved roads. These factors result in higher maintenance costs
and shorter vehicle life. A substantial increase in funds for Student
Transportation is long overdue.
Transportation.--Proper road maintenance on the Reservation is
essential for the safety and health of our community, and for promoting
economic opportunities. BIA Road Maintenance is responsible for 29,700
miles of BIA owned road and 931 BIA owned bridges. The administration
request of $28 million request would fund approximately 16 percent of
the level of need for BIA road maintenance. Thus, 84 percent of the
roads in the BIA systems will continue to be at poor or failing
condition. These are roads used by school buses, first responders and
police officers. In any other community this would be unacceptable. We
urge the subcommittee to continue to increase funding for the BIA road
maintenance program.
______
Supporters of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program (DERA) deg.
Prepared Statement of U.S. Senators in Support of the Environmental
Protection Agency's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program (DERA)
______
Supporters of the Environmental Protection Agency's Brownfields
Program deg.
Prepared Statement of U.S. Senators in Support of the Environmental
Protection Agency's Brownfields Program
______
Supporters of the Environmental Protection Agency's Lead Abatement,
Inspection, and Enforcement Programs deg.
Prepared Statement of U.S. Senators in Support of the Environmental
Protection Agency's Lead Abatement, Inspection, and Enforcement
Programs
______
Supporters of the Environmental Protection Agency's Long Island Sound
Geographic Program deg.
Prepared Statement of U.S. Senators in Support of the Environmental
Protection Agency's Long Island Sound Geographic Program
______
Supporters of the Environmental Protection Agency's Programs That
Improve Children's Environmental Health and Educational Facility Issues
for Fiscal Year 2019 deg.
Prepared Statement of U.S. Senators in Support of the Environmental
Protection Agency's Programs That Improve Children's Environmental
Health and Educational Facility Issues for Fiscal Year 2019
______
Supporters of the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program deg.
Prepared Statement of Supporters of the Forest Inventory and Analysis
Program
Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall,
The undersigned organizations are strong supporters of the Forest
Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program funded by the USDA Forest Service
(Forest Service). We rely on the inventory data and analysis of
America's forests provided by the program, which make up the backbone
of scientific knowledge on the current state of the Nation's forests.
This critical information is needed to support sound policy and forest
management decisions, both public and private, and is increasingly
important for decisions regarding new and expanding markets. We urge
the Congress to support the FIA program and request funding for the
program in fiscal year 2019 of at least $83 million to move the program
toward providing an accurate and timely inventory of America's forests.
We also urge the inclusion of language ensuring that this funding
would, at minimum, maintain historic remeasurement cycles--every 7
years in the east and every 10 years in the west--as referenced by the
administration.
The data and information collected by FIA serves as the basis for:
identifying trends in forest ownership; measuring carbon stocks;
assessing fish and wildlife habitat; evaluating wildfire, insect, and
disease risk; predicting the spread of invasive species; determining
capital investment in existing forest products facilities and selecting
locations for new forest product facilities; and identifying and
responding to priorities identified in State Forest Action Plans.
The FIA program is utilized by a large set of diverse stakeholders
interested in the state of America's forests. These include forest
resource managers at mills, land managers, conservation groups,
university students and faculty, and State and Federal agencies, such
as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The undersigned organizations would like to work with Congress to
further explore program potential. An annual funding level of $83
million would support a 7 year annualized program in the east, and a 10
year program in the west as recommended in the Forest Service's 2007
FIA Strategic Plan. In 2015 the Forest Service released an updated FIA
Strategic Plan, which outlines a variety of potential program
deliverables at funding levels. While we are supportive of at least $83
million in funding for fiscal year 2019, the 2015 Strategic Plan calls
for $103 million to implement the 5 year annualized program called for
in the 1998 Farm Bill. This reduction in cycle length would provide
more accurate data to support important forest resource decisions. As
engaged partners, we are interested in working with Congress and the
Forest Service to make program delivery as efficient as possible and to
support additional Federal investment to implement many of the useful
tools outlined in the new FIA Strategic Plan--including full urban
inventory, increased plot density, and improved carbon and biomass
estimates.
There is a need to make FIA data more robust and more useful for
emerging uses, such as accurate information regarding carbon stocks,
forest sustainability monitoring, wildlife habitat assessments, and
much more. Given the increasing pressures facing our forests--from
wildfire, insects and disease and development--the FIA program is more
important now than ever before. Funding the FIA program at $83 million
for fiscal year 2019 would move toward providing for our growing data
needs.
Sincerely,
Alabama Forestry Association
Aldo Leopold Foundation, Inc.
American Forest & Paper Association
American Forest Foundation
American Forests
American Wood Council
American Woodcock Society
Arkansas Forestry Association
Association of Consulting Foresters of America
Center for Invasive Species Prevention
Connecticut Forest & Park Association
Conservation Northwest
Conservation Resource Partners, LLC
Empire State Forest Products Association
Environmental Defense Fund
Enviva
Florida Forestry Association
Forest Business Network LLC
Forest Industry National Labor Management Committee
Forest Resources Association
Forestry Association of South Carolina
Green Forests Work
Indiana Forestry & Woodland Owners Association
International Paper
Kansas Tree Farm Committee
Kentucky Forest Industries Association
Louisiana Pacific
Michigan Forest Association
Minnesota Forestry Association
Mississippi Forestry Association
National Alliance of Forest Owners
National Association of Forest Service Retirees
National Association of State Foresters
National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association
National Wild Turkey Federation
National Wooden Pallet and Container Association
Ohio Forestry Association, Inc.
Rayonier
Ruffed Grouse Society
Rural & Agriculture Council of America
Society for Range Management
Society for the Protection of NH Forests
Society of American Foresters
Sonen Capital
Texas Forestry Association
The American Chestnut Foundation
The Hardwood Federation
The Pennsylvania Forestry Association
The Westervelt Company
Treated Wood Council
Trees Forever
Vermont Woodlands Association
Virginia Forestry Association
Washington Farm Forestry Association
Washington Forest Protection Association
Western Wood Preservers Institute
Wisconsin Paper Council
______
Supporters of the Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Steppe Habitat deg.
Prepared Statement of Supporters of the Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-
Steppe Habitat in the American West
Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of sportsmen and women,
conservationists and outdoor recreation enthusiasts represented by our
organizations, we are writing to request your support for robust levels
of fiscal year 2019 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
Appropriations funding for several key programs benefitting the greater
sage-grouse and sage-steppe habitat in the American West. We have also
included three subcommittee report language requests for your
consideration as a companion to our funding requests. We would like to
thank this subcommittee for your tremendous leadership on sage grouse
priorities through a series of recent budget cycles and encourage your
continued commitment to the following important priorities:
BLM Resource Protection and Maintenance.--We support stable levels
of fiscal year 2019 funding consistent with the final fiscal year 2018
level and additional funding if available for the BLM Resource
Protection and Maintenance account. The Resource Protection and
Maintenance account supports BLM land use planning and compliance
activities as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and ensures public
land conservation and environmentally sensitive resources, such as the
greater sage-grouse, are fully considered during the land use planning
process.
BLM Resource Management Planning.--The BLM is guided by the Greater
Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy which is the largest landscape-level
conservation and restoration effort in contemporary U.S. history, and
is unprecedented in geographic scale and complexity. As BLM continues
implementing the 98 sage grouse plans, new information and challenges
have identified further needed investments to keep plan implementation
effective and on schedule. We support strong fiscal year 2019 funding
consistent with the final fiscal year 2018 funding levels for the BLM's
focus on sage-grouse conservation. Greater sage-grouse habitat has
experienced a precipitous decline across the West, and ongoing
collaboration across public and private lands is needed to ensure this
species remains off the Endangered Species list. These efforts also
benefit other game species such as mule deer and support recreational
hunting and associated rural jobs across much of the West.
We wish to thank the subcommittee for your support for increased
fiscal year 2018 levels of funding for the Resource Management Planning
subactivity and encourage the subcommittee to again recommend specific
funding under this budget for greater sage-grouse, sage-steppe and
other high priority conservation efforts. This activity includes
funding for BLM's high priority planning efforts including the
initiation of new resource management plans, plan evaluations and
implementation strategies. Ensuring BLM has the resources necessary to
integrate the most recent State and Federal fish and wildlife data;
current trends in outdoor recreation and land use activities; and
ongoing energy development within the planning process is paramount for
ensuring the agency is achieving desired conditions across the more
than 247 million acres of BLM-managed public lands. We support the BLM
Land Use Planning function and its focus on collaboration with local
communities and State and Tribal governments, as well as on science-
based analysis.
BLM Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) Program.--The BLM
Resource Management Planning sub-activity includes the AIM Program
account. The AIM Program is built around a strategy designed to reach
across programs, jurisdictions, stakeholders and agencies to provide a
framework for consistent data and information valuable to
decisionmakers. The AIM Program has been important in ongoing DOI and
BLM sage-grouse partnership efforts and we support maintaining this
program consistent with final fiscal year 2018 funding.
BLM Wildlife and Fisheries Management.--We support strong funding
levels consistent with final fiscal year 2018 levels and increases if
available for the BLM Wildlife and Fisheries Management account and the
agency's work through this account to support the maintenance,
restoration, and enhancement of fish, wildlife and their habitats on
public lands throughout the BLM system. Important BLM activities such
as conducting inventories of fish and wildlife resources and developing
cooperative management plans while providing for responsible recreation
and commercial uses are critically important for BLM's ongoing work
with State fish and wildlife agencies and local communities across the
West. A BLM Wildlife Management program increase would primarily
support more on-the-ground vegetative treatments to protect, improve,
or restore sage steppe habitat and other high priority habitats. Funds
also would assist States in implementing greater sage-grouse
conservation plans. In addition to strong annual levels of funding for
this account, we support specifically identifying annual funding within
this account for sage-grouse conservation efforts.
BLM National Seed Strategy.--The BLM's efforts to implement the
Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy are reliant upon successful
execution of the National Seed Strategy, which is integral to the
Administration's wildland fire rehabilitation efforts and the success
of the DOI Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy. Congress
approved a $5.0 million program increase in fiscal year 2017 within the
Wildlife Management account to more aggressively implement the National
Seed Strategy and develop much needed nationwide networks of native
seed collectors, researchers developing wildland seed into commercial
crops, farmers and growers increasing native seed supplies, and
nurseries and storage facilities providing sufficient amounts of
appropriate seed. Restoration ecologists will identify the appropriate
timing and placement for seed and plant material to optimize treatment
results. The seed materials and knowledge gained from BLM's investment
in the National Seed Strategy will focus on restoring the sage-steppe
landscape in the near term, with all BLM land rehabilitation and
restoration efforts benefitting over the long-term. We support a level
of funding consistent with fiscal year 2017 and final fiscal year 2018
levels for the National Seed Strategy.
BLM Office of Wildland Fire.--We support no less than $30 million
in funding for the Resilient Landscapes program and increases
consistent with fiscal year 2018 final funding and spend plans within
the Office of Wildland Fire to allow the BLM to continue to support
resilience work in the sagebrush ecosystem.
USFWS Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation.--We support several
important programs within the USFWS budget to support greater sage-
grouse conservation including the Conservation and Restoration;
Wildlife and Habitat Management; and Partners for Fish and Wildlife
accounts. Consistent with earlier recommendations, we support the
subcommittee's focus on sage-grouse within these budgets and encourage
the subcommittee to continue to identify funding within the Candidate
Conservation account for the sagebrush steppe ecosystem. Similarly, the
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program coordinates closely with BLM and
NRCS to work with private landowners on voluntary, non-regulatory
partnerships to advance sage-grouse conservation across the West. We
strongly support this program and urge the subcommittee to consider an
increase to support the work of program staff and their ongoing efforts
to advance on-the-ground sage grouse conservation in close coordination
with the Nation's ranching and agricultural communities.
USGS Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation.--We support funding
consistent with fiscal year 2018 levels in fiscal year 2019 to provide
the resources necessary for USGS engagement on sage grouse science,
data collection and technical assistance.
USFS Greater-Sage Grouse Conservation.--The USFS is a key Federal
partner along with DOI and its agencies in on-the-ground collaboration
on sage grouse conservation. In addition to USFS sage-grouse forest
planning activities, the agency has been engaged in the Greater Sage
Grouse Conservation Engagement Strategy and has established a national
position to coordinate on sage grouse issues as well as new State
liaisons responsible for transferring information to the States. We
support this USFS engagement role and the resources necessary to ensure
this coordination remains a priority.
interior, environment and related agencies language requests
1. We thank the subcommittee for your work to oppose new greater sage-
grouse language in the final Fiscal Year 2018 Omnibus Appropriations
Act. In addition to continued support for BLM sage-grouse funding, we
continue to encourage this subcommittee to oppose efforts to attach
sage-grouse rider language during the fiscal year 2019 appropriations
process.
2. We have concerns regarding recent indications the BLM is shifting
funding away from the Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring (AIM)
strategy and its focus on the greater sage-grouse and data coordination
activities. AIM is funded by both the BLM Wildlife Management and
Planning subactivities. We strongly support maintaining this account
consistent with fiscal year 2018 funding and ensuring sage-grouse
remains a priority activity for this program.
Recommended language: As many of the greater sage-grouse plan
decisions operate across multiple BLM field offices and jurisdictional
boundaries, it is critical that BLM field offices have a shared
understanding of the commitments in the greater sage-grouse plans and a
common approach to implementing them. BLM's development of the
Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) strategy has been critical
in this effort and the Committee supports funding for AIM consistent
with fiscal year 2018 levels.
3. We have concerns regarding recent indications the BLM is shifting
funding from resource programs designed to do proactive work (resource
program subactivities: Cultural; Wildlife; Soil/Water/Air) to support
oil and gas plan amendments. This has been a long-standing issue
between programs at BLM. BLM Planning has long pushed the other BLM
resource programs to use their funding to support oil and gas plans,
planning amendments, and project assessments to help analyze how these
proposed actions impact their resources (e.g., directing the BLM
Wildlife Program to spend money studying how oil/gas amendments impact
wildlife). Justifiably, we understand and support the resource programs
using their funding for beneficial activities for their designated
resources, but not for analyzing impacts from planning or project
proposals from other programs.
Recommended language: The Committee has concerns regarding BLM
funding shifts from BLM resource program subactivities such as
cultural, wildlife, and soil/air/water for use by BLM to analyze
impacts to designated resources of proposed projects or plans. All
proposed project assessments or planning should come from funding
within the planning program or within the sub-activity that is the
primary beneficiary of the project or plan rather than from other non-
planning, supporting resource program sub-activities.
Thank you for your consideration of these appropriations and
language requests and we look forward to working with you and your
staff as the fiscal year 2019 budget process moves forward this year.
Sincerely,
Archery Trade Association
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
California Waterfowl
Fly Fishers International
National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative
National Deer Alliance
National Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Refuge Association
Pheasants Forever
Pope and Young Club
Quail Forever
Quality Deer Management Association
Snook and Gamefish Foundation
The Nature Conservancy
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Wildlife Management Institute
______
Supporters of the Investment in USDA Forest deg.
Prepared Statement of Supporters for Investment in USDA Forest Service
Research and Development
Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
Improving the future health and sustainability of the Nation's
forests and grasslands requires a strong investment in USDA Forest
Service Research and Development (R&D), with benefits to forests,
wildlife, and fish. The undersigned organizations and professional
societies urge Congress to increase funding for all Forest Service R&D
to a minimum of $307 million in fiscal year 2019 including all
necessary increases for the Forest Inventory and Analysis program and
at least $224 million for the remaining Forest and Rangeland Research
program areas.
Building on over 100 years of critically important research, Forest
Service R&D programs inform policy and land-management decisions that
improve health and use of the Nation's forests and rangelands,
including aquatic systems. Funding for these important activities is
critical to sustaining the Nation's natural resources. Showing value in
this investment requires R&D leaders and scientists be attuned and
responsive in providing relevant and timely information and support
with an ability to effectively deliver assistance to all users.
The work conducted at experimental forests and ranges, regional
research stations, and the Forest Products Lab, incubates progress on
new products and services; tracks disturbance responses; fosters
greater forest resilience; quantifies contributions to air and water
quality; and drives innovation in renewable energy and product
development. Notable recent Forest Service R&D contributions include:
Using Science to Guide Drought Management Response
Forest Service R&D has been a leader in reviewing impacts of
drought on U.S. forests and rangelands to help better manage for
drought resiliency and adaptation going forward. In 2016 Forest Service
R&D released an assessment report that included management options to
help Federal, State, and private organizations implement strategies to
sustain healthy, resilient ecosystems that continue to produce vital
goods and services, such as forest products and recreational fishing
opportunities. This scientific synthesis of all recent research with
additional research into identifying drought indicators on the
landscape are important to natural resources managers as they consider
how to integrate drought contingencies in planning efforts.
Helping to Identify Pragmatic Solutions for Species at Risk
Through long-term monitoring and collaborative research efforts
with state agencies and other partners, Forest Service R&D generates an
understanding of wildlife-habitat relationships for multiple species
and communities that enables informed land management decisions that
benefit wildlife and people. This includes informing conservation
efforts that have helped to avoid Endangered Species Act listings for
several forest and rangeland wildlife species. The USFS works on the
greater sage-grouse in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management
culminated in two USFS Records of Decision and associated land
management plan amendments to conserve greater sage-grouse and its
habitat on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management-
administered lands.
Improving Smoke and Fire Management Capabilities
The Prescribed Fire Combustion and Atmospheric Dynamics Research
Experiment is a landmark study improving predictions of fire spread and
smoke behavior. This behavior prediction tool with the Blue Sky Smoke
Management Model allows fire managers to better understand where flames
and smoke from wildland fires will go to alert affected communities
sooner and reduce human health effects. These tools also support
decisionmaking for prescribed fires, allowing managers to model a
variety of different scenarios to evaluate potential impacts on air
quality and soil under a variety of conditions. Research scientists
continue to expand on this landmark study by mapping risk assessments
for entire national forests to better determine risk, predict cross
boundary transmission probabilities that aid safe and effective use of
fire as a tool. The desired outcome is increasing forest resiliency to
disturbances, improving forest health, and protecting communities.
Developing Innovative Solutions to Managing Invasive Species
Forest Service R&D also develops innovative solutions to manage
invasive pathogens and species that can decimate native plant and
animal populations. This includes but is not limited to developing a
cost-effective way to quickly identify the presence or absence of
invasive species in an aquatic environment through eDNA technology;
developing trees with a natural resistance to emerald ash borers; and
successfully developing the first nonlethal treatment for white-nose
syndrome (WNS)--a lethal fungal disease that has reduced bat
populations by upwards of 80 percent in certain parts of the country.
As voracious consumers of insect pests, bats reduce the pesticide bill
of the U.S. agricultural industry by over $23 billion annually. Using a
native soil bacterium to inhibit growth of the fungus that causes WNS,
USFS researchers have been able to return previously sick bats to the
wild.
Expanding and Protecting U.S. Market Opportunities for Forest Resources
The Forest Products Laboratory drives innovation and expansion of
commercial applications for forest products. The work at the Lab on
woody biofuels, advanced composites and wood structures, and value-
added wood products promotes healthy forest ecosystems and economies by
creating, enhancing, and protecting markets for forest products. In
partnership with universities, scientists from Research Stations across
the country, and partners in the private sector, the Lab is exploring
potential of mass timber structures by conducting work on building
codes and wood utilization models to increase use of wood in building
construction and potentially invigorate markets for materials that were
previously considered low value or undesirable. The Lab also houses the
leading producer of nanocellulose material in the U.S. and explores
breaking the woody fiber down to the nanoscale and what commercial uses
make sense for this high strength, low weight material that can be
collected from nearly any source. Building on unparalleled
understanding of wood properties, R&D scientists are also able to
combat deforestation and timber and wildlife trafficking by identifying
origin of wood products, thereby protecting U.S. supply chains.
Calculating the Value of Urban Forests and Trees
The publication of Community Tree Guides helps managers calculate
the value of new tree plantings in terms of property value increases,
future energy savings, air pollutant uptake, and storm water runoff
reduction. Credible information quantifying benefits of managed urban
forests helps cities protect and restore environmental quality and
enhance economic opportunity.
Guiding Conservation and Management of Aquatic Species
Using stream temperature and fish data, Forest Service R&D is
developing important tools to inform and enhance management and
conservation of aquatic resources. Climate Shield produces spatially-
precise and user-friendly digital maps to guide conservation efforts in
key watersheds. This tool forecasts specific locations that are most
likely to continue supporting native cutthroat trout and ESA-listed
bull trout allowing managers to make precise predictions about which
streams are most likely to continue supporting native trout species
based on future temperature scenarios.
Quantifying the Role of Forests in Providing Clean Air and Water
This research directly linking trees to clean air and water
underscores the economic value and benefits trees and forests provide
to all residents and communities. Recent R&D work shows that forests,
which make up 26 percent of U.S. land area, are the source of 46
percent of the U.S. water supply--generating far better returns than
other land uses. Forest Service R&D's understanding of how to manage
forested landscapes to enhance production of sustained, low cost clean
water supplies is critically important. Studies are also linking
contributions of plants and trees to improved air quality and human
health benefits. The community benefits that plants provide while
removing pollutants and improving human health is valued at nearly $7
billion every year and is significantly more cost effective than
alternatives.
Advancing forest science is integral to improving the health and
welfare of U.S. forests and citizens, increasing the competitiveness of
U.S. products in the global marketplace, and adapting to unforeseen
future challenges. Continuing the trend of reductions in the R&D budget
will result in significant gaps in the knowledge base and data sets
necessary to address the many threats facing our Nation's forests and
associated wildlife could result in competitive losses in the global
economy. Therefore, our organizations request a funding level of $307
million for USFS R&D with emphasis on research projects uniquely suited
to R&D expertise and the furthering of agency and partner objectives.
Sincerely,
American Fisheries Society
Ecological Society of America
Society for Range Management
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society
______
Supporters of the Investments in Key Federal Programs deg.
Prepared Statement of Organizations That Support Investments in Key
Federal Programs That Support State and Private Forestry
Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall,
As Congress begins the process of crafting a budget for fiscal year
2019, we recognize the tough choices that must be made, especially in
light of the ever-increasing costs of wildfires and the budgetary
conflicts that challenge creates. In these tight budgetary conditions,
maximizing the effectiveness of Federal dollars through partnerships
with State and local actors can play a large role in addressing our
national forest challenges. For this reason, the undersigned
organizations support investments in key Federal programs that support
State and private forestry. A critically important component of the
Forest Service's budget, these programs help tackle some of the most
pressing issues we face in forestry like wildfires, insects, and
diseases while conserving and improving America's forests; enhancing
and protecting our drinking water; contributing to healthy, livable
communities; and encouraging forest product innovation and utilization.
In turn, this helps the nation to foster strong economic growth,
especially in rural communities.
The USDA Forest Service's (USFS) State and Private Forestry Area
(S&PF) serves as a linchpin for the conservation of America's forests.
Providing critical technical and financial assistance to private
landowners and the resource managers responsible for managing more than
60 percent of America's forests helps to increase the pace of work and
on-the-ground results, improve the resilience of the Nation's forests,
avoid conversion of forests to other land uses, and protect communities
and the environment from forest pests, invasive species, and wildland
fires.
In fiscal year 2019, funding for the following State and Private
Forestry and related programs will help improve the health of the
Nation's forests and encourage economic growth in a sector that
sustains more than one million jobs in the United States. Our funding
level requests include:
--$29 million for the Forest Stewardship Program \1\
Administered in cooperation with State forestry agencies, this
program plays a fundamental role in keeping forests as forests. Forest
insects, diseases, and wildfire know no bounds between Federal and non-
Federal forests. Assisting some of the 22 million private forest owners
in managing non-Federal forests can help minimize the impacts to
Federal lands saving the Federal taxpayer millions of dollars. A forest
landowner with a forest stewardship plan is almost three times more
likely to actively manage his or her land than one without a plan,
leading to jobs and rural economic stimulus. Those who have stewardship
plans are actively managing their lands for wildlife, clean water, and
forest products. Ninety percent of the Nation's wood supply comes from
private forest lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ President's budget proposes changing name of the Forest
Stewardship Program to Working Forest Lands.
--$107 million for the Forest Health Management Programs--$59 million
Federal Lands and $48 million Cooperative Lands
Pests and disease are national problems affecting private and
public lands. Nationally, their impact is in the tens of billions of
dollars. The USFS Forest Health Management Program supports efforts to
prevent, contain, and eradicate these costly and dangerous pests and
pathogens affecting trees and forests. Support for Forest Health
programs is critical on both public land and private land, as insects
and disease know no boundaries and forest health outcomes on any
landscape depend upon a cross-ownership approach.
--$87 million for State Fire Assistance and $16 million for Volunteer
Fire Assistance Programs \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ President's budget proposes changing the name of these programs
to National Fire Capacity and Rural Fire Capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ninety percent of the Nation's wildfires are human-caused and most
of these fires start on State and private lands, often spreading to
Federal lands. Initial attack is the key to reducing large fire costs
and these programs are critical to these suppression efforts. State and
volunteer fire crews provide much of that initial attack response and
are deployed to assist on Federal fires and other emergency or disaster
situations, in compliance with national safety and training standards.
--$23 million for Landscape Scale Restoration
The USFS works collaboratively with States and other partners using
State Forest Action Plans to target limited resources to the highest
priority forest needs across ownerships to achieve results with
meaningful local, regional, and national impacts. In an era when our
forests are facing an increasing number of challenges, this program
allows for a small Federal investment to be matched and leveraged by
States and put towards the most pressing threats to the forests that
sustain American communities.
--$83 million for Forest Inventory and Analysis
This program is our country's forest census, which has been ongoing
since 1930 across all-ownerships, including the two-thirds of America's
forests which are State or privately owned. FIA enables forest managers
to understand the scope and scale of trends and changes in forest
conditions, sustaining public benefits such as clean air and water,
wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation, jobs and wood products. The
collection and reporting of growth, removal, health, and other critical
forest data in a timely manner is vital for forest industry and others
in planning their future economic investments based on availability of
forest raw materials.
While not specifying suggested budget levels, we want to also call
your attention to the need for funding for programs which support
community forestry programs as well as forestry research, which
provides opportunities to expand forest markets and improve the health
and quality of urban and rural communities. A combination of
responsible forest management combined with healthy forest products
markets will benefit the forest landscape and the communities that live
in and around them.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Alabama Forestry Association
Aldo Leopold Foundation, Inc.
American Forest Foundation
American Forests
American Wood Council
American Woodcock Society
Center for Invasive Species Prevention
Connecticut Forest & Park Association
Conservation Resource Partners, LLC
Empire State Forest Products Association
Environmental Defense Fund
Enviva
Florida Forestry Association
Forest Business Network LLC
Forest Industry National Labor Management Committee
Forest Resources Association
Green Forests Work
Indiana Forestry & Woodland Owners Association
International Paper
Kansas Tree Farm Committee
Kentucky Forest Industries Association
Louisiana Pacific
Michigan Forest Association
Minnesota Forestry Association
Mississippi Forestry Association
National Alliance of Forest Owners
National Association of Forest Service Retirees
National Association of State Foresters
National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association
Ohio Forestry Association, Inc.
Rayonier
Ruffed Grouse Society
Rural & Agriculture Council of America
Society for Range Management
Society for the Protection of NH Forests
Society of American Foresters
Sonen Capital
Texas Forestry Association
The American Chestnut Foundation
The Hardwood Federation
The Pennsylvania Forestry Association
The Westervelt Company
Treated Wood Council
Trees Forever
Vermont Woodlands Association
Virginia Forestry Association
Washington Farm Forestry Association
Washington Forest Protection Association
Western Wood Preservers Institute
Wisconsin Paper Council
______
Supporters of the Joint Fire Science Program deg.
Prepared Statement of Supporters of the Joint Fire Science Program
Dear Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
As researchers, extension unit leaders, and practitioners who work
with the Federal land management agencies on wildland fire, we urge you
to maintain and fully fund the Joint Fire Science Program at historical
levels of $6.914 million annually through the USDA Forest Service's
Wildland Fire Management and $5.9 million annually through the U.S.
Department of Interior Wildland Fire Management. Wildland fire is
occurring over more acres at greater severity than in the past. Fire
seasons are lengthening, exposing communities to greater risk from
fire, post-fire floods, and smoke. The need for science is greater than
ever to support strategic allocation of resources to meet the goals of
the National Cohesive Strategy--restoring and maintaining fire-adapted
landscapes, promoting fire-adapted communities, and fostering safe and
effective response to fire.
The Joint Fire Science Program model for funding critical research,
based on management priorities and with requirements for active science
delivery, makes the program uniquely valuable and the only one of its
kind. No other program offers researchers the opportunity to address
fire management challenges in direct response to manager priorities.
Based on direction from Congress, the program is a partnership of six
Federal land management agencies that work together to identify and
address problems associated with managing wildland fuels, fires, and
fire-impacted ecosystems. Fire and land managers from the USDA Forest
Service and U.S. Department of Interior together identify issues of
critical interest, competitively allocate funding to researchers to
tackle those issues via applied research, and require active delivery
of science to managers and policymakers, linking science to management.
With a relatively limited budget, the Joint Fire Science Program
has improved efficacy and accountability of agency activities by
funding research to address important topics. Past research has focused
on such salient issues as understanding smoke impacts to communities,
overcoming barriers to prescribed fire, identifying how drivers of fire
costs affect decisionmaking, analyzing fire behavior, and understanding
fire effects on resources and communities. The program supports
regional Fire Science Consortia that support science delivery to the
management and practitioner communities. Research and science delivery
under this program have proven valuable for both Federal land managers
and partner organizations working to restore fire-adapted landscapes
and promote fire-adapted communities.
We ask Congress to reject the administration's proposal to cancel
the Joint Fire Science Program and request you maintain the Joint Fire
Science Program at its past funding levels. Further, it is important
that the program remain funded from within the Forest Service's
Wildland Fire budget, rather than from Forest Service Research.
Embedding the program in an already constrained research budget
undercuts this successful model of a management-driven research program
that responds directly to the challenges of wildland fire. We thank
Congress for its past support of the Joint Fire Science Program and ask
you to continue to make a priority of this important science-management
partnership.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
feel free to contact Cassandra Moseley ([email protected]) or
Courtney Schultz ([email protected]).
membership organization and coalition signatories
Coalition of Prescribed Fire Councils
Forest Stewards Guild
National Association of State Foresters
Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition
Society of American Foresters
university academic leadership signatories
John P. Hayes, Dean, Warner College of Natural Resources, Colorado
State University
Mark Paschke, Research Associate Dean, Warner College of Natural
Resources, Colorado State University
Anthony S. Davis, Acting Dean, College of Forestry, Oregon State
University
Ken Smith, Assistant Dean of the Environment, Integrated Program in the
Environment, The University of the South
J. Keith Gilless, Dean, College of Natural Resources, University of
California, Berkeley
Janet E. Nelson, Vice President for Research and Economic Development,
University of Idaho
Martin Main, Associate Dean for Extension, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Thomas H. DeLuca, Dean, W.A. Franke College of Forestry & Conservation,
University of Montana
Cassandra Moseley, Senior Associate Vice President for Research and
Innovation, University of Oregon
Lisa Graumlich, Dean, College of the Environment, University of
Washington
Daniel J. Robison, Dean, Davis College of Agriculture, Natural
Resources and Design, West Virginia University
signatories by state
Alaska
Dawson Foster, Student and Wildland Firefighter, State of Alaska
Division of Forestry, Anchorage
Alison D. York, Researcher, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks
Casey Brown, Post-doctoral Researcher, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
Fairbanks
Bob Christensen, Chief Executive, SEAWEAD, Gustavus
Aaron Ferguson, Sustainability Catalyst, Spruce Root Community
Development, Juneau
Brian Buma, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska, Juneau
Alabama
Nathan Hatch, Consultant Forester, Alabama Prescribed Fire Council,
Auburn
David Curry, Retired, Huntsville
Ted DeVos, Forester/Wildlife Biologist, Bach and DeVos Forestry/Alabama
Prescribed Fire Council-chair 2018, Montgomery
J. Kevin England, Science Instructor/Botanist, Ardmore High School,
Moulton
J. Ryan Mitchell, Outreach and Technical Assistance Coordinator, The
Longleaf Alliance, Stockton
Raien Emery, Undergraduate Research Assistant, University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa
Justin Hart, Associate Professor, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Kevin Willson, Graduate Student, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Arkansas
Kyle Lapham, Fire Manager, The Nature Conservancy, Little Rock
Kenneth Wallen, Assistant Professor, University of Arkansas System,
Monticello
Tiffany Hackler, Human Resources Manager, Rogers
Arizona
Melanie Colavito, Human Dimensions Specialist, Ecological Restoration
Institute, Flagstaff
Andrea Thode, Professor, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff
Clare Aslan, Assistant Professor, Northern Arizona University,
Flagstaff
Scott Goetz, Professor, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff
Stephanie Mueller, Graduate Student, Northern Arizona University,
Flagstaff
Thomas D. Sisk, Olajos-Goslow Chair of Environmental Science and
Policy, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff
Thomas Kolb, Professor, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff
James Allen, Professor and Executive Director, Northern Arizona
University School of Forestry, Flagstaff
Barbara Satink Wolfson, Program Coordinator, Southwest Fire Science
Consortium, Flagstaff
Shere A. Fischer, Phoenix
Julia Rowe, Invasive Species Research Specialist, Arizona-Sonora Desert
Museum, Tucson
Kathy Voth, Publisher, On Pasture, Tucson
Jeffrey Gicklhorn, Program Coordinator, Pima County, Office of
Sustainability and Conservation, Tucson
Christopher Guiterman, Research Associate, University of Arizona,
Tucson
Erica A. Newman, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Arizona, Tucson
Erica Bigio, Research Associate, University of Arizona, Tucson
Thomas W. Swetnam, Regents Professor Emeritus, University of Arizona,
Tucson
Jeffrey Rapp, Tucson
California
Gary Lauben, Project Manager, Western Shasta Resource Conservation
District, Anderson
Connie Stewart, Executive Director, California Center for Rural Policy,
Arcata
Leonard H. Rios, Fire Ecology Graduate Student, Humboldt State
Univeristy, Arcata
David Greene, Chair, Forestry Department, Humboldt State University,
Arcata
Harold Zald, Assistant Professor, Humboldt State University, Arcata
Jeffrey Kane, Associate Professor, Humboldt State University, Arcata
Yvonne Everett, Professor, Humboldt State University, Arcata
Sasha Berleman, Fire Ecologist, FirePoppy Consulting, Berkeley
Allison Shiozaki, Land Steward and Director, Hooves, Hands, & Hearts
Camp, Berkeley
Jacob Farris, Owner, Soil Life Consultant, Berkeley
J. Keith Gilless, Dean, College of Natural Resources, University of
California, Berkeley
Carmen Tubbesing, PhD Candidate, University of California, Berkeley
Daniel Foster, Master of Forestry Student, University of California,
Berkeley
Dr. Scott Stephens, Professor of Fire Science, University of
California, Berkeley
Gabrielle Boisrame, Visiting Researcher, University of California,
Berkeley
Jens Stevens, Postdoctoral Scholar, University of California, Berkeley
Jodi N Axelson, Cooperative Extension Specialist, University of
California, Berkeley
Rich Dean, Deputy Fire Marshal, University of California, Berkeley
Stacey Frederick, California Fire Science Consortium Coordinator,
University of California, Berkeley
Jean-Louis Carmona, Director, Van Duzen Watershed Fire Safe Council,
Bridgeville
Jennifer E. Fawcett, Extension Associate, North Carolina State
University, Campbell
Joe Rawitzer, Project Coordinator, Central Coast RX Fire Council,
Carmel Valley
Jose Luis Duce Aragues, Fire Training Specialist, Spatial Informatics
Group California, Cogolludo Spain
Andrew Latimer, Associate Professor, Department of Plant Sciences,
University of California, Davis
Chhaya Werner, PhD Candidate, University of California, Davis
Alexandra Weill, Graduate Student Researcher, University of California,
Davis
Allison Simler, PhD Candidate, University of California, Davis
Brian V. Smithers, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of California,
Davis
Carrie Levine, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, Davis
Clark Richter, PhD Candidate, University of California, Davis
Emily Brodie, Graduate Student, University of California, Davis
Jan Ng, PhD Candidate in Ecology, University of California, Davis
Jesse Miller, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of California, Davis
Jonah Weeks, Graduate Student, University of California, Davis
Kevin Welch, Research Scientist, University of California, Davis
Martha Wohlfeil, PhD Student, University of California, Davis
Rebecca Wayman, Associate Specialist, University of California, Davis
Sara Winsemius, Graduate Student, University of California, Davis
Zack Steel, Student, University of California, Davis
Tracy Katelman, Registered Professional Forester, ForEverGreen
Forestry, Eureka
Cybelle Immitt, Senior Planner--FSC Coordinator, Humboldt County Fire
Safe Council, Eureka
Julia Cavalli, Administrative Analyst, Humboldt County Fire Safe
Council, Eureka
Debra Harris, Burn Program Coordinator, North Coast Unified AQMD,
Eureka
Andrew Slack, Forest Fellow, Save the Redwoods League, Eureka
Yana Valachovic, Forest Advisor, University of California, Eureka
Jeffery Stackhouse, Livestock & Natural Resources Advisor, University
of California Cooperative Extension, Eureka
Lenya Quinn-Davidson, Area Fire Advisor, University of California
Cooperative Extension, Eureka
Steve Williams, American citizen, Folsom
Peter Brucker, Retired Program Coordinator, Salmon River Restoration
Council, Forks of Salmon
Lon Winburn, Fire Chief, Fortuna Fire Protection District, Fortuna
Susan Britting, Executive Director, Sierra Forest Legacy, Garden Valley
Karen Schambach, President, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation,
Georgetown
Danny Manning, Assistant Fire Chief GIR, Greenville Rancheria,
Greenville
Katherine Van Pelt, Grants & Agreements Specialist, Watershed Research
& Training Center, Hayfork
Nick Goulette, Executive Director, Watershed Research & Training
Center, Hayfork
Ian Sigman, Chairman, Humboldt County Fire Safe Council, Honeydew
Stephen Underwood, Hydesville
Danny Fry, Wildland Fire Management Coordinator, Natural Communities
Coalition, Irvine
Jake Schweitzer, Senior Ecologist, Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting,
Kensington
Will Emerson, Assistant Chief, Bell Springs Fire Department,
Laytonville
Gary B. Fildes, Retired, US Forest Service, Loma Rica
Christopher Giesige, Fire Researcher, Westcats, Los Angeles
Joe Snipes, Business owner, Forestscapes LLC, Humbots Data & Analysis,
McKinleyville
Liisa Schmoele, Citizen, McKinleyville
Stephen C. Hart, Professor of Ecology, University of California, Merced
Nicholas C. Dove, PhD candidate, University of California, Merced
Jeanne H. Tomascheski, Registered Professional Forester, Independent
Contractor, Millville
Vince Cicero, Senior Environmental Scientist, California State Parks,
Morro Bay
Michael Lake, Fire Chief, Fruitland Ridge Fire, Myers Flat
Judson Fisher, Student, Sierra College, Nevada City
Chris Friedel, Executive Director, Yuba Watershed Institute, Nevada
City
Dee McDonough, DFSC Board Member, Diablo FireSafe Council, Oakland
Dinah Fischbach-Benson, Secretary, Oakland Firesafe Council, Oakland
Robert Sieben, Board member Oakland Firesafe Council, OFSC,
International Association of Fire Chiefs, Oakland
Marc Meyer, Concerned Citizen, Orange
Kimberly Baker, Executive Director, Klamath Forest Alliance, Orleans
Nancy Bailey, Fire and Fuels Co-Director, Mid Klamath Watershed
Council, Orleans
Ellie Cohen, President and CEO, Point Blue Conservation Science,
Petaluma
Erica N. Stavros, Self, Poway
Gabe Miller, Stewardship Director, Feather River Land Trust, Quincy
Hannah Hepner, Coordinator, Fire Safe Council, Quincy
Jack Bramhall, Registered Professional Forester, Retired, Red Bluff
Ricky Satomi, Forest Advisor, University of California, Redding
William Eastwood, President, Southern Humboldt Fire Safe Council,
Redway
Sequoia Kantara, Apprentice Forester, Redway
Owen Warner, Consultant, Berkeley Research Group, Richmond
Marko J. Spasojevic, Assistant Professor, University of California,
Riverside
Karen Converse, Environmental Scientist, California Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Sacramento
David Sapsis, Wildland Fire Scientist, California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento
Greg Suba, Conservation Program Director, California Native Plant
Society, Sacramento
Louis Heinrich, Gen. Partner Heinrich Family Limited Partnership,
Heinrich Property Mgmt., Sacramento
Jamie M Lydersen, Associate Specialist, University of California,
Berkeley, Sacramento
John Fisher, Battalion Chief, San Diego Fire-Rescue, San Diego
Scott Rothberg, Environmental Planner/Geospatial Information Database
Administrator, San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy, San Diego
Laura Lalemand, Forest Fellow, Save the Redwoods League, San Francisco
Paul Beisner, Burn Crew Lead, The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco
Phillip Dye, Owner, Prometheus Fire Consulting, San Jose
Gary Evan Sanchez, Board President, Santa Clara FireSafe Council, San
Jose
Joe Christy, President, Fire Safe Santa Cruz County & Bonny Doon Fire
Safe Council, Santa Cruz
James Gore, County Supervisor, County of Sonoma, Santa Rosa
Jeff Schreiber, Program Development Manager, Sonoma Resource
Conservation District, Santa Rosa
Jennifer Potts, Resource Ecologist, Audubon Canyon Ranch, Sonoma
Patrick Koepele, Executive Director, Tuolumne River Trust, Sonora
Christina Restaino, Forest Health Program Manager, Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency, South Lake Tahoe
Susie Kocher, Forestry Advisor, University of California Cooperative
Extension, South Lake Tahoe
Joseph Restaino, Research Scientist, University of Washington, South
Lake Tahoe
Rosemary Chang, Counsel Member, Sunol Fire Safe Coalition, Sunol
Kyle Rodgers, Social Science Research Associate, Sierra Institute for
Community and Environment, Taylorsville
Charles Ashley, Independent, Tollhouse
Steven Frisch, President, Sierra Business Council, Truckee
Mary Mayeda, Forest Program Manager, Mendocino County RCD, Ukiah
Cathy M. Koos Breazeal, Executive Director (retired), Amador Fire Safe
Council, Volcano
David Jaramillo, Registered Professional Forester, Watershed Research &
Training Center, Weaverville
Colorado
Rodrigo Moraga, Chair -Colorado Prescribed Fire Council, Anchor Point
Group, Boulder
Elise Jones, County Commissioner, Boulder County, Boulder
Seth McKinney, Fire Management Officer, Boulder County Sheriff's
Office, Boulder
John Wold, Natural Resource Specialist, City of Boulder, Boulder
Chris Wanner, Forest Ecologist, City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain
Parks, Boulder
Lynn Riedel, Plant Ecologist, City of Boulder Open Space and Mtn Parks,
Boulder
Arika Virapongse, Research Scholar, Ronin Institute & Middle Path
EcoSolutions, Boulder
Jean Patton, Communications Lead, The Nature Conservancy/LANDFIRE,
Boulder
Emily Troisi, Program Associate, The Watershed Research & Training
Center, Boulder
David A. Sacher, Audio Engineer, University of Colorado, Boulder
Jonathan Salerno, Postdoc, University of Colorado, Boulder
Zachary Wurtzebach, Postdoctoral scholar, Colorado State University,
Carbondale
Sloan Shoemaker, Executive Director, Wilderness Workshop, Carbondale
Casey Cooley, Forest Habitat Coordinator, Colorado Parks and Wildlife,
Colorado Springs
Mike Bablert, Retired, The Nature Conservancy, Crested Butte
Garrett Stephens, Forester, Jefferson Conservation District, Denver
Gregory H. Aplet, Senior Science Director, The Wilderness Society,
Denver
Matthew D. Spinner, Open Space Supervisor, Town of Erie, Denver
Mitch Hart, Concerned citizen, Denver
Devyn Arbogast, Youth and Education Programs Manager, Friends of the
Dillon Ranger District, Dillon
Brad Pietruszka, US citizen and taxpayer, Dolores
Chris Metz, Weed management Technician/equipment operator, Larimer
County, Fort Collins
Daniel Godwin, Wildland Fire Analyst, Center for Environmental
Management of Military Lands, Fort Collins
John P. Hayes, Dean, Warner College of Natural Resources, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins
Mark Paschke, Research Associate Dean, Warner College of Natural
Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Antony Cheng, Professor, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Camille S. Stevens-Rumann, Assistant Professor, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins
Carrie Frickman, MS Student Conservation Leadership, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins
Courtney Schultz, Associate Professor, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins
Erica Fleishman, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Kat Morici, Research Associate, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Katherine Mattor, Research Scientist, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins
Katie Lyon, Research Assistant, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Linda Nagel, Professor and Department Head, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins
Megan Matonis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Miranda Redmond, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins
Monique E. Rocca, Associate Professor, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins
Philip N. Omi, Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins
Sonya Le Febre, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins
Tomas Pickering, PhD candidate, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Wade Tinkham, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins
Merrill R. Kaufmann, Emeritus Fire and Forest Ecology Senior Scientist,
Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins
Peter M. Brown, Director, Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research, Fort
Collins
Laren A. Cyphers, Program Associate, Rural Voices for Conservation
Coalition, Fort Collins
Gloria J. Edwards, Program Coordinator, Southern Rockies Fire Science
Network, Fort Collins
Daniel, Squad Captain, State Agency, Fort Collins
Chad Hoffman, Associate professor of fire science, Colorado State
University, Ft. Collins
Denise Wilson, Botanist, Chicago Botanic Garden, Golden
Hillary King, Research and Grants Coordinator, Jefferson County Open
Space, Golden
Carissa Callison, Graduate Student, Western State Colorado University,
Gunnison
Jonathan Coop, Assistant Professor, Western State Colorado University,
Gunnison
Patrick Magee, Assistant Professor of Wildlife and Conservation
Biology, Western State Colorado University, Gunnison
Steve Orr, Wildfire Mitigation Coordinator, West Metro Fire Rescue,
Lakewood
Seth Ex, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University, Laporte
David Hirt, Natural Resource Specialist, Boulder County Parks & Open
Space, Longmont
Jennifer Muha, Geospatial Sciences Department Lead, Front Range
Community College, Longmont
Annie Oxarart, Administrative Director, Association for Fire Ecology,
Louisville
Amy Seglund, Biologist, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Montrose
Brad Setter, Open Space, Trails, and Rodeo Supervisor, City of
Steamboat Springs, Steamboat Springs
Hilary Cooper, County Commissioner, San Miguel County, Telluride
Connecticut
Helen Poulos, Professor, Wesleyan University, Middletown
Emily Dolhansky, Graduate Teaching Fellow, Yale School of Forestry, New
Haven
Florida
Steven Brinkley, Wildlife Biologist and Land Manager, Florida Fish &
Wildlife Conservation Commission, Brooksville
Anne Blanchard, Wildlife Biologist, State of Florida, Brooksville
Patricia A. Cooke, Retired Master Gardener, Brooksville
Beth Christopher, Forester, Florida Forest Service, Carrabelle
Rosi Mulholland, Land Management Specialist, Burn Boss, St. Johns River
Water Management District, Clermont
Sofia Thordin, Urban Planner, Fort Lauderdale
Scott Crosby, Forester, Crosby Forestry & GIS Services, LLC,
Gainesville
Johanna Freeman, Biological Scientist, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Gainesville
Martin Main, Associate Dean for Extension, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville
Alan J. Long, Professor Emeritus, University of Florida, Gainesville
Alexis Boenker, Graduate Student, University of Florida, Gainesville
Anonymous, University of Florida, Gainesville
Chris Demers, Extension Program Manager, University of Florida,
Gainesville
Eden Schoepflin, Student, University of Florida, Gainesville
Krissy Olson, Environmental Consultant, University of Florida,
Gainesville
Michael Andreu, Associate Professor, University of Florida, Gainesville
Raelene Crandall, Assistant Professor, University of Florida,
Gainesville
Kelly McPherson, Natural Resource Consultant, Workman Forestry,
Gainesville
Bryce Catarelli, Nurse Practitioner, Gainesville
Justin Littlejohn, Research Student, Gainesville
Ryan Kennelly, Ecosystem Restoration Team Lead, Gainesville
Stephen Wasp, Firefighter, Gainesville
Jeremiah Hatcher, Assistant Team Lead, Wildland Restoration
International, Gulf Breeze
Joseph Bell, Wildland Firefighter, Jacksonville
Scotland Talley, Conservation Biologist, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Lake City
Vincent Fioramanti, Wildlife Technician, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Lake Placid
Erik Moretuzzo, Agricultural Conservation Technician, Hillsborough Soil
and Water District, Lithia
Jonathan Baker, Land Management Specialist, Brevard County, Melbourne
Ronald Chicone, Land Management Technician, Brevard County
Environmentally Endangered Lands, Melbourne
Samantha Anderson, Biologist, University of Florida, Melbourne
Alice Matthews, Educator, Merritt Island
Ad Platt, Vice President for Operations, The Longleaf Alliance, Milton
Danielle Deming, Ecosystem Support Team member, The Longleaf Alliance,
Milton
Vernon Compton, Project Director, The Longleaf Alliance, Milton
Jean McCollom, Biologist, Natural Ecosystems LLC, Naples
Michael Duever, Ecologist, Natural Ecosystems LLC, Naples
Sabrina Philipp, University of Florida, Naples
Christina Powell, Parks Manager, Charlotte County, North Port
Deborah Blanco, Environmental Specialist, Sarasota County Government,
North Port
Laurie Dolan, Environmental Specialist II, Florida Dept. of
Environmental Protection, Ocala
Ken Weyrauch, Senior Planner, Ocala
Kristina Baker, Consultant, Orange Park
Christopher Kinslow, Land Management Specialist, St. Johns River Water
Management District, Palatka
Lucas Furman, GIS Support Specialist, Natural Resources Professional,
Pensacola
Donna Vassallo, Wildland Fire Ecologist, The Longleaf Alliance,
Pensacola
Paul Langford, Private Forest Landowner, Pensacola
Jack Smith, Forest Area Supervisor, Florida Forest Service, Perry
John Diaz, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, Plant City
Mike Olson, Firefighter, Port Orange
Catherine Ricketts, Wildlife biologist, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Port Saint Joe
Elysia Dytrych, Biologist II, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, Sebring
Matthew Goode, Biological Scientist, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Sebring
Nathan Bunting, Wildlife Biologist, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Sneads
Paul Strauss, Volunteer Nature Interpreter and Wildland Firefighter,
Stuart
Thomas Christopher, Senior Forester, Florida Forest Service,
Tallahassee
Nicole Zampieri, Field Biologist, Florida Natural Areas Inventory,
Tallahassee
William Butler, Associate Professor, Florida State University,
Tallahassee
John Kevin Hiers, Wildland Fire Scientist, Tall Timbers Research
Station, Tallahassee
Kevin Robertson, Fire Ecology Program Director, Tall Timbers Research
Station, Tallahassee
Scott Pokswinski, Wildland Fire Science Lab Manager, Tall Timbers
Research Station, Tallahassee
David R. Godwin, Coordinator, University of Florida, Tallahassee
Jerrie Lindsey, Citizen, Tallahassee
Margaret Kargel, Private Citizen, Tallahassee
Sarah Godwin, Voter, Tallahassee
Ryan Proly, Recruiter, Tampa
Eric S. Menges, Program Director, Plant Ecology Program, Archbold
Biological Station, Venus
Bradley T Weller, Owner, Kings Birds Zoological, Webster
Kraig Krum, Environmental Program Supervisor, Palm Beach County,
Environmental Resources Management, West Palm Beach
Matthew Hortman, Biological Scientist III, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Wewahitchka
Philip Manor, District Wildlife Biologist, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Wewahitchka
Brian Christ, Wildlife Technician, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation
Commission
Georgia
Stephen Logan, Forest Consultant, F&W Forestry, Albany
Dave Coyle, Regional Forest Health Director, Southern Regional
Extension Forestry, Athens
Holly Campbell, Extension Association, Southern Regional Extension
Forestry, Athens
Leslie Boby, Extension Associate, Southern Regional Extension Forestry,
Athens
Jesse B. Sands, ACN, Atlanta
Mehmet Talat Odman, Principal Research Engineer, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta
Tiffany Woods, Program Manager, Southeast Forestry, National Wildlife
Federation, Atlanta
Brandon Sanford, Research Assistant and Environmental Engineer
Undergraduate, Atlanta
Erick Brown, Fire Manager, Atlanta
Megan Blizzard, LEED Certification Reviewer, Atlanta
Joe Butler, Manager/Owner, Forest Lodge Farms, LLC, Camilla
Andrew Edelman, Associate Professor, University of West Georgia,
Carrollton
Matthew P. Snider, Burn Boss, The Nature Conservancy, Columbus
Mike Worley, Chair Elect, Georgia Prescribed Fire Council, Covington
Mike Worley, President & CEO, Georgia Wildlife Federation, Covington
Theron Menken, Wildlife Biologist, Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, Fort Valley
Peter Whiteside, Insurance Professional, Hinesville
Emily Rushton, Wildlife Biologist, Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, McDonough
Mark A. Melvin, Chair, Coalition of Prescribed Fire Councils, Inc,
Newton
Seth W. Bigelow, Assistant Scientist, Jones Center at Ichauway, Newton
LuAnn Craighton, Environmental Educator, ValleyView Farms, Pine
Mountain Valley
Randy Tate, Fort Stewart/Altamaha Longleaf Partnership Coordinator, The
Longleaf Alliance, Savannah
Wayne Bell, Retired COO, International Forest Company, Valdosta
Reese J. Thompson, Longleaf Tree Farmer, Vidalia
Hawaii
Gantry Andrade, Assistant Fire Chief, Hawaii Fire Department, Hilo
Clay Trauernicht, Assistant Specialist in Wildland Fire Science and
Management, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Honolulu
Creighton M. Litton, Professor, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Honolulu
Pablo Akira Beimler, Community Outreach Coordinator, Hawaii Wildfire
Management Organization, Kamuela
Lance W. Holter, Council Member, US Forestry Research Advisory Council,
Paia
Idaho
Jonathan Oppenheimer, Government Relations Director, Idaho Conservation
League, Boise
April Hulet, Rangeland Extension Specialist, University of Idaho, Boise
Chris Bowman-Prideaux, PhD Candidate, University of Idaho, Boise
Corey L. Gucker, Project Coordinator, University of Nevada, Reno, Boise
John H. Cissel, Retired Fire Scientist and Manager, Boise
Thomas Laird, Wildlife Monitoring Technician, Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Caldwell
Gordon L. Sanders, Idaho Master Forest Steward, Idaho Forest Owners
Association, Idaho Lands Resource Coordinating Counsel, Coeur
d'Alene
Mark Masters, CEO, Chloeta Fire, Idaho Falls
Charles Goebel, Department Head and Professor, Department of Forest,
Rangeland & Fire Sciences, College of Natural Resources, University
of Idaho, Moscow
Dennis Becker, Director, Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho,
Moscow
Aaron Murdock, Student, University of Idaho, Moscow
Adam Young, PhD Candidate, University of Idaho, Moscow
Carrie Minerich, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Idaho,
Moscow
Darcy Hammond, Research Assistant, University of Idaho, Moscow
Eva Strand, Associate Professor, University of Idaho, Moscow
Janet E. Nelson, Vice President for Research and Economic Development,
University of Idaho, Moscow
Josh Hyde, Fire Research Scientist, University of Idaho, Moscow
Katherine Wollstein, Doctoral Research Assistant, University of Idaho,
Moscow
Leda Kobziar, Associate Professor, University of Idaho, Moscow
Luigi Boschetti, Associate Professor, University of Idaho, Moscow
Penny Morgan, Professor, University of Idaho, Moscow
Illinois
Edward Warden, Naturalist, Chicago
Nicole Cavender, Vice President of Science and Conservation, The Morton
Arboretum, Lisle
Linda Premo, R.T., Saint Charles
Jacob Gawlik, Reverend, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,
Sterling
Paul Brewer, Illinois Certified Prescribed Burn Manager, Illinois
Prescribed Fire Council, Toledo
Daniel A. Tortorelli, George B. Grimm Professor, Emeritus, University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana
Indiana
Michael R. Saunders, Associate Professor, Purdue University, West
Lafayette
Kansas
Kyle Schumacher, Graduate Research Assistant, Fort Hays State
University, Hays
Tyler Warner, Rancher, Holton
Jeremy Robert Cox, Fire Fighter Type 2, GH Ranch, Hutchinson
John Blair, University Distinguished Professor, Kansas State
University, Manhattan
Rory O'Connor, PhD candidate, Kansas State University, Manhattan
Vickie Cikanek, Private Lands Biologist, Kansas Department of Wildlife,
Parks, & Tourism, Topeka
Kentucky
Chris Minor, President, Kentucky Prescribed Fire Council, Greenville
Louisiana
William J. Platt, Professor of Biology, Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge
Nathan Yeldell, Biologist, LA Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, Hammond
Ann W. Stuart, Citizen, Lafayette
Julia E. Earl, Assistant Professor, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston
Massachusetts
Cristina Eisenberg, Chief Scientist, Earthwatch Institute, Boston
Bob Bale, President, Wildland Restoration International, Duxbury
Danelle Laflowerm, Research Assistant, Harvard University/Harvard
Forest, Petersham
Jonathan R. Thompson, Senior Ecologist, Harvard University/Harvard
Forest, Petersham
Matthew Duveneck, Research Associate, Harvard University/Harvard
Forest, Petersham
Maryland
Robert R. Schwartz, Forester, Maryland Forest Service, Hagerstown
Sylvia S. Tognetti, Adjunct Professor and Independent Consultant,
University of the District of Columbia Community College, Silver
Spring
Maine
Robert Hyson, Owner, Medomak Construction Inc., Bremen
Susan Conard, Editor in Chief, International Journal of Wildland Fire,
Northport
Michigan
Nancy H.F. French, Senior Scientist, Michigan Tech University Research
Institute, Ann Arbor
Matthew Hamilton, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor
Alexandra Paige Fischer, Assistant Professor, University of Michigan,
School for Environment and Sustainability, Ann Arbor
Madelyn Tucker, PhD candidate, Wayne State University, Detroit
Chase Brooke, Graduate Student, Michigan State University, East Lansing
Jessica R. Miesel, Assistant Professor, Michigan State University, East
Lansing
Kathleen Quigley, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Michigan State
University, East Lansing
Noah Jansen, Conservationist, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa
Indians, Harbor Springs
Gordon Vander Yacht, Equipment Manager, Hope College, Holland
Kathleen E. Halvorsen, Professor of Natural Resource Policy, Michigan
Technological University, Houghton
Rankin Smith, Field Technician, Michigan DNR, Ishpeming
Michele Richards, Wildland Fire Manager, Michigan Army National Guard,
Kalamazoo
Brenda Tiefenthal, Tax Payer, Kalamazoo
Andrew Vander Yacht, PhD, Research Specialist, Michigan State
University, Lansing
Erica Pfleiderer, Wildland Firefighter, Marquette
Darwin Micheal Schultz, Consultant/Fire Ecologist/Student, Oscoda
Christina DeGrush, Rise Kalamazoo, Plainwell
Kim Steinmann, Constituent, MI06, Portage
Minnesota
Craig R. Sterle, President--MN Division Izaak Walton League of America,
Barnum
Katie Zlonis, Plant Resource Director, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Cass
Lake
Melissa Mokry, PhD Candidate, Colorado State University, Duluth
Todd Armbruster, Firewise Coordinator, Cook and Lake County, Duluth
Lane Johnson, Research Forester, University of Minnesota, Cloquet
Forestry Center, Duluth
Matthew Tyler, Forester, Grand Portage, Grand Portage
Tim Miller, Reservation Forester, Grand Portage Tribal Forestry, Grand
Portage
Tony Lenoch, Area Resource Specialist, Minnesota Dept. of Natural
Resources, Grand Rapids
Lori Knosalla, Graduate Student Researcher, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis
Nancy Braker, Arboretum Director, Carleton College, Northfield
Matthew Lasch, Minnesota Contracting Manager, Applied Ecological
Services, Prior Lake
Eli Sagor, Associate Extension Professor, University of Minnesota,
Roseville
Ferin Davis, Environmental Technician, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community Land Department, Shakopee
Annie Hawkinson, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Minnesota,
St. Paul
Rebecca Montgomery, Associate Professor, University of Minnesota, St.
Paul
Missouri
Elizabeth Middleton, Grassland Botanist, Missouri Department of
Conservation, Clinton
Clif Baumer, Member, East Central Prescribed Burn Association, Columbia
Connor Crouch, Graduate Research Assistant, School of Natural
Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia
Benjamin Knapp, Assistant Professor, University of Missouri, Columbia
Joseph Marschall, Senior Research Specialist, University of Missouri,
Columbia
Mary Wachuta, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Missouri,
Columbia
Michael Stambaugh, Research Associate Professor, University of
Missouri, Columbia
Gary Llewellyn, Rancher Retired, SRM, Excelsior Springs
Thomas Fielden, Chairman, Missouri Prescribed Fire Council, Van Buren
Calvin Maginel, Fire Ecologist, Missouri Department of Conservation,
West Plains
Mississippi
Marcus Lashley, Assistant Professor, Mississippi State University,
Mississippi
Montana
David McWethy, Assistant Professor, Montana State University, Bozeman
Todd Erdody, Concerned Citizen, Bozeman
Jon Warwick, Kalispell
Jeffrey Lombardo, Forester, Heirloom Woodlands LLC/Watershed Consulting
LLC, Missoula
Megan Keville, Coordinator, Northern Rockies Fire Science Network,
Missoula
Julie Gilbertson-Day, Senior Spatial Wildfire Analyst, Pyrologix, LLC,
Missoula
Thomas H. DeLuca, Dean, W.A. Franke College of Forestry & Conservation,
University of Montana, Missoula
Alan Tepley, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Montana, Missoula
Andrew Larson, Associate Professor, University of Montana, Missoula
Christopher R. Keyes, Research Professor of Forestry, University of
Montana, Missoula
Eric Rowell, Wildland Fire Scientist, University of Montana, Missoula
Libby Metcalf, Associate Professor, University of Montana, Missoula
Philip Higuera, Associate Professor of Fire Ecology, University of
Montana, Missoula
Solomon Dobrowski, Associate Professor, University of Montana, Missoula
Mark Vander Meer, Forest Ecologist/Soil Scientist, Watershed Consulting
LLC, Missoula
Hannah Johlman, Fire Science Communicator, GPFSE, Wyola
North Carolina
Josh Kelly, Biologist, Mountain True, Asheville
Lauren Reker, Non-native Invasive Species Project Coordinator, Mountain
True, Asheville
Adam Warwick, Stewardship Manager, The Nature Conservancy, Asheville
Mamie Colburn, Stewardship Assistant, The Nature Conservancy, Asheville
Jenna Danckwrt, Concerned Citizen, Asheville
Nic Danckwart, Forestry Technician, Asheville
Richard L. Broadwell, President, Fork Ridge Environmental Consulting,
Bakersville
Alex Finkral, Chief Forester, The Forestland Group, Chapel Hill
Christa Rogers, Natural Resources Manager, Mecklenburg County NC,
Charlotte
Aixi Zhou, Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at
Charlotte, Charlotte
Dan Feola, NC Forest Service Ranger, North Carolina State University,
Columbia
Chet Buell, Technology Support Analyst, North Carolina State
University, Durham
Renee Strnad, Environmental Educator, North Carolina State University,
Durham
Margit Bucher, Fire Manager, The Nature Conservancy, Durham
Meyer Speary, Fire Environment Forester, North Carolina Forest Service,
Edenton
Edgar L. Peck III, Elk Park
Matthew Harrell, Practitioner, NC Prescribed Fire Council, Indian Trail
Colby Lambert, Area Specialized Agent -Forestry, NC Cooperative
Extension, Lillington
Thomas G. Crews, Jr., Retired Fire Management Officer, US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Manteo
Ryan Jacobs, Wildlife Forest Manager, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Marion
Ryan Sparks, Conservation Associate, Foothills Conservancy of NC,
Morganton
Branda Nowell, Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Charles Sanders, Wildlife Biologist, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh
Fernando Garcia Menendez, Assistant Professor, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh
Jennifer Costanza, Research Assistant Professor, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh
Joseph P. Roise, Forester, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Mara Omega, Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Myron Floyd, Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Robert Scheller, Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Ronald Sederoff, Professor Emeritus, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh
Ross Whetten, Professor of Forestry & Environmental Resources, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh
Stephanie Jeffries, Director, Environmental First Year Program, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh
Steven McKeand, Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Toddi Steelman, Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Laurel Kays, Project Manager, Southwestern NC RC&D Council, Waynesville
Ryan Bollinger, Local Implementation Team Consul, The Longleaf
Alliance, Whispering Pines
Kate Williams, Prescribed Fire Technician, The Nature Conservancy,
Wilmington
North Dakota
Betsey York, Research Associate, North Dakota State University, Fargo
Devan Allen McGranahan, Assistant Professor of Range Science, North
Dakota State University, Fargo
Jonathan Spiess, Graduate Student, North Dakota State University, Fargo
Micayla Lakey, Graduate Research Assistant, North Dakota State
University, Fargo
Nebraska
Jeanine Lackey, Director of Research and Stewardship, Fontenelle
Forest, Bellevue
Michelle Foss, Restoration Biologist, Fontenelle Forest, Bellevue
Noah Sundberg, Fontenelle Forest, Bellevue
Tim Dickson, Faculty, University of Nebraska, Omaha, Omaha
Jennifer Hopwood, Senior Pollinator Conservation Specialist, Xerces
Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Omaha
New Jersey
John Cecil, Vice President for Stewardship, New Jersey Audubon, Port
Murray
New Mexico
Matthew Hurteau, Associate Professor, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque
Scott L Collins, Distinguished Professor, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque
Emily Hohman, Executive Director, Chama Peak Land Alliance, Chama
Jeremy Gingerich, Assistant General Manager, Vermejo Park LLC, Raton
John Lissoway, Member, Forest Stewards Guild, Santa Fe
Sam Berry, Project Coordinator, Forest Stewards Guild, Santa Fe
Zander Evans, Executive Director, Forest Stewards Guild, Santa Fe
Mark Meyers, Forester, New Mexico State Land Office, Santa Fe
Tim L. Kirkpatrick, President, East Mountain Interagency Fire
Protection Association (EMIFPA), Tijeras
Nevada
Tim Brown, Research Professor, Desert Research Institute, Reno
Julie Hunter, Chair, Nevada Prescribed Fire Alliance, Reno
Alexandra Urza, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Nevada,
Reno, Reno
Eugenie MontBlanc, Project Manager, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno
Peter Weisberg, Professor, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno
Thomas Dilts, Research Scientist, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno
Carol L. Rice, Senior Wildland Fire Manager, Wildland Resource
Management, Inc., Reno
April Smith, Stay at Home Mother, Reno
New York
Kurt Gielow, Student, Homer
Sarah A. Moss, Accounting Staff Specialist, Saint Christopher's Inn,
Inc., Poughkeepsie
David Newman, Professor, SUNY College of Environmental Science and
Forestry, Syracuse
Robert W. Malmsheimer, Interim Chair and Professor of Forest Policy and
Law, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse
Ben Zimmerman, Branch Manager, Managing Ecologist, Applied Ecological
Services, Waterloo
Ohio
Alia Dietsch, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University, Columbus
Claire Rapp, Graduate Researcher, The Ohio State University, Columbus
Elizabeth Myers Toman, Visiting Assistant Professor, The Ohio State
University, Columbus
Eric Toman, Associate Professor, The Ohio State University, Columbus
G. Matt Davies, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University,
Columbus
Rachel Gabor, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University, Columbus
Robyn Wilson, Associate Professor of Risk Analysis and Decision
Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus
Roger A. Williams, Associate Professor, The Ohio State University,
Columbus
Virginia Rich, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University, Columbus
Oklahoma
Jack Waymire, Senior Biologist, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
Conservation, Clayton
Evan Tanner, Postdoctoral Fellow, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater
John Weir, Research Associate, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater
Oregon
Pat Uhtoff, Forester, Pat Uhtoff Forestry, Ashland
George McKinley, Executive Director, Southern Oregon Forest Restoration
Collaborative, Ashland
Carolyn Hunsaker, Retired Research Ecologist, US Forest Service,
Ashland
Karl J. Findling, Member, Steens Mountain Advisory Council, Bend
Michael O'Casey, Stewardship Coordinator, Bend
Kirk R. Metzger, Retired Wildland Hazardous Fuels Manager, US Forest
Service, Camp Sherman
Max Bennett, Extension Forestry & Natural Resources Faculty, Oregon
State University, Central Point
Kevin Vogler, Spatial Wildfire Analyst, Oregon State University,
Corvallis
Anthony S. Davis, Acting Dean, College of Forestry, Oregon State
University
Al Pancoast, Graduate Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Anna Talucci, Graduate Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Audrey Maclennan, Graduate Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Audrey Riddell, Graduate Research Assistant, Oregon State University,
Corvallis
Becky Miller, Graduate Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Bruce Shindler, Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Carrie Berger, Extension, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Chad Kooistra, Researcher, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Christal Johnson, PhD Student in Fire Science, Oregon State University,
Corvallis
Christine Olsen, Instructor, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Christopher J. Dunn, Research Associate, Oregon State University,
Corvallis
Claire Tortorelli, Graduate Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Clayton Sodergren, PhD Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Danielle Jackson, Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
David Blunck, Assistant Professor, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Gabe, Graduate Research Assistant, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Janean Creighton, Associate Professor, Oregon State University,
Corvallis
Kayla Johnston, Graduate Teaching Assistant, Oregon State University,
Corvallis
Lisa Ellsworth, Assistant Professor, Senior Research, Oregon State
University, Corvallis
Lizz Schuyler, Doctoral Researcher, Oregon State University, Corvallis
M. E. Braun, Acquisitions Editor, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Meg Krawchuk, Assistant Professor, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Patricia Muir, Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Rachel Houtman, Faculty Research Assistant, Oregon State University,
Corvallis
Stephen Fitzgerald, Professor, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Timothy Facemire, Graduate Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Tom Spies, Courtesy Professor, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Will Downing, Fire Ecologist, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Lisa M. Ganio, Associate Professor, Oregon State University, College of
Forestry, Corvallis
David Shaw, Associate Professor, Forest Health Specialist, Oregon State
University, Corvallis
Neil Williams, Researcher, Corvallis
Lance Sargent, Citizen, Eagle Point
Allison Rossman, Botanist, The Nature Conservancy, Enterprise
Heron Brae, Botanist and Natural History Educator, Columbines School of
Botanical Studies, Eugene
Timothy Ingalsbee, Executive Director, Firefighters United for Safety,
Ethics, and Ecology (FUSEE), Eugene
Autumn Ellison, Research Faculty, University of Oregon, Eugene
Bart Johnson, Professor, University of Oregon, Eugene
Cassandra Moseley, Director, Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of
Oregon, Eugene
Heidi Huber-Stearns, Assistant Research Professor, University of
Oregon, Eugene
Jesse Abrams, Research Associate, University of Oregon, Eugene
John Koenig, South Willamette Forest Collaborative, Eugene
Mike Brinkley, Citizen, SW Fire Science Consortium, Eugene
Amanda Stamper, Fire Manager, The Nature Conservancy, Eugene
Alexis Engelbrecht, Volunteer & Outreach Coordinator, Walama
Restoration Project, Eugene
Alan Stearns, Teacher, Eugene
Janelle Cossey, Forestry Technician, Eugene
Leslie Dietz, Volunteer, Eugene
Louisa Evers, US Citizen, Gresham
Jack Shipley, Board Chair, Applegate Partnership and Watershed Council,
Jacksonville
Daniel Leavell, Assistant Professor of Practice/Forest Agent, OSU
College of Forestry Extension, Klamath Falls
Gene Rogers, President, Wildland Fire Technologies, Inc., Klamath Falls
James K. Walls, Executive Director, Lake County Resources Initiative,
Lakeview
Audrey Squires, Restoration Projects Manager, Middle Fork Willamette
Watershed Council, Lowell
Derek Anderson, Oregon State University, Monmouth
Mark Webb, Executive Director, Blue Mountains Forest Partners, Mt.
Vernon
Joan Lawrence, Prescribed Fire Practitioner, Interagency Wildland Fire,
North Bend
Paula Hebert, Member, Southern Willamette Forest Collaboration,
Oakridge
Sarah Altemus-Pope, Coordinator, Southern Willamette Forest
Collaborative, Oakridge
Susan Knudsen Obermeyer, Private Citizen, Southern Willamette Forest
Collaborative, Oakridge
Loren E. Hogue, Retired Board Member, SW Fire Science Consortium,
Oakridge
Megan Creutzburg, Faculty Research Associate, Institute for Natural
Resources, Oregon State University, Portland
Andres Holz, Assistant Professor, Portland State University, Portland
Cody Evers, PhD Student, Portland State University, Portland
Max Nielsen-Pincus, Assistant Professor of Environmental Management,
Portland State University, Portland
Melissa Lucash, Research Assistant Professor, Portland State
University, Portland
Greg Block, President, Sustainable Northwest, Portland
Kendal Martel, Forest Program Associate, Sustainable Northwest,
Portland
Susan Jane Brown, Wildlands Program Director & Staff Attorney, Western
Environmental Law Center, Portland
Kerry Kemp, Forest Ecologist, The Nature Conservancy, Prairie City
Alison E. Dean, Fire Effects Monitoring Coordinator, Central Oregon
Fire Management Service, Prineville
Nick Yonker, Oregon Smoke Management Program Manager, Oregon Department
of Forestry, Salem
Susanne Ranseen, Ecologist, Oregon State University, Salem
Cristina Horton, Student, Oregon State University, Salem
Robbye Lanier, Environmental Technician, Lane Regional Air Protection
Agency, Springfield
Emily Jane Davis, Assistant Professor, Oregon State University, The
Dalles
Teresa Zena Alcock, Fire Data and Geospatial Analyst, Oregon Department
of Forestry, Tualatin
Pennsylvania
Robert J. Fleming, President, Danamere Farms, Inc., Philadelphia
Alice Puchalsky, Student, Temple University, Philadelphia
Emily Booth, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Temple University,
Philadelphia
Alan Taylor, Professor Department of Geography and Ecology,
Pennsylvania State University, State College
Warren Reed, PhD Candidate, Pennsylvania State University, State
College
Melissa M. Kreye, Assistant Professor of Forest Resources Management,
Pennsylvania State University, State College
South Carolina
Charles Babb, Longleaf Implementation Team Coordinator, Sandhills
Longleaf Pine Conservation Partnership, Chesterfield
Bridget Lorraine Blood, PhD Research Assistant, Clemson University,
Clemson
Dr. Donald L. Hagan, Assistant Professor of Forest Ecology, Clemson
University, Clemson
Emily Oakman, Masters Student, Clemson University, Clemson
Jenifer Bunty, Public Information Coordinator, Clemson University,
Clemson
Matthew Vaughan, PhD Student, Clemson University, Clemson
Darryl Jones, Forest Protection Chief, South Carolina Forestry
Commission, Columbia
Sudie Thomas, Member, South Carolina Native Plant Society, South
Carolina Exotic Pest Plant Council, Conway
Dylan Scott, Prescribed Fire Practitioner, Goose Creek
Thomas A. Waldrop, President, TomGen Forestry, Seneca
Brad McKelvy, Retired Fed FireFighter 38 Years USFS, US Forest Service,
Warrenvile
Tennessee
Steven Hromada, Adjunct Instructor, Austin Peay State University,
Clarksville
Trisha Johnson, Biologist, Cookeville
Jef Hodges, Grassland Coordinator, National Bobwhite Conservation
Initiative, Knoxville
Savannah Collins-Key, Graduate Teaching Assistant, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville
Tyler Gifford, Student, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Courtney Madson, Associate Producer, Knoxville
Mark Gudlin, Assistant. Chief, Wildlife & Forestry, TN Wildlife
Resources Agency, Nashville
Ken Smith, Assistant Dean of the Environment, Integrated Program in the
Environment, The University of the South, Sewanee
Shannon Allen, Natural Resources Planner, Alabama and Tennessee Chapter
of the Wildlife Society, Sewanee
Texas
J. Kelly Hoffman, Environmental Scientist, Texas A&M University, Austin
Theron Tate, Property Owner, Beaumont
Aaron D. Stottlemyer, Forest Resource Analyst, Texas A&M University,
College Station
Alexandra Lodge, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Texas A&M University,
College Station
Charles Lafon, Professor, Texas A&M University, Dept. of Geography,
College Station
Christopher Roos, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Southern
Methodist University, Dallas
William Mobley, Postdoctoral Researcher, Texas A&M University, Fort
Worth
Dylan Schwilk, Associate Professor of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock
Robin M. Verble, Associate Professor, Texas Tech University, Lubbock
Xiulin Gao, PhD Student, Texas Tech University, Biological Science,
Lubbock
Rebecca Kidd, Assistant Professor, Stephen F. Austin State University,
Nacogdoches
Morgan Russell, Assistant Professor and Range Extension Specialist,
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, San Angelo
Rob Galbraith, Director of Underwriting Research, USAA, San Antonio
Cynthia L. Dinwiddie, Principal Scientist, San Antonio
Utah
Sara Germain, Canine Search Specialist, FEMA, Logan
Alexander Howe, PhD Fellow, Utah State University, Logan
Erika Blomdahl, Graduate Student Researcher, Utah State University,
Logan
Gwendwr Meredith, PhD Student, Utah State University, Logan
Kendall Becker, USU Science Writing Center Assistant Director, Utah
State University, Logan
Lisa Green, Project Coordinator, Utah State University, Logan
Mark Brunson, Professor, Utah State University, Logan
Tucker Furniss, PhD Student, Utah State University, Logan
Jessica Kirby, Open Space Management Supervisor, Snyderville Basin
Special Recreation District, Park City
Bruce A. Roundy, Professor, Brigham Young University, Provo
Erin Banwell, Fire Ecology Program Coordinator, Gravitas Peak Wildland
Fire Module, Provo
Marjie Brown, Wildfire Communications Specialist, ScienceFire
Solutions, Inc., Salt Lake City
Maxfield Carlin, Biologist, Tracy Aviary, Salt Lake City
Virginia
Isa Bryant, Researcher, Arlington
Adam Coates, Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg
Andrew Johnson, Student, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg
Anne-Lise Velez, Collegiate Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg
George Hahn III, NCRF 1826, PhD Research Assistant, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg
Marc Stern, Associate Professor, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg
Harold Burkhart, Professor, Virginia Tech, Forestry, Blacksburg
Howard Epstein, Professor, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Nikole Simmons, Restoration Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy, Hot
Springs
Anne M. Jewell, Fire Management Specialist, Forester, Center for
Environmental Management of Military Lands, Mechaniscville
Allison Jolley, Communications Manager, Fire Adapted Communities
Learning Network, Richmond
Stacey S. Frederick, Science Outreach, Richmond
Laurel Schablein, Private Citizen, Vesuvius
Vermont
Anthony D'Amato, Associate Professor, University of Vermont, Burlington
Kim Coleman, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Vermont, Burlington
Cecilia Danks, Associate Professor and Gund Fellow, University of
Vermont, Burlington
Washington
Ray Guse, Principal, Smoked Goose Consulting, LLC, Cove
Rose Shriner, Natural Resources Project Manager, Kittitas County
Conservation District, Ellensburg
Brooke A. Cassell, Research Assistant, Portland State University,
Everett
Jon K. Culp, Secretary, Washington Prescribed Fire Council, Okanogan
Sarah Hamman, Restoration Ecologist, Center for Natural Lands
Management, Olympia
Tim Shearman, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of
Washington, Olympia
David Wilderman, Natural Resource Scientist, Washington Dept of Natural
Resources, Olympia
Sarah Hart, Assistant Professor, Washington State University, Pullman
Keala Hagmann, Research Ecologist, Applegate Forestry, LLC, Seattle
Diana Olson, FRAMES Project Manager, University of Idaho, Seattle
Michael Tjoelker, Content Specialist, University of Idaho, Seattle
Lisa Graumlich, Dean, College of the Environment, University of
Washington, Seattle
Charles Halpern, Research Professor, University of Washington, Seattle
Claire Wainwright, Postdoctoral Ecologist, University of Washington,
Seattle
Ernesto Alvarado, Research Associate Professor, University of
Washington, Seattle
James K. Agee, Professor Emeritus, University of Washington, Seattle
Jonathan Bakker, Associate Professor, University of Washington, Seattle
Kara M Yedinak, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of
Washington, Seattle
Michelle Agne, PhD Student, University of Washington, Seattle
Paige C Eagle, Research Consultant, University of Washington, Seattle
Saba Saberi, Graduate Student, University of Washington, Seattle
Paul F. Hessburg, Research Ecologist, College of the Environment,
University of Washington, Seattle
Brian J. Harvey, Assistant Professor, School of Environmental and
Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle
Rae Morris, Community Coordinator, Tonasket
Dave Werntz, Science and Conservation Director, Conservation Northwest,
Twisp
Joel Dubowy, Software Engineer, University of Washington, Winthrop
Susan Prichard, Research Scientist, University of Washington, Winthrop
Reese Lolley, Director, Forest Restoration and Fire, The Nature
Conservancy, Washington Prescribed Fire Council, Yakima
Hilary Lundgren, Washington Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network
Coordinator, Washington Resource Conservation and Development
Council, Yakima
Wisconsin
Sarah Johnson, Associate Professor, Northland College, Ashland
Carl Cotter, Stewardship Coordinator, Aldo Leopold Foundation, Baraboo
Curt Meine, Senior Fellow, Aldo Leopold Foundation, Baraboo
Steven Swenson, Director of Conservation, Aldo Leopold Foundation,
Baraboo
Josh LaPointe, Regional Manager Ecosystem Restoration, Applied
Ecological Services, Brodhead
Josh Kraemer, Project Manager, Wisconsin Prescribed Fire Council,
Brodhead
Fred Wollenburg, Landowner, The Prairie Enthusiasts, Dalton
Stacey Marion, Restoration Ecologist, Adaptive Restoration, Madison
Mark Horn, Owner, Conservation Media LLC, Madison
Gary Werner, Volunteer Burn Boss, Dane County Chapter Ice Age Trail
Alliance, Madison
Jacob Griffin, Associate Professor of Biology; Director of
Environmental Studies, Edgewood College, Madison
Joe Lacy, Concerned Citizen, Prairie Enthusiasts, Madison
Hannah Spaul, Fire Manager, The Nature Conservancy, Madison
Thomas Pierce, The Prairie Enthusiasts, Madison
Ankur Desai, Professor, University of Wisconsin, Madison
H. Anu Kramer, Research Associate, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Adena Rissman, Associate Professor, Human Dimensions of Ecosystem
Management, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Madison
Laura Ladwig, Research Ecologist, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
Madison
Monica G. Turner, Odum Professor of Ecology and Vilas Research
Professor, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Madison
Paul H. Zedler, Professor of Environmental Studies, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, Madison
Tyler J. Hoecker, Graduate Researcher, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Madison
Winslow D Hansen, PhD Candidate, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
Madison
Zakary Ratajczak, Postdoctoral Student, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Madison
Amelia Fass, Student, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, Madison
Keith Phelps, Conservation Worker, University System, Madison
Megan Sebasky, Research Scientist, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Madison
Adam Gundlach, Board of Directors Chair, Wisconsin Prescribed Fire
Council, Madison
Jan Ketelle, Wisconsin Prescribed Fire Council, Mineral Point
Yari Johnson, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Platteville,
Mount Horeb
Curtis Wayka, Prescribed Fire/Fuels Technician, Menominee Tribal
Enterprises, Neopit
Angus Mossman, Student, University of Wisconsin, Madison, North Freedom
Evan Larson, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Wisconsin-
Platteville, Platteville
Matthew Smith, Land Manager, Riveredge Nature Center, Saukville
Jeb Barzen, Founder, Private Lands Conservation LLC, Spring Green
Isabel Moritz, Fire Crew, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Jacob Barkalow, Student of Fire, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Julie Dickson, College Student, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Korey Badeau, Student, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Logan Wimme, Undergraduate Forest Management, University of Wisconsin,
Stevens Point
Max Richards, Student, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Nick Bielski, Student, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Dylan Wenker, Student, Stevens Point
Kelley Harkins, Undergraduate Wildland Fire Science Student, University
of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Nathan Holoubek, Research Scientist, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Sun Prairie
Theran Stautz, Ecologist, Sun Prairie
Richard A. Hansen, Private land owner, Wautoma
West Virginia
Daniel J. Robison, Dean, Davis College of Agriculture, Natural
Resources and Design, West Virginia University
Nicholas Jeros, Supervisory Fire Engine Operator, Central Apps Fire
Learning Network, Davis
Adele Fenwick, Fire Instructor and Practitioner, Morgantown
Wyoming
Daniel Laughlin, Associate Professor, University of Wyoming, Laramie
Kristina Hufford, Associate Professor, University of Wyoming, Laramie
Alex Spannuth, Fire Effects Monitor, Wyoming
______
Supporters of the Maintaining Effective Funding deg.
Prepared Statement of Supporters for Maintaining Effective Funding
Levels for Essential Wildfire Risk Reduction and Protection Programs at
the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior
Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
The undersigned organizations are writing to express our strong
support for maintaining effective funding levels in the fiscal year
2019 appropriations process for essential wildfire risk reduction and
protection programs at the USDA Forest Service (USFS) and the
Department of the Interior (DOI). The important work accomplished
through the State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire Assistance
programs help decrease total Federal emergency wildfire suppression
costs and reduce the threat of fire to people, communities, and both
public and private lands.
America's forests and forest-dependent communities are at risk from
outbreaks of pests and pathogens, persistent drought, and the buildup
of hazardous fuels. Urbanization and development patterns are placing
more homes and communities near fire-prone landscapes, leading to more
destructive and costly wildfires, like those that burned more than 10
million acres in 2017 alone.
We thank you for your leadership in developing and securing a long-
term wildland fire funding solution which will ensure that the USFS has
the funding needed for both routine activities to local and State
wildland fire preparedness and mitigation efforts as well as engage in
emergency wildland fire suppression activities. This long-held goal of
our organizations would not have been realized without your leadership
and the work of this Committee. Additionally, our organizations thank
you for providing additional funding to support the USFS until this
fire funding fix takes effect in fiscal year 2020. We encourage you to
continue providing this strong funding level to the USFS at least until
the recently enacted fire funding fix takes effect in fiscal year 2020.
The fiscal year 2019 appropriations bill can provide for both
necessary wildland fire suppression and fire risk reduction activities
that reduce firefighting costs in the long run. We appreciate this
Committee's continued support for the State Fire Assistance program and
the Volunteer Fire Assistance program and encourage you to continue
providing strong funding for these important programs.
State Fire Assistance (SFA) is the fundamental Federal mechanism
for assisting States and local fire departments in responding to
wildland fires and in conducting management activities that mitigate
fire risk on non-Federal lands. The program helps train State and local
first responders who are often first to arrive at a wildland fire
incident, as well as equip them with the tools they need to put
wildfires out in efficiently and safely.
For example, in fiscal year 2017, SFA directly funded hazardous
fuel treatments on 83,845 acres (with another 92,276 acres treated with
leveraged funding from partners) and provided assistance to communities
around the country, supporting 4,581 risk assessment and fire
management planning projects in more than 3,100 communities.
Additionally, between 2008 and 2012, the program helped deliver more
than $150 million annually in equipment for use by State and local
first responders.
The localized support provided by SFA is crucial because most
wildfires (80 percent during 2017) burn within State and local fire
department jurisdictions. Even when it comes to wildfires on Federal
lands, SFA-supported crews and engines are often the first to respond.
Our organizations are grateful for the Committee's decision to
increase SFA funding to $80 million in fiscal year 2018. However,
additional modest increases in SFA funding can help expand wildland
fire preparedness and mitigation efforts and support State forestry
agencies in repurposing equipment through the Federal Excess Personal
Property and the Firefighter Property programs. In fiscal year 2019, we
urge you to provide $87 million for the State Fire Assistance program.
The Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) program provides support to
rural communities and is critical to ensuring adequate capacity to
respond to wildfires, reducing the risk to communities, people, homes
and property, and firefighters. This capacity is critical because these
State and local resources are the first responders to more than 80
percent of wildland fires--whether on State, Federal or private lands.
According to the Forest Service, during fiscal year 2017, the VFA
program helped provide assistance to 8,821 communities, train 17,140
firefighters, expanded or organize 61 fire departments, and purchase,
rehabilitate, or maintain nearly $9 million in equipment.
Our organizations greatly appreciate the Committee's work to
increase VFA funding to $16 million in fiscal year 2018. In fiscal year
2019, we urge you to provide no less than $16 million for the Volunteer
Fire Assistance Program.
We appreciate the difficult task the Committee faces in the current
budget climate. It is important to remember, however, that these vital
programs safeguard human life, habitat, and property, and reduce the
overall cost of wildland fire management. Accordingly, we urge you to
support funding for these critical programs.
Thank you for your consideration of this important request.
Sincerely,
National Association of State Foresters
National Volunteer Fire Council
International Association of Fire Chiefs
______
Supporters of the National Environmental Education Act (NEEA) deg.
Prepared Statement of U.S. Senators in Support of the National
Environmental Education Act (NEEA)
______
Prepared Statement of the Susanville Indian Rancheria
The Susanville Indian Rancheria submits the following
recommendations regarding the fiscal year 2019 Interior appropriations
bill:
--Reject the large proposed cuts in the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Social Services program (37 percent) and the Indian Child
welfare Act (27 percent).
--Retain the BIA's Johnson O'Malley Program Which is Proposed for
Elimination
--Reject the Proposal to Eliminate the IHS Community Health
Representatives Program
--Continue Full, Mandatory Funding for IHS and BIA Contract Support
Costs
--Funding for a New Medical Clinic
--Maintain the Special Diabetes Program's Funding as Mandatory
--Reject Rescissions and Protect the IHS and BIA from Sequestration
The Susanville Indian Rancheria includes over 1,180 Tribal citizens
located in Northern California. The Tribe operates several programs
through Indian Self-Determination Act compact and contracts with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), including the Tribe's two largest: The
Consolidated Tribal Government Program and the Road Maintenance
Program. Through these programs, the Tribe operates aid to Tribal
government, Johnson O'Malley, social services, Indian child welfare,
community fire protection, adult and higher education, and job
placement programs, as well as projects to maintain the Tribe's
infrastructure. Through these programs, the Tribe is a vital part of
the Susanville and Lassen County economic community.
The Tribe also operates the Lassen Indian Health Center via a Title
V self-governance compact with the Indian Health Service (IHS). The
Tribe and the Health Center serve not only our Tribal members, but also
lineal descendants of California and other federally recognized
Indians. As a result, our service population for Lassen County is over
1,900 individuals of Indian descent. The Health Center is a vital link
for our patients, who receive medical, dental care, behavioral health
services, substance abuse counseling, and pharmacy services. Providing
both governmental and healthcare services is an important role for the
Tribe, although we depend on our partners, IHS, BIA, and Congress, to
fulfill their contractual obligations.
Reject the BIA Social Services Reduction of 37 percent. The
administration's proposed cut to BIA social services is astonishing. We
use our limited Tribal Priority Allocation funds ($22,506) toward
urgent needs of our Tribal members. In the past two and one half
months, the Tribal office has processed over 100 social services types
of requests. We estimate that we would need a 141 percent increase in
our TPA just to meet the minimum needs for our Tribal members.
Reject the Proposed Indian Child Welfare Act Reduction of $5
million or 27 percent. The Susanville Indian Rancheria uses what
limited TPA funding it receives ($44,414) towards salaries, telephone
costs, supplies, NICWA membership dues, expert witness fees, training,
and legal fees. We have averaged slightly over 12 active cases each
month with some cases being closed and others being opened due to
various reasons (abuse, parent reunification, etc.). In addition we
receive an average of 5-8 daily correspondences on ICWA matters that
require a response. We have an urgent need for more Native foster homes
and have worked with Lassen County Child and Family Services in
certifying some Native foster homes. But many of our Tribal member
children (and Tribal children who are not Susanville Indian Rancheria
members) are being placed in homes that do not meet with ICWA placement
preference law. It is very important that Native children do not lose
their connection with their culture as this this connection is what
keeps children whole and provides strength of mind and body. We
estimate that would need a 323 percent increase to meet the minimum
ICWA-related needs for our Tribal children.
Retain the Johnson O'Malley Program. We strongly oppose the
proposal to eliminate the Johnson O'Malley Program (JOM). The JOM
serves a very important function for the Susanville Indian Rancheria as
it makes possible three after school tutors and also provides the
partial salary of our Education Programs Director. In addition, these
funds are used for Renaissance learning dues that help our students
increase their reading skills, as well as providing assistance for
summer activities. We are pleased as we are on track with increasing
the reading levels of our students, increasing their math proficiency
and increasing cultural awareness. Without these funds we would lose
all that we have gained in the past few years. We are proud of our
students and what they have accomplished.
Reject the Administration's Proposed Elimination of the IHS
Community Health Representatives Program. We are astonished that the
administration would propose the elimination of the Community Health
Representatives Program (CHR) which was funded at $62.8 million in
fiscal year 2018. The CHR program provides community-based essential
home visiting services to elders and to people of all ages, serving
both medical and psycho-social health needs. These home-based services
increase the involvement of individuals in managing and improving their
own health--especially with chronic disease management--and help
prevent avoidable emergency room visits and hospital re-admissions.
Funding for a New Medical Clinic. The Susanville Indian Rancheria
is in dire need of a new medical clinic. Our current facility is no
longer large enough to house our employees that provide services to our
Indian people in Lassen County. It is not cost effective to update this
very old facility. While we have undertaken the planning of a facility
but we lack the funding for construction. We are pleased to see the
fiscal year 2018 IHS health facility construction funding increase and
encourage you to keep providing such funding for replacement of medical
facilities.
Maintain the Special Diabetes Program Funding as Mandatory. We
oppose the administration's proposal to change the SDPI program from
one which is funded on a mandatory basis to discretionary funding. We
understand that the same would be true for the HHS Community Health
Centers programming. It appears to be a way to require appropriations
subcommittees to have to use their funding allocations for what
previously was mandatory funding and thus not counted against their
allocation. Many people in Indian Country would like all IHS funds to
be mandatory. Making SDPI funds discretionary could open it up to
reductions and also subject it to short-term Continuing Resolutions
thus leading to difficulties in planning and recruiting and retaining
staff.
Continue Full Funding of Contract Support Costs. We are so
appreciative of the House and Senate Interior Appropriations
Subcommittees' support of full and mandatory funding for IHS and BIA
Contract Support Costs and for finding a way to make that happen. This
action has been crucial to the strengthening of Tribal governments'
ability to successfully exercise their rights and responsibilities. We
do feel that the IHS should pay Contact Support Costs on its grant
programs and appreciate the House Committee Report language from fiscal
year 2018 encouraging them to do so.
Reject Funding Rescissions and Protect IHS and BIA from
Sequestration. We are aware that there is an effort among some in
Congress and by the Office of Management and Budget to rescind some
funding made available by the Bipartisan Budget Act and the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2018, and we urge you
reject such a proposal. The bipartisan agreement that was reached
should not be broken. We are grateful for the fiscal year 2018 funding
increases made available for the BIA and IHS--notably in the Facilities
Accounts. Also of particular significance is the increase in funds to
address the national opioid abuse epidemic for which Tribes will
belatedly have direct access.
While we have not had an automatic across-the-board sequestration
of discretionary Federal funds since fiscal year 2013, the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act should nevertheless be amended
to exempt the IHS and BIA from such reductions. Other health programs,
e.g., the Veterans Health Administration, Medicaid grants, and Medicare
payments (except for a 2 percent reduction for administration) are held
harmless.
Thank you for your consideration of the views of the Susanville
Indian Rancheria.
[This statement was submitted by Deana M. Bovee, Tribal
Chairwoman.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Sustainable Urban Forest Coalition
The Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition (SUFC) is comprised of more
than 30 national organizations and corporations representing hundreds
of thousands of professionals and millions of supporters who care and
support sustainable trees and green infrastructure where people live.
Collectively, we are asking for your support for several programs under
the Interior subcommittee's jurisdiction that support urban and
community forests and green infrastructure.
Our Nation's 138 million acres of urban and community forest lands
impact over 190 million Americans that live in these communities and
are vital to creating and maintaining healthy, livable communities of
all sizes by providing many scientifically proven social, economic, and
environmental benefits to people. The ability to mitigate air
pollution, reduce energy consumption, mitigate the heat island effect,
improve human health, and reduce storm water runoff have directly or
indirectly reduced costs in communities by millions of dollars. The
collective value and benefits of community trees equals over $10
billion nationwide. With a projected 394 million Americans living in
urbanized areas by 2050, investing in trees to create livable
communities needs to happen now.
While a Federal input of funds for urban forestry may be questioned
because most urban forestry programs are accomplished at the State and
local level, the Federal support and leadership through the USFS and
overarching program leverages funds ranging from 2:1 to 5:1 in projects
and grants. The Federal ``seed'' money is often the key to including
these programs at the State and local level, the collaboration and
leadership of the care for trees where people live every day in all
sizes of communities across the country results in a cumulative
national urban forest canopy that the Federal Government could not
oversee or fund. Most smaller communities do not have the resources to
practice urban tree management. The Federal funds passed through the
States provides the resources to initiate their programs to manage the
trees in their communities. These same funds set the bar for the
management of the urban tree management in larger communities and at
the State level. This reduces redundancy and sets a standard of care
consistent across the Nation.
SUFC greatly appreciates the leadership and support of this
subcommittee in ensuring level--and even increased --fiscal year 2018
funding levels for these important and effective programs. We ask you
to again reject the drastic cuts proposed in the President's fiscal
year 2019 budget, particularly the zeroing out of programs like Urban
and Community Forestry, Landscape Scale Restoration, and Community
Forests and Open Space Conservation. Defunding or severely cutting
these programs would have profound and lasting repercussions on people
and communities across the country.
usda forest service: state and private forestry
Urban and Community Forestry Program (U&CF)
U&CF directly assists State government, nonprofit organizations and
partners that manage and steward our Nation's urban and community
forests. Working with the State forestry agencies, the program provides
technical, financial, research, and educational support and services to
local government, nonprofit organizations, community groups,
educational institutions, and Tribal governments.
In fiscal year 2016, U&CF reached over 8,200 urban and rural
communities and 200+ million people in all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, U.S. Territories, and affiliated Pacific Island Nations. U&CF
is a high-impact program and a smart investment as Federal support is
often leveraged 2:1 (or in many cases significantly more) by States and
partner organizations. U&CF engages citizens in cities and towns,
brings together diverse partners, public and private resources, and
demonstrates that Federal investment can have huge and lasting impacts
on communities of all sizes.
SUFC is deeply concerned by the President's proposal to defund the
U&CF program in fiscal year 2019. Zeroing out this important program
would completely erode the capacity that has been developed in cities
and towns of all sizes and jeopardize many local public and private
partnerships and collaborative projects in which Federal assistance is
essential. SUFC recommends the Urban and Community Forestry Program be
funded at $31.3 million in fiscal year 2019.
Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR)
The LSR program strategically prioritizes resources by
competitively allocating Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act funds. It
focuses on targeting Federal investments--leveraged by State and local
resources--to areas of greatest need, highest value, or strongest
innovation potential, identified in each State Forest Action Plan.
Urban and community forestry projects along with other cooperative
programs have been supported by LSR in the past. However, we want to
ensure that LSR is not a substitute to the Urban and Community Forestry
program or other cooperative programs, but a supplement. SUFC
recommends funding the Landscape Scale Restoration program at $23.5
million in fiscal year 2019.
Community Forests and Open Space Conservation Program (CFP)
CFP has made substantial progress in preserving forests by
increasing opportunities for Americans to connect with forests in their
own communities and fostering new public-private partnerships. CFP has
supported nearly three dozen community forest projects in cities and
towns across 17 States and Territories. In the latest round of CFP
grants, project partners leveraged $10.6 million in Federal funds to
secure $34.5 million in non-Federal funding, resulting in more than
15,000 acres of community forests. This impressive leveraging ratio
demonstrates the willingness of local entities to match Federal funding
with significant commitments of funding and other resources. SUFC
recommends an increase in funds to $5 million in fiscal year 2019.
Forest Health Management
Forests across the country are threatened by insects and disease
pathogens introduced from abroad as unwanted hitchhikers on imports.
The damage usually starts in urban forests because most imported goods
enter this country through urban ports. As a result, municipal
governments across the country are spending an estimated $3 billion
each year to remove trees on city property killed by non-native pests.
Homeowners are spending an additional $1 billion to remove and replace
trees on their properties and are absorbing an additional $1.5 billion
in reduced property values. These costs are projected to rise to more
than $36 billion as pests spread. The pests do not stay in the cities,
however. They spread to the rural and wildland forests and threaten
their many values. While preventing introductions are the desired
approach, it is essential that the U.S. Forest Service initiate
programs countering these pests as soon as they are detected. Only such
prompt and aggressive actions can protect public and private forests
from massive pest spread and tree devastation. This program provides
essential expertise and assistance to State and municipal agencies and
private landowners working to prevent these pests' spread and to
develop effective strategies to minimize the damage they cause. SUFC
recommends $48 million for cooperative lands programs under the Forest
Health Management program.
usda forest service: forest and rangeland research
SUFC urges the subcommittee to provide $303 million for the overall
R&D program.
Urban and Community Forestry Research
The Forest Service Research and Development (R&D) program provides
critical financial support for urban forestry research activities to
develop information and tools for understanding conditions and trends
in our Nation's urban and community forests. U.S. Forest Service
researchers have made huge strides in recent years through
collaborative efforts to develop new tools, such as i-Tree, for mapping
current tree cover, assessing trends, developing local strategies, and
building greater understanding of the environmental, economic, and
social services that trees and forests provide to communities. We urge
the subcommittee to continue including language in Interior
Appropriations reports encouraging the Forest Service to maintain a
strong and vibrant urban forest research program.
Non-native Insects and Diseases Research
Among the major research challenges facing R&D is the destruction
of our Nation's urban forests caused by non-native insects and
diseases. People who value urban forests join supporters of rural and
wildland forests in depending on Forest Service R&D to develop better
tools for pest detection and protective strategies including chemical
and biological controls and breeding of trees resistant to pests.
Currently, however, Forest Service research stations allocate only
about $3 million for research on non-native insects and diseases--
barely more than 1 percent of its total budget. In the absence of a
budget line item for invasive species research, we urge the
subcommittee to include language in its Interior Appropriations report
encouraging the Forest Service to increase funding for research
targeting non-native insects and pathogens.
Urban Forests in Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
The collaborative efforts between SUFC and the U.S. Forest Service
brought urban forest data into the mainstream of the agency's national
data-collection program. FIA has long provided the Nation's forest
census, but it had not historically included urban areas because of its
definition of forests. We ask the subcommittee to encourage the Forest
Service to continue and strengthen its efforts to integrate urban
forest data into FIA so that its critical data-collection efforts
address all of our Nation's forests, including our current and
expanding 138 million acres of urban forest.
environmental protection agency
Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF)
Green infrastructure, including urban forests, can be a cost-
effective and resilient approach to managing stormwater. The use of
green infrastructure for stormwater control also provides many
community co-benefits enumerated above. SUFC is pleased that EPA
supports the use of green infrastructure for stormwater management and
that green infrastructure is an eligible use under the CWSRF--a
critical financing program for local communities investing in water
infrastructure. CWSRF funding was maintained in the President's
Preliminary fiscal year 2018 Budget proposal at the fiscal year 2017
level of $1.394 billion. SUFC supports robust funding for CWSRF along
with efforts to expand the use of green infrastructure to 20 percent to
meet Clean Water Act goals.
the national park service
Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program (ORLPP)
The State and Local Assistance Program provides matching grants to
States and localities for protection and development of parks and
recreation resources and is the primary Federal investment tool to
ensure that families have easy access to urban forests in parks and
open space, and neighborhood recreation resources. This nationally
competitive program complements the existing State and local assistance
program by creating opportunities for outdoor play as well as
developing or enhancing outdoor recreation partnerships in cities. SUFC
requests $110 million for the State and local assistance program, which
includes $12 million for ORLPP.
sufc members
_______________________________________________________________________
Alliance for Community Trees
American Forests
American Planning Association
American Rivers
American Society of Consulting Arborists
American Society of Landscape Architects
Arbor Day Foundation
Bartlett Tree Foundation
Center for Invasive Species Prevention
City Forest Credits
Green Infrastructure Center
International Society of Arboriculture
Keep America Beautiful
National Association of Clean Water Agencies
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Landscape Professionals
National Association of State Foresters
National Recreation and Park Association
OPEI Foundation
The Davey Foundation
The Nature Conservancy
Society of American Foresters
Society of Municipal Arborists
Student Conservation Association
Tree Care Industry Association
TREE Fund
The Trust for Public Land
Utility Arborist Association
Water Environment Federation
supporters
_______________________________________________________________________
Audubon Naturalist Society
California ReLeaf
California Urban Forests Council
Community Design Assistance, Virginia Tech
Leibman Associates, Inc.
Maryland Environmental Health Network
Maryland Forestry Foundation
Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee
Peninsula Urban Forestry LLC
Rachel Carson Council
ReLeaf Michigan
Shenandoah Valley Network
The Baltimore Tree Trust
Torrice Media
Trees Forever
Woodstock Tree Board
______
Prepared Statement of the Tanana Chiefs Conference
The Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) appreciates the opportunity to
submit written testimony to the subcommittee regarding our priorities
for fiscal year 2019 concerning appropriations for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS). We are grateful for this
subcommittee's bipartisanship, reflected in the final fiscal year 2018
omnibus measure, Public Law 115-141, which Congress passed in March,
and for the positive results the subcommittee has made possible in
Alaska. We ask the subcommittee to build on its successes realized in
the fiscal year 2018 budget when deciding on funding for BIA and IHS
programs for fiscal year 2019.
TCC is a non-profit intertribal consortium of 37 federally-
recognized Indian Tribes and 41 communities located across Alaska's
interior. TCC serves approximately 18,000 Alaska Natives in Fairbanks
where TCC headquarters is located, and in the rural villages in
Alaska's vast interior, located along the 1,400 mile Yukon River and
its tributaries.
To give you an idea of that great distance, Washington, D.C. is
1,400 miles from Oakley, Kansas, which Senator Moran represents.
There's a lot of country between Washington, D.C. and Oakley, Kansas.
Imagine how our 41 Alaska Native communities feel in Alaska's vast
Interior. These villages are remote, often inaccessible by car. Alaska
Native residents must overcome many challenges to sustain healthy
communities, educate their children, ensure their health and safety,
and care for their elders and themselves. This subcommittee, better
than most, understands the great unmet needs in healthcare, public
safety, education and job training faced by Alaska Native communities
which struggle to provide essential services to maintain their members
and culture.
About a year ago, across the capital, in a 2-day hearing held by
your House counterparts, Congressman Tom Cole of Oklahoma laid out the
stark truth; 2016 Federal per capita healthcare spending on Alaska
Natives and American Indians, compared to Federal spending on Medicare,
Veterans, and Medicaid recipients was ``at the absolute bottom, and not
by a little bit, but by a lot.'' The figures don't lie: $2,834 in per
capita spending for IHS medical care expenditures per person versus
$12,744 in Medicare spending for 2016. That is about four and-a-half
times the per capita expenditure level by the IHS. Federal
appropriations for the IHS would need to more than triple just to match
the per capita national health spending level of $9,990 per person.
Congressman Cole could not understand the basis for the administration
proposed cuts to IHS funding the administration proposed that year and
neither could we. He stated that a $300 million cut in IHS funding was
``not defensible or acceptable.''
That is why TCC opposes the administration's fiscal year 2019
budget for IHS. The administration's fiscal year 2019 budget for IHS
Services and Facilities totals $4.451 billion, which is $368 million
below the $4.819 billion enacted by Congress for fiscal year 2018 for
IHS Services and Facilities (excluding Contract Support Costs), which
Congress passed a little over 1 month ago. TCC supports the
recommendation of the National Indian Health Board (NIHB) to fully fund
the IHS through the enactment of a true ``needs based budget,'' phased
in over 12 years, with at least a 33 percent increase (to $6.4 billion)
in IHS funding for fiscal year 2019, as well as providing advance
appropriations for the IHS. So long as the IHS budget is part of the
Interior appropriation, such increases will remain our great collective
challenge.
Nonetheless, we urge the Committee to continue its bipartisan work
and increase fiscal year 2019 appropriations above the fiscal year 2018
enacted level to reduce continued healthcare disparities between Alaska
Native and American Indians and non-Natives. According to the IHS:
--Alaska Natives and American Indians born today have a life
expectancy that is 4.4 years less than the U.S. all races
population (73.7 years to 78.1 years);
--Alaska Natives and American Indians continue to die at higher rates
than other Americans in many categories, including chronic
liver disease and cirrhosis (nearly 5 times the rate), diabetes
mellitus (3 times), unintentional injuries (2.5 times),
assault/homicide (2 times), suicide (2 times), and alcohol-
induced death (7 times);
--According to a 2016 study examining behavioral health programs and
Medicaid in Alaska: ``Statewide gaps in the continuum of care
combined with gaps in healthcare coverage perpetuate a cycle of
crisis response and create costly inefficiencies.''
--According to the CDC, the suicide rate among Alaska Natives is
almost four times the U.S. general population rate and at least
six times the national average in some parts of the State.
--According to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services,
in 2011, over 50 percent of some 4,500 reports of maltreatment
substantiated by Alaska's child protective services, and over
60 percent of nearly 800 children removed from their homes were
Alaska Native children.
We must stop this cycle of abuse and destruction. Alaska Native
villages require the resources to build healthy families and
communities. They do so by ensuring Alaska Native families have such
basic necessities as housing, healthcare and public safety services.
This subcommittee has worked in a bipartisan manner to increase funds
for Alaska Native villages and Tribes in such areas in recognition of
the great unmet needs faced by Alaska Native communities. When the
administration requests so little funding for Tribal needs, it makes
our job, as Tribal advocates, and your job, as Congressional
appropriators, more difficult to obtain a greater share of fiscal year
2019 discretionary dollars for Tribal needs. For rural interior Alaska
Native communities, facing a State budget deficit for fiscal year 2019,
Federal appropriations make the difference between the success and
failure of our efforts and, in turn, the wellness of our Tribal
members. We have faith that this Committee will defend and increase
fiscal year 2019 Federal funding levels for Indian Country.
1. improve tribal health care quality and access (ihs)
Build on the fiscal year 2018 Enacted Budget for IHS. TCC greatly
appreciates the nearly $500 million increase Congress included in the
fiscal year 2018 enacted budget for the Indian Health Service,
including a $244 million increase in funding for IHS Clinical Services,
a $322 million increase in IHS Facilities funding, and full payment of
Contract Support Costs. We are especially appreciative of the $33
million increase in Purchased/Referred Care (P/RC) for fiscal year
2018, $15 million for small ambulatory clinics construction, and $11.5
million for staff quarters, which is critical to our Tribal
communities. TCC remains one of the only Tribal health entities in
Alaska that does not have a regional hospital so our members are more
dependent on village clinics to provide routine and emergency
healthcare. We also rely heavily on P/RC funds. We also appreciate your
acknowledgment that housing shortages in Alaska contribute to the high
vacancy rates for medical personnel, especially in rural areas.
TCC cannot understand why the administration proposes in fiscal
year 2019 to eliminate funding the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund
(-$72 mil.), the Community Health Representatives program (-$62.8
mil.), the Health Education Program (-$19.8 mil.), or reduce funding
for the Alaska Immunization program below the fiscal year 2017 enacted
level. Nor can we understand the administration cutting IHS Facilities
program funding some $40 million below the fiscal year 2017 enacted
level--and $362 million below the fiscal year 2018 level--when our
needs are so great.
TCC greatly appreciates the administration including $150 million
in the fiscal year 2019 budget for the Special Diabetes Program for
Indians (SDPI) and $150 million for Alaska Natives and American Indians
to fight the opioid epidemic. We recommend that this Committee, in
report language, or Congress, in legislation such as the Senate HELP
Committee's S. 2680, the ``Opioid Crisis Response Act of 2018,'' direct
the IHS to allocate the 5 percent set-aside for Tribes in a manner
similar to how the SDPI funds are now allocated, to ensure every Tribal
community receives a share of the $25 million set-aside within the
State Response to the Opioid Abuse Crisis funds.
With respect to the payment of full Contract Support Costs, we are
appreciative of the Committee's use of an indefinite appropriation, as
well as the Committee's direction to IHS in the fiscal year 2018
Conference Report that transfers of Substance Abuse and Suicide
Prevention Program and other funds be awarded to Tribes through Indian
Self-Determination Act compacts and contracts, and not through separate
grants, so that associated ``administrative costs'' will be covered
through the contract support cost process.
The IHS has made its CSC policy, however, unduly complicated and we
urge the subcommittee to continue to monitor that the agency faithfully
implements direction from the subcommittee on this subject as well as
Supreme Court holdings. Full payment of CSCs means just that and the
IHS should not be permitted, by its policies, to undermine that
essential goal.
2. expand public safety and tribal court in interior alaska
As our Chief and President, Victor Joseph, testified last year, we
cannot stress enough the importance village leaders place protecting
our children, and all Tribal members from sexual abuse, domestic
violence and substance abuse. TCC is on record with numerous
resolutions to express our members' exasperation over insufficient
public safety services in our remote Alaska Native Villages. We cannot
state it any clearer: Interior Alaska's rates of sexual abuse, domestic
violence, and child rape are among the highest in the Nation. We have a
crisis.
For that reason, we oppose the proposed cuts to the BIA budget
included in the administration's fiscal year 2019 budget, a reduction
of $600 million below the fiscal year 2018 enacted level of $3 billion,
with a $409 million cut to the BIA Operation of Indian Program (OIP)
programs, including a cut of $55 million to the Public Safety and
Justice funds from the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. TCC urges the
Committee to reject this budget.
We appreciate the Committee's $13 million appropriation in fiscal
year 2018 for Public Law 280 courts and Conference Report language that
expresses the Committee's ``concern'' about Tribal courts' needs
identified in the Indian Law and Order Commission's November 2013
report, which highlighted the fact that ``Federal investment in Tribal
justice in `Public Law 280' States [like Alaska,] has been more limited
than elsewhere in Indian Country.'' The Committee directed the BIA to
work with Tribes and Tribal organizations in Public Law 280 States to
consider options that promote, design, or pilot Tribal court systems
for Tribal communities that are subject to full or partial State
jurisdiction under Public Law 280.
TCC has limited recurring funds to pay for our Village Public
Safety Officer (VPSO) program which works in conjunction with Alaska
State Troopers. Our VPSOs are the ``First Responders in the Last
Frontier'' and they respond to emergency calls, fire, EMS and search
and rescue. With limited funds for public safety, the role of Tribal
Courts in Alaska Native villages is critical. It allows our villages to
address public safety concerns at the community level and break the
cycle of arrest, prosecution and incarceration.
We urge the Committee to provide increased funds for Public Law 280
courts so that we may better address public safety issues in our remote
Interior Alaska Tribal communities. We also appreciate the $7.5 million
in fiscal year 2018 BIA Public Safety and Justice funds to help people
affected by opioid addiction.
3. expand tribal opportunities for job training and economic
development
TCC continues its mission to assist hundreds of Tribal members in
Fairbanks and in our Native villages with CDL classes, employment
training in such areas as facility maintenance, flooring and cabinet
installation, plumbing, plastic and cooper pipe fitting, wildland
firefighting training, and cooking. With unemployment rates among
Alaska Natives and American Indians multiple times the national
unemployment rate of 4.1 percent, we cannot understand the lack of
funding within the BIA's Community and Economic Development Programs,
nor the administration's proposal to reduce fiscal year 2019 funding
for Job Placement and Training by 33 percent, to $8 million. We
appreciate the subcommittee including $12.5 million for fiscal year
2018 for job placement and training and hope that a portion of those
funds reach Alaska Native Villages. There is great dignity in learning
a trade and providing for your family.
Please provide meaningful increases to the BIA budget for these and
related programs in fiscal year 2019 to help promote job creation in
our rural Native villages where work is seasonal and unemployment
remains high. Our current resources are simply inadequate to the task
at hand.
Thank you for permitting the Tanana Chiefs Conference the
opportunity to submit written testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall,
The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is a national
coalition of sportsmen, conservation, and outdoor industry
organizations that seeks to ensure all Americans have access to quality
places to hunt and fish. We partner with 56 hunting, fishing, and
conservation organizations to unite and amplify the voices of America's
more-than 40 million sportsmen and women whose activities help sustain
the $887-billion outdoor recreation economy.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this letter in support of
the critical programs and initiatives within the Department of Interior
(DOI) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that conserve fish
and wildlife habitat, protect clean water flows, combat invasive
species, and preserve recreational opportunities for generations to
come.
As your subcommittee drafts fiscal year 2019 spending legislation
for DOI and the EPA, we ask you to consider our recommendations below
which we believe would constitute sound stewardship of our country's
natural resources. Specifically, we support the following:
302(b) allocation increase: TRCP is encouraged by the fiscal relief
provided by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, which provided a roughly
12-percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending for fiscal
years 2018 and 2019. In February 2018, TRCP submitted a formal request
to full committee leadership for increases to each subcommittee's
302(b) allocation proportional to the overall non-defense increase.
Given the nationwide conservation impact that relies on spending
crafted in your subcommittee, we urge the subcommittee to request an
increase to its 302(b) allocation proportional to the overall non-
defense increase.
For each of the following line items, our requested funding level
will generally reflect a 12 percent increase over fiscal year 2018
enacted appropriations. We believe this figure serves as a reasonable
rule-of-thumb in light of the 12 percent non-defense discretionary
funding increase provided by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.
Land and Water Conservation Fund: Our organization's defining
mission is to guarantee all Americans a quality place to hunt and fish,
and the Land and Water Conservation Fund provides a direct source of
funding to accomplish this goal. Since its establishment in 1965, the
LWCF has been used to invest more than $16 billion in conservation and
outdoor recreation by establishing new public fishing areas, opening
new access to landlocked public lands, and acquiring land specifically
to benefit fish, wildlife, and the sporting public. While TRCP and its
partners continue to build support for permanent reauthorization of the
LWCF prior to the program's expiration this year, we strong encourage
the subcommittee to provide strong and stable funding for the program.
We request $476,000,000 in funding for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund.
EPA Geographic Programs: TRCP sincerely thanks Congress for
robustly funding EPA's Geographic Programs in fiscal year 2018, in
light of the administration's budget request which zeroed-out these
critical programs. The EPA Geographic Programs provide necessary
Federal investments, leveraged several-fold by State and local dollars,
to improve the quality of water and wetlands habitat for fish and
wildlife, such as menhaden, Canadian geese, and other game species, of
great import to the sportsmen's community, among other purposes.
We request $500,000,000 in total for the EPA Geographic Programs.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF): This program is the basis
for critical partnerships between States and the Federal Government
that allows States to address their highest priority water quality
needs. We support the program's efforts to fund nature-based
infrastructure and water quality improvement projects, as well as its
work to protect estuaries. CWSRF projects are key to ensuring fish and
wildlife habitats are maintained.
We request $1,561,153,000 for the EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
Wetlands Program Development Grants: These categorical grants allow
State, Tribal, and local governments to protect, manage, and restore
wetlands, and they are an important component of any infrastructure
investment. This voluntary program is crucial for restoration of a
former or degraded wetland's restoration to their former States. In
Colorado alone, these funds have helped to restore hundreds of
thousands of acres of wildlife habitat and over 200 miles of streams.
We request $16,420,000 for EPA's Wetlands Program Development grants.
Nonpoint Source (Section 319) Grants: Today, more streams are
impaired due to nonpoint sources of pollution than by point sources,
which makes the Nonpoint Source Grant program more important than ever.
These funds are important for helping States to take watershed-based
approaches to the restoration of waters harmed by nonpoint source
pollution. Section 319 grants have been used partially or fully to
restore 674 waterbodies, including the Corsica River Tributaries, which
significantly decreased nutrient discharges into the Chesapeake Bay,
and the Lower Rio Blanco, which provided year-long trout habitat.
We request $191,425,000 for EPA's Section 319 grants.
National Estuary Program and Coastal Waterways: The National
Estuary Program at EPA works to protect 28 key estuaries around the
United States, including the Puget Sound, an important area to anglers
that is home to cutthroat trout and salmon. This program works with
State and local agencies as well as local nonprofits to create
Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans that protect and improve
the water quality and ecological integrity of each estuary. TRCP
supports robust funding for this program. Without these funds, the
progress made to rehabilitate these estuaries will be lost.
We request $29,930,000 for the National Estuary and Coastal Waterways
Program.
Water Quality Research and Support Grants: As water supplies become
more stressed due to increased demand on a limited supply, it is key to
have the science and tools available to develop sustainable solutions
to water management issues. The EPA's Water Quality Research and
Support Grants help ensure water quality and availability for people
and fish and wildlife habitat. The Chesapeake Bay, in particular, has
benefited greatly from this program since two ongoing studies are
working to decrease pollution that comes into the Bay. Ending this
grant program would have long-term negative consequences for fish and
wildlife that depend on the Chesapeake Bay.
Having been unfunded in the fiscal year 18 omnibus spending bill, we
request the EPA's Water Quality Research and Support Grants program to
be fully funded at its authorized level.
Hunters, anglers, and outdoor recreationists carry on long held
traditions that contribute greatly to our Nation's culture while
providing a financial foundation for land and water conservation
efforts. Outdoor recreation spending is an economic engine across the
country--Alaska sees $7.3 billion annually in consumer spending,
supporting 72,000 jobs, while in New Mexico those figures are $9.9
billion and 99,000, respectively. Effective management of our natural
resources is necessary to enable the long term enjoyment of America's
outdoors, and we believe that the investments requested above would
constitute strong stewardship of those resources and enable future
generations to maintain pursuit of our shared passions.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony, and we look
forward to working with you and your colleagues as fiscal year 2019
spending legislation progresses through Congress.
Sincerely,
Whit Fosburgh
President & CEO
______
Prepared Statement of the United States Department of Agriculture
Employees Concerning the New Telework Policy
Dear Committee Members:
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Specifically
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue issued a new Telework Policy dated
01/04/2018; which severely limits the amount of time USDA employees may
telework from an alternate location. This appears to be directed at
customer service type USDA positions; however, does not distinguished.
This new policy also does not distinguish differences between permanent
telework; which is full time from an alternate location, and routine
telework, which is scheduled work from an alternate location less than
full time.
Secretary Perdue and the USDA says, ``USDA supports programs that
improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion, reduce the cost of
office space, and assist employees in managing their work and family
life.'' \1\ However, with Mr. Purdue's recent change in the Departments
telework policy this appears not to be the case. Previously, eligible
employees were able to telework up to 4 days per week, with at least 2
days per pay period working from their official duty location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.dm.usda.gov/employ/worklife/telework/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Departments updated telework policy, dated 01/04/2018,
stipulates an employee must telework a MAXIMUM of 2 days per pay
period. In addition, employees must work from their official duty
location at least 4 days per work. So if an employee works a 10 hour
compressed schedule 4 days a week, this policy essentially dictates
that employee can no longer telework. This policy punishes employees
who choose to have a solid work-life balance and accomplishes their
assigned work from an alternate duty location.
There are many positions within USDA are customer facing, which
need for staff to be in those offices; these positions should be
identify and addresses separately. There are a vast range of position
which are not customer facing and there is not a need for employees to
be in one centralized office, regional office, or headquarters (HQ)
office (i.e.; USDA staff, agency HQ staff, NASS, Compliance offices,
OIG, OGC, Etc.).
Employees at all levels have made personal decisions regarding
employment, work/life balance, where to live, etc. all based on the
previous policy, U.S. Code, Public Law, etc. allowing telework to the
maximum extent possible. ``Each executive agency shall establish a
policy under which eligible employees of the agency may participate in
telecommuting to the MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE within diminished employee
performance.'' \2\ This new telework policy may violate the U.S. Code,
if not in specific texts, at least in the spirit of the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Public Law 106-346, Sec. 101(a) [title III, Sec. 359], Oct. 23,
2000, 114 Stat. 1356, 1356A-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the fiscal year 2016 Status of Telework in the Federal
Government Report to Congress, the Acting Director stated; `Telework is
an important tool for promoting Government efficiency, performance, and
emergency preparedness. I commend Federal agencies for the remarkable
evolution of telework as a strategic tool in support of agency missions
and in service to the American people.'' \3\ This new policy will
increase overhead costs including: office space rent, utilities,
transit subsidies, etc. and the morale of employees will plummet. Many
agencies have been using telework in the past years in order to
accomplish their mission. With decreasing budgets, telework is a way to
reduce overhead costs; which can be redirected to other programs or
mission in order to better serve the agriculture community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.telework.gov/reports-studies/reports-to-congress/
2017-report-to-congress.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the fiscal year 2016 State of Telework on the Federal Government
Report to Congress,\4\ the USDA identified goals for telework (Appendix
19) including Goal of employee recruitment, Goal of employee retention,
Goal of improved employee attitudes, Goal of emergency preparedness,
and Goal of reduced commuter miles. With this change to the USDA
teleworking policy, there is no upside; the new policy will have a
negative effect on all of these goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.telework.gov/reports-studies/reports-to-congress/
2017-report-to-congress.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your time and I hope you will address this new policy
with the Department to gain an understanding of why this change was
needed, why eligibility and specific direction was not left to the
individual agency or staff leadership, the cost of this change among
other questions.
______
Prepared Statement of the United States Geological Survey Coalition
The USGS Coalition appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony
about fiscal year 2019 appropriations for the United States Geological
Survey (USGS). The USGS Coalition requests that Congress to fund the
USGS at $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2019. The requested funding would
allow the agency to sustain current efforts in scientific discovery and
innovation and to make strategic investments that will produce the
impartial knowledge and decision support tools needed by decision-
makers across the country.
Few modern problems can be addressed by a single scientific
discipline. The USGS is uniquely positioned to provide information and
inform responses to many of the Nation's greatest challenges. The USGS
is an agency that has a distinctive capacity to deploy truly
interdisciplinary teams of experts to gather data, conduct research,
and develop integrated decision support tools that improve ecosystem
management, ensure accurate assessments of our water quality and
quantity, reduce risks from natural and human-induced hazards, deliver
timely assessments of mineral and energy resources, and provide
emergency responders with accurate geospatial data and maps.
The USGS Coalition is an alliance of more than 80 organizations united
by a commitment to the continued vitality of the United States
Geological Survey to provide critical data and services. Coalition
members include scientific organizations, universities, businesses, and
natural resource managers.
essential services for the nation
The USGS plays a unique role within the Department of the Interior,
conducting research across a broad array of scientific disciplines and
providing data that informs responses to many of the Nation's greatest
challenges. To highlight just a few examples, USGS scientists:
--Reduce risks from natural hazards--including earthquakes,
landslides, volcanic eruptions, flooding, drought, and
wildfires--that jeopardize human lives and result in billions
of dollars in damages annually.
--Inform management of freshwater resources--both above and below the
land surface--for drinking water, agriculture, and commercial,
industrial, recreational, and ecological purposes.
--Inform sound management of natural resources on Federal and State
lands, including control of invasive species and wildlife
diseases that cause billions of dollars in economic losses.
This information is shared with other Interior bureaus and
State agencies to allow for adequate monitoring and management.
--Provide vital geospatial and mapping data used in economic
development, environmental management, infrastructure projects,
and scientific applications by States, Federal agencies, and
the private sector.
--Help predict the impacts of land use and climatic conditions on the
availability of water resources and the frequency of wildfires.
The Landsat satellites have collected the largest archive of
remotely sensed land data in the world, which informs
agriculture production and our Nation's response to and
mitigation of natural hazards.
--Help make decisions about the Nation's energy future by assessing
mineral and energy resources--including rare earth elements,
coal, oil, unconventional natural gas, and geothermal. The USGS
is the sole Federal source of information on mineral potential,
production, and consumption.
funding
Over the years, Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to
provide essential funding to the USGS. These efforts have paid
dividends and helped the USGS provide answers to the challenging
questions facing decision-makers across the country.
The fiscal year 2019 budget proposes cuts of up to 20 percent for
the USGS. The proposed funding level for USGS is very troubling, as the
agency has made numerous economies in recent years. Any cuts in fiscal
year 2019 or beyond would come at the expense of scientific programs.
As a science agency, much of the USGS budget is dedicated to salaries
and equipment that must be maintained and updated to ensure the
continuity of data acquisition and that the data gathered are reliable
and available for future scientific investigations. We believe that the
leadership of the USGS is doing all they can, and has been for a number
of years, to contain costs while continuing to deliver high quality
science.
One strength of the USGS has been its partnerships with many other
Federal agencies, States, local governments, and private entities.
These relationships, however, should not be mistaken as a means to
transfer Federal activities to other entities. The work of the USGS is
uniquely tied to the agency, as shown in the following examples.
--Expected losses from natural hazards in the U.S. are approaching $6
billion per year. These losses can be significantly reduced
through informed decisions guided by the most current and
thoroughly-researched understanding of the hazards, risks, and
cost of mitigation. The USGS Science Application for Risk
Reduction Project was created to innovate the application of
hazard science for the safety, security, and economic well-
being of the Nation by directing new and existing scientific
research toward addressing gaps in vulnerability to help
communities build resilience to natural hazards.
--Precise elevation data is needed for a variety of applications,
including farming, infrastructure construction, flood
mitigation, and avian safety. The U.S., however, does not yet
have national coverage of high-quality topographic data. Given
its expertise in mapping, the USGS is the lead entity for the
3D Elevation Program, which will acquire precise national
elevation data coverage within 8 years. The program is
estimated to provide benefits worth $1.1 billion a year to
government and private entities.
--Nearly half of America's drinking water comes from underground
aquifers. The large size of some aquifers, which can span the
boundaries of multiple States, puts them beyond the scope of
local water authorities. The USGS is evaluating water quality
in 20 principal aquifers as part of the National Water-Quality
Assessment Project. The program is testing for contaminants,
such as pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and other pollutants that
threaten human health.
--A major geomagnetic storm has the potential to cause a continent-
wide loss of electricity and substantial damage to power-grid
infrastructure. Although these events are rare, they do occur,
such as the 1989 geomagnetic storm that disrupted power to the
entire Canadian province of Quebec. The USGS monitors Earth's
magnetic field at 14 ground stations across the U.S. This
information is critical for utility companies, who use the
resulting geoelectric hazard maps to assess the vulnerability
of their systems and to mitigate the predicted damages, thereby
preventing costly power outages.
--A potash mineral deposit worth $65 billion was identified in
Michigan as a result of the National Geological and Geophysical
Data Preservation Program. The initiative catalogs and archives
geological samples acquired during oil, gas, and mineral
exploration. The program is run by the USGS and helps States to
preserve and inventory their geological samples and data. The
rock samples from Michigan were entered into a national
database, where mining companies discovered their existence and
are now assessing the potential for mining potash in Michigan.
Without USGS funding, these mineral samples and their potential
for new revenue and jobs would likely not have been discovered.
--Recent research by the USGS identified the potential for avian flu
to move between Europe and North America when migratory birds
congregate in Iceland during their migration. Wildlife diseases
threaten not only the ecosystem and economic values of wild
animals, but can also jeopardize human health. The USGS has
unique technical expertise for surveillance and diagnosis of
wildlife disease, such as identifying a potential transmission
route of a deadly disease.
conclusion
We recognize the financial challenges facing the Nation, but losing
irreplaceable data can increase costs to society today and in the
future. Data not collected and analyzed today is data lost forever.
This is particularly significant for environmental monitoring systems,
where the loss of a year's data can limit the scope and reliability of
long-term dataset analysis. Moreover, the United States Geological
Survey has a national mission that extends beyond the boundaries of the
Nation's public lands to positively impact the lives of all Americans.
For these reasons, the USGS Coalition requests that Congress work to
provide $1.2 billion for USGS in fiscal year 2019.
The USGS Coalition appreciates the subcommittee's past leadership
in strengthening the United States Geological Survey. Thank you for
your thoughtful consideration of this request.
[This statement was submitted by Elizabeth Duffy, Chair.]
______
Prepared Statement of the United Tribes Technical College
United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has for 49 years, and with
the most basic of funding, provided postsecondary career and technical
education and family services to some of the most impoverished high
risk Indian students from throughout the Nation. Despite such
challenges we have consistently had excellent retention and placement
rates and are fully accredited by the Higher Learning Commission. We
are proud of our role in helping to break generational poverty and in
helping to build a strong Indian Country middle class by training the
next generation of law enforcement officers, educators, medical
providers, and administrators; however, the need is great and we need
to expand our efforts. We are governed by the five Tribes located
wholly or in part in North Dakota. We are not part of the North Dakota
University System and do not have a tax base nor do we receive State-
appropriated funds.
The funding requests of the UTTC Board for fiscal year 2019 Bureau
of Indian Education (BIE)/Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are:
--$11 million for the line item, Tribal Technical Colleges which
compares to the fiscal year 2018 enacted level of $7.5 million
and the administration's fiscal year 2019 request of $6.5
million. Of our requested amount, $6.8 million is BIE funding
for our Indian Self-Determination Act contract.
--Continue fully funding Contract Supports Costs with establishment
of permanent, full, mandatory-funding.
--Continue full funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs for tribally-
operated elementary/secondary schools.
--Establishment of a tribally-administered Northern Plains law
enforcement training center at UTTC.
Thank you for supporting forward funding for UTTC several years ago
and for supporting the forward funding for the remaining Tribal
colleges and universities (TCUs) in the fiscal year 2018 appropriations
bill, which includes Tribal and BIE-operated colleges on this schedule.
TCUs are authorized under differing titles of the Tribally
Controlled Colleges and Universities Act and there are other statutory
authorities for three institutions administered through the Bureau of
Indian Education.
Base Funding. UTTC administers our BIE funding under an Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act agreement, and has done
so for 41 years. The UTTC portion of the Tribal Technical Colleges line
item should be $6.8 million based on an $11 million appropriation.
Acquisition of additional base funding is critical to our struggle to
maintain course offerings and services to provide educational services
at the same level as our State counterparts. BIE funds are central to
the viability of our core postsecondary education programs and overall
mission as a TCU. The following examples provide three of our most
successful areas of study directed at addressing workforce shortage
areas.
The nurse shortage is one example and one reason why the Associate
of Applied Science in Practical Nursing Program is the most popular
program offered. Licensed practical nursing (LPN) positions are readily
available in Bismarck, North Dakota, and throughout the Nation.
Workforce development data project the need will continue to 2030 in
part due to the aging population (Baby Boom), nurse retirement, and
nurse faculty shortages. These factors result is nursing programs
restricting student admission, as there are not enough faculty to meet
the faculty/student ratio requirements of State Boards of Nursing.
Business related programs are the second most popular and are set
up as 2 + 2 program with the associates degree setting the foundation
for a bachelor's degree should the student wish to continue their
education to the next level. A significant need for administrators and
human resource personnel continues to exist throughout North Dakota and
the Great Plains Regions among Tribal and non-Tribal communities.
Criminal Justice is setup much the same with associate's degree
serving as the foundation for transition into the bachelor's degree
program, and prepares graduates for employment as Federal, State, or
Tribal law enforcement, in a variety of areas. A huge shortage of law
enforcement officers exist throughout the Great Plains and throughout
Indian Country. Graduates may also consider the opportunity to enter
law as there is a significant shortage of law trained personnel within
Tribal judicial systems. The Oil Boom brought significant resources to
North Dakota communities; however, the financial impact also resulted
in a significant increase in crime such as substance abuse (opioid,
methamphetamine, and heroin) and the resulting social ills such as
human trafficking and domestic violence. A partnership with Lake Region
State College of the North Dakota University System is under
development that will enhance both of our Criminal Justice programs
through the sharing of faculty and resources.
Funding for United Tribes Technical College is a good investment.
We have:
--Higher Learning Commission Accreditation through 2021. A campus
site visit held in April 2017 indicated we have a firm
foundation for furthering efforts as a data driven institution.
We offer 1 diploma, 4 certificates, 14 Associate degrees, and 4
Bachelor degree programs of study (Criminal Justice; Elementary
Education; Business Administration; Environmental Science and
Research). Business Management, Criminal Justice, Medical
Coding and General Studies are fully available and offered
online. UTTC continues to be the only TCU in the country
approved by the Higher Learning Commission to offer full
programs online.
--Services including a Child Development Center, family literacy
program, wellness center, area transportation, K-7 BIE-funded
elementary school, tutoring, counseling, family and single
student housing, and campus security.
--A projected return on Federal investment of 20-1 (2005 study).
--From 2016-2017, UTTC had a fall to fall retention rate of 38.4
percent and a 2017 fall semester persistence rate of 49
percent. Of the 68 graduates in 2017, 45 students were
employed, for a placement rate of 66 percent. Additionally, 14
of those graduates continued their education.
--Students from 51 Tribes were represented at UTTC during the 2016--
2017 academic year.
--Our students are very low income, and 69.6 percent of our
undergraduate students receive Pell Grants in 2016-2017.
--An unduplicated count of 557 undergraduate degree-seeking students
and 4 non-degree seeking students; 1,382 continuing education
students; and 28 dual credit enrollment high school students
for a total of 1,571 of all students for 2016-2017.
--A critical role in the regional economy. A North Dakota State
University study reports that the five Tribal colleges in North
Dakota made a direct and secondary economic contribution to the
State of $192,911,000 in 2016 and UTTC had a $59.6 million
dollar direct and secondary economic impact on the Bismarck/
Mandan communities for the same period.
Contract Support Costs. As mentioned above, we administer our BIE
funding through an Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act contract, and thus Contract Support Costs (CSC) are vital to us. We
thank the House and Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittees for
the recognition of the legal obligation the Federal Government has to
pay Tribal contractors their full CSC. This has been an enormously
important development for Indian Tribes. We appreciate that the last
three appropriations acts place Contract Support Costs for the BIA and
the Indian Health Service (IHS) in their own accounts and that they are
funded at an indefinite amount, thus assuring full funding. Given that
this funding status for CSC is year to year, we join with others in
Indian Country in supporting a long-term legislative solution that will
provide full and permanent funding for Contact Support Costs. Placing
CSC funding on a mandatory basis is the logical resolution to a long-
term solution for CSC that will also protect the programs funded on a
discretionary basis in the BIA and IHS budgets.
Tribal Grant Support Costs for K-12 Tribally-Operated Schools. We
have a BIE-funded elementary school on our campus, the Theodore
Jamerson Elementary School, and thus many of our college students and
their children attend school on the same campus. For these elementary
schools, Tribal Grant Support Costs are the equivalent of Contract
Support Costs for Tribes although authorized under different statutory
authorities. We thank you for providing what is estimated to be full
funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs in fiscal year 2018 ($81
million).
A Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy. We again ask
Congress to seriously look at the problem of addressing crime in Indian
Country with an eye toward the establishment of a campus-based academy
for training of law enforcement officers at UTTC. We ask that you
direct the Secretary of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to
work with the Northern Plains Tribes and others on the timely
development of a plan for the establishment of an academy to better
serve the Tribes residing in the Northern tier of the United States.
Establishment of such an academy at UTTC continues to be strongly
supported by the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association (GPTCA) via
Resolution 5-1-20-16. The Resolution requests that the Secretary of
Interior and the BIA consult with the Tribes on the details of a plan
for establishment of the Academy. Cultural and legal differences
further support why such training should be tribally-directed in order
to be appropriate for the realities of Tribal communities within
different parts of the Indian Country. North Dakota and other northern
border regions have special problems relating to drug and human
trafficking. Additionally, the expanded Tribal authorities under the
Tribal Law and Order Act and the Violence Against Women Act, and the
Murdered Missing Indigenous Women movement, only further the importance
of trained law enforcement officers within our Tribal communities.
State and national training resources would have an important role in
this new endeavor. Given our Criminal Justice program, our location and
our campus resources, we propose the establishment of a Northern Plains
Indian Law Enforcement Academy.
Basic law enforcement training is currently provided through the
BIA's Indian Police Academy in Artesia, New Mexico, which often has
waiting lists. The BIA is depending on the basic training provided by
State academies to supplement what is provided at Artesia. UTTC is well
positioned with regard to providing both basic and supplemental law
enforcement training. An academy at UTTC would allow Tribal people in
the Great Plains and other nearby regions a more affordable choice for
training locations while minimizing the distance and long separation of
trainees from their families.
In short, the BIA should be utilizing and enhancing the resources
of UTTC to make a real difference in the law enforcement capability in
Indian Country. We can offer college credit to trainees, and our
facilities include the use of a state-of-the-art crime scene simulator.
Maintaining safe communities is a critical component of economic
development for our Tribal Nations, and local control of law
enforcement training resources is a key part of that effort.
We know Members of this subcommittee have made a point to visit
places in Indian Country and we would love to be able to arrange for
you to visit United Tribes Technical College. Thank you for your
consideration of our requests. Hecetu yedo. (It is so)
[This statement was submitted by Leander R. McDonald, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Western Governors' Association
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the
subcommittee, the Western Governors' Association (WGA) appreciates the
opportunity to provide written testimony on the appropriations and
activities of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). My name is
James D. Ogsbury and I am the Association's Executive Director. WGA is
an independent organization representing the Governors of 19 western
States and three U.S Territories in the Pacific. The Association is an
instrument of the Governors for bipartisan policy development,
information-sharing and collective action on issues of critical
importance to the western United States.
The agencies within the subcommittee's jurisdiction wield
significant influence over vast areas of the American West. Ninety-four
percent of all Federal lands are located in the western States and the
Federal Government owns over 46 percent of the land within active WGA
States. The work of this subcommittee is of vital importance to Western
Governors, as it establishes how these lands are managed and how
Federal agencies interact with other levels of government and the
public.
There is a certain level of tension between States and the Federal
Government, one that is embedded in the very fabric of our
Constitution. These different layers of government must have a close
and productive working relationship to increase efficiencies and
maximize returns on taxpayer investments. The promotion of a greater
partnership between States and the Federal Government is central to the
mission of WGA and is reflected in our Policy Resolution 2017-01,
Building a Stronger State-Federal Relationship, which I commend to your
attention.
Western Governors are eager to work with the Department of the
Interior (DOI) to improve its efficiency, effectiveness, and
accountability through deliberate and thorough consideration of the
anticipated effects of its proposed reorganization. Governors have
urged and continue to urge DOI to engage in meaningful, substantive
consultation with States' top-elected officials on departmental
reorganization, including the proposed revision of its regional office
boundaries. Reorganization offers an excellent opportunity to improve
State and Federal consultation, coordination, and communication.
The promotion of greater partnership between States and the Federal
Government is central to the mission of WGA and a key theme of two
ongoing WGA projects: the National Forest and Rangeland Management
Initiative and the Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act
Initiative. Responsible forest and rangeland management can only occur
when Federal, State and local stakeholders work collaboratively to
increase the health and resilience of our lands. Likewise, fish and
wildlife conservation, essential to preserving the heritage of the
West, is only possible through the cooperative efforts of State and
Federal officials across multiple disciplines.
The National Forest and Rangeland Management Initiative has develop
strategies to improve public land management regimes in the West.
Western Governors are pleased that the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2018, addresses the pressing problem of ``fire borrowing,'' by which
funding for routine Federal land management activities has been
transferred to firefighting activities. The measure also includes a
number of forest management reforms, many of which are recommended by
the WGA initiative. Western Governors appreciate your leadership in
enacting these commonsense, bipartisan solutions to problems land
managers face in Western States. I hope the Governors' recommendations
will continue to inform congressional action to address these
challenges.
Western Governors believe that States should be full partners in
the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and have the
opportunity to participate in listing decisions, critical habitat
designations, recovery planning and delisting decisions. The Act is
premised on a strong State-Federal partnership. Section 6(a) of the ESA
states that: ``In carrying out the program authorized by the Act, the
Secretary shall cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the
States.'' WGA submits that such cooperation should involve meaningful
consultation opportunities for States to comment, participate, or
undertake proactive measures before the Federal Government takes action
under the ESA.
States possess primary authority to manage most fish and wildlife
within their borders, and they are the principal recipients of economic
benefits associated with healthy species and ecosystems. At the same
time, species listings and their associated prohibitions and
consultations can affect Western States' abilities to promote economic
development, accommodate population growth, and maintain and expand
infrastructure. Consequently, States should have the right to intervene
in judicial and administrative proceedings regarding the ESA. Western
Governors urge the subcommittee to support the legal standing of States
to participate in administrative and judicial actions involving ESA
that, by their nature, implicate State authority and resources.
For the past 5 years, the subcommittee has adopted report language
directing Federal land managers to use State fish and wildlife data and
analyses as principal sources to inform land use, land planning and
related natural resource decisions. Western Governors are deeply
appreciative of your commitment to promote a positive relationship
between the States and the Federal Government in the use of wildlife
data while respecting the limitations of State data privacy laws.
Federal managers need data-driven science, mapping and analyses to
effectively manage wildlife species and habitat, and in many cases
States generate the best available wildlife science. Western Governors
encourage coordination between Federal and State agencies on wildlife
data collection to avoid spending scarce resources on duplicative data
collection efforts.
With respect to funding levels of appropriated programs, WGA
recommends the enactment and full funding of a permanent and stable
funding mechanism for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program
administered by DOI. PILT funding does not represent a gift to local
jurisdictions; rather it provides important compensation for the
disproportionate acreage of non-taxable Federal lands in the West.
Similarly, payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act (SRS) are critical to compensating communities whose
timber industries have been negatively impacted by actions and
acquisitions of the Federal Government. Western Governors hope that you
will appropriate full funding for both PILT and SRS payments in fiscal
year 2019.
Data for water management and drought response planning is critical
to Western States. Western Governors request adequate funding levels
for the Cooperative Water Program and National Streamflow Information
Program, both administered by the U.S. Geological Survey. This data is
integral to the water supply management decisions of States, utilities,
reservoir operators and farmers. They are also used for flood forecasts
and are, accordingly, essential for risk assessment and water
management. These two programs are important elements of a robust water
data management framework in the Western States, and they provide
needed support for drought mitigation efforts throughout the West.
Infrastructure management is another crucial element of drought
response. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) provide necessary support
for communities to maintain and enhance their water infrastructure.
Western Governors' Policy Resolution 2017-04, Water Quality in the
West, encourages adequate funding for SRFs.
Western Governors continue to be concerned about the number of wild
horses and burros on BLM lands. This number is presently estimated to
be almost triple the current Appropriate Management Level (AML).
Overpopulation can degrade rangeland, causing harmful effects on
wildlife and domestic livestock and threatened and endangered species
habitat. WGA supports a process to establish, monitor and adjust AMLs
for wild horses and burros that is transparent to stakeholders,
supported by scientific information (including State data), and
amenable to adaptation with new information and environmental and
social change.
The spread of invasive quagga and zebra mussels continues to be a
major threat to Western water resources. To combat this threat, Western
Governors request that the BLM, FWS, and NPS are provided with both the
resources and statutory authority required to implement mandatory
inspection and decontamination of all high-risk watercraft infested
with quagga and zebra mussels leaving waterbodies under their
jurisdiction.
Western Governors previously expressed concern regarding the
development of the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) 2015
Clean Water Rule, as States were not adequately consulted by the
agencies during the rulemaking process. EPA and USACE have recently
begun efforts to promulgate new language to clarify the jurisdictional
boundaries of the Clean Water Act and have taken positive steps to
engage WGA and individual States with respect to this issue. WGA looks
forward to working with the agencies to develop a new rule that takes
into account the viewpoints of the Western Governors and adequately
protects States' primary authority over the management and allocation
of water resources.
States have exclusive authority over the allocation and
administration of rights to groundwater located within their borders
and are primarily responsible for protecting, managing, and otherwise
controlling the resource. The regulatory reach of the Federal
Government was not intended to, and should not, be applied to the
management and control of groundwater resources. WGA encourages
Congress to include express and unambiguous language protecting States'
authority over groundwater resources in any water-related legislation,
as well as clear direction to administrative agencies to respect such
authority. Accordingly, WGA appreciates the language included in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, addressing existing statutory
authorities for groundwater protection. Federal agencies should work
through existing State authorities to address their groundwater-related
needs and concerns. Such collaboration will help ensure that Federal
efforts involving groundwater recognize and respect State primacy and
comply with all statutory authorities.
States also possess delegated authority from EPA to manage air
quality within their borders. Congress and EPA should recognize State
authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and accord States sufficient
flexibility to create air quality and emissions programs tailored to
individual State needs, industries, and economies. State CAA programs
require financial support from Congress, yet funding has declined since
the CAA's enactment. In addition, given the unique character of the
West and the region's attainment challenges, funding should be
appropriated for EPA to assist Western States in research on
background, interstate and transported ozone. More frequent and intense
wildfires are steadily reducing the West's gains in air quality
improvement. Smoke from wildfires causes exceedances under NAAQS for
particulate matter and ozone, impacting public health, safety and
transportation. Smoke management programs and prescribed fire (which is
managed according to State SIPs) can reduce these impacts but is
currently underutilized.
Improving electricity transmission and distribution siting and
permitting is also a priority of Western Governors. WGA encourages
congressional direction to Federal departments and agencies to work
with States on identifying infrastructure locations and expediting the
permitting of facilities that improve the reliability and resilency of
electricity in the Western States.
Western Governors and Federal land management agencies deal with a
complex web of interrelated natural resource issues. It is an enormous
challenge to judiciously balance competing needs in this environment,
and Western Governors appreciate the difficulty of the decisions this
subcommittee must make. The foregoing recommendations are offered in a
spirit of cooperation and respect, and WGA is prepared to assist you in
discharging these critical and challenging responsibilities.
______
Prepared Statement of the Western States Water Council
The Western States Water Council (WSWC) is a government entity and
instrumentality of each and every participating member State, created
pursuant to a Western Governors' resolution in 1965. Our mission is to
ensure that the West has an adequate, secure and sustainable supply of
water of suitable quality to meet its diverse economic and
environmental needs now and in the future. The Council is currently
comprised of 18 States, including the 17 Reclamation States and Alaska.
Water is a vital resource the availability of which has and continues
to circumscribe growth, development, economic opportunity and our
social and environmental quality of life. The following Federal
policies and programs in support of State water needs require adequate
and continuing appropriations.
federally reserved indian water rights
The public interest and sound public policy require the resolution
of federally reserved Indian water rights claims in a manner that is
least disruptive to existing uses of water, and the negotiated
quantification of Tribal water rights claims is a highly desirable
process which can achieve quantifications fairly, efficiently, and with
the least cost. Indian water rights settlements involve a waiver of
both Tribal water right claims and Tribal breach of trust claims that
otherwise could result in court-ordered judgments against the United
States and increase costs for Federal taxpayers. The successful
resolution of certain claims may require ``physical solutions,'' such
as development of Federal water projects and improved water delivery
and application techniques to provide the Tribes with ``wet'' water.
The Western States Water Council urges the Congress to make a
strong fiscal commitment for meaningful Federal contributions towards
the negotiation and implementation of tribal water rights settlements
that recognizes the trust obligations of the United States Government.
Further, settlements are not and should not be defined as Congressional
earmarks. In addition, settlements should be funded without a
corresponding offset or cuts to some other Tribal or essential Interior
Department programs.
reclamation fund
The Western States Water Council strongly supports the
appropriation and use of receipts that accrue to the Reclamation Fund
for their intended purpose of financing authorized western water
projects and programs, including infrastructure related to Tribal water
rights settlements. While Interior has identified needs totaling $1.5
billion for projects related to Tribal water rights settlements, only
$100.7 million was requested for fiscal year 2019.
The unobligated balance in the Reclamation Fund at the end of
fiscal year 2017 was $13.824 billion and is estimated to be $15.442
billion by the end of fiscal year 2019. This unobligated balance
continues to grow larger and larger as Reclamation Fund receipts are in
fact spent elsewhere for other Federal purposes contrary to the
Congress' original intent. The unobligated balance essentially reduces
Federal borrowing to finance other Federal expenditures.
Regarding funding for the U.S. Geological Survey, Council member
States and political subdivisions have long been partners in
cooperative Federal water data collection and analysis programs,
particularly the Groundwater and Streamflow Information (streamgaging)
Program, as well as the Water Availability and Use Science Program. The
Council also strongly supports continuing the National Land Imaging
Program, including existing thermal imaging capabilities, and expresses
its strong support for the expedited construction and launch of Landsat
9. Many of our member States use the thermal infrared image data,
archived and distributed by the USGS, to measure and monitor
consumptive water use, particularly agricultural water use, now made
available from Landsat 7 and Landsat 8.
The Council urges the Congress to give a high priority to the
allocation and appropriation of sufficient funds for these critical,
vital USGS water resources observation and data gathering and
management programs, which benefit so many. Inadequate funding allows
the programs and equipment to erode to the point that it threatens the
quantity and quality of basic data provided to a myriad, growing and
diffuse number of decisionmakers and stakeholders, with significantly
adverse consequences. There is a serious need for adequate and
consistent Federal funding to maintain, restore, modernize, and upgrade
Federal water observation and data management programs, not only to
avoid the loss or further erosion of critical information and data, but
also to address new emerging needs, with a primary focus on coordinated
data collection and dissemination.
Further, the Council urges the Congress to maintain the Federal
financial support for the State Water Resources Research Institutes
program--as authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1964.
Today's institutes and centers provide a research infrastructure that
uses the capabilities of universities to greatly assist and provide
important support to Western State water agencies in long-term
planning, policy development and management of the increasingly complex
challenges associated with water in the West.
epa state revolving funds
Lastly, the Council urges the Congress to ensure that stable and
continuing Federal appropriations are made to the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) capitalization grants and State and
Tribal Assistance Grants at funding levels that are adequate to help
States address their water infrastructure needs. The SRF capitalization
grants are leveraged with State contributions to offer financial
assistance to cities, towns, communities, and others for the planning,
design, construction and rehabilitation of drinking water and
wastewater-related infrastructure. These programs are one of the
principal tools that States use to pursue the goals of the Clean Water
Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. Many States and communities are
struggling to meet their water and wastewater challenges in the face of
growing populations and aging infrastructure. Any reductions in Federal
appropriations for the SRF programs ignores the multitude of needs
already facing a funding gap, as the program is oversubscribed.
Additionally, State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG), including
Performance Partnership Grants (PPG) and other grants, are critical to
the support of State programs that assure that the Nation's drinking
water and water quality remain safe for public health.
Thank you for the opportunity to highlight the importance of these
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wilderness Society
The Wilderness Society (TWS) represents more than 1 million members
and supporters who share our mission to protect wilderness and inspire
Americans to care for our wild places. When deciding on funding that
affects hundreds of millions of Americans, we urge you to consider the
full economic, social, environmental and cultural value of the many
programs overseen by our land management agencies.
Additionally, we urge that in crafting the Interior and Environment
Appropriations bill you avoid harmful policy riders that damage our
land, air, water and wildlife. Must-pass appropriations legislation is
not the appropriate venue for unpopular policy provisions which
undermine bedrock environmental laws like the Wilderness Act,
Antiquities Act, Roadless Area Conservation Rule and Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act.
The laudable goal of returning to regular order on appropriations
must not continue to be undermined by the attempted inclusion of
harmful policy riders which would damage the environmental protections
all Americans value. Their inclusion only serves to further compromise
an already challenging appropriations process.
Lastly, with reported proposed funding freezes and continued
combativeness on behalf of the administration when it comes to spending
appropriated dollars, we urge Congress to use its full powers to
prevent any slow-walking, impoundments or reallocations of appropriated
funding, counter to the letter or intent of appropriations legislation,
or otherwise detrimental to our environment
Prudent investments in critical conservation programs will provide
jobs and protect the health and economic wellbeing of local
communities. With a great deal of focus from the administration and
several in Congress on deferred maintenance backlogs, we urge
appropriators to keep in mind that proper investments now mean not
having to find more complicated fixes later. Proper investment today
prevents the maintenance backlogs of the future. We urge bold action in
support of conservation funding for fiscal year 2019. Specifically, TWS
recommends:
recreation and public lands
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Now in its second half-century, the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) remains the premier Federal program to conserve our
Nation's land, water, historic, and recreation heritage. It is a
critical tool to protect national parks, national wildlife refuges,
national forests, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, and other
Federal areas. The companion LWCF State grants program provides crucial
support for State and local parks, recreational facilities, and trails.
Full funding for LWCF will allow land management agencies to manage our
public lands more efficiently and cost-effectively. This is in part
achieved through strategic inholdings acquisition which reduces
internal boundary line surveying, right-of-way conflicts and special
use permits.
LWCF also funds two other important State grant programs--the
Forest Legacy Program and Cooperative Endangered Species programs--that
ensure permanent conservation of important forest lands and threatened
and endangered species' habitat, as well as important wildlife and
recreational habitat and ensures that public lands stay public for
hunters, anglers, and other outdoor recreationists for generations to
come.
--TWS strongly supports fully funding LWCF at the authorized level of
$900 million. For fiscal year 2018, a discretionary funding
level of $561 million would have funded the priority projects
listed by the Department of Interior.
--We will also note that as of the date of this public testimony, the
annual agency produced list of LWCF priority projects has not
been released, bypassing the required 30-day deadline for said
release. This is now a troubling trend under the Trump
administration.
--The Land and Water Conservation Fund also must be reauthorized this
year, as its authorization from 2015 expires September 30.
BLM National Landscape Conservation System
The National Landscape Conservation System (Conservation Lands),
overseen by the BLM, comprises over 30 million acres of congressionally
and presidentially designated lands and waters, including National
Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness Areas and other
designations. Stewardship of the Conservation Lands provides jobs for
thousands of Americans while supporting vibrant and sustainable
economies in surrounding communities. The Conservation Lands provide
immeasurable public values from modest investments: outstanding
recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, clean water, wilderness,
and open space near cities.
--TWS strongly supported the fiscal year 2017 President's budget
request level of $50.645 million for BLM National Monuments and
National Conservation Areas. With increased budget caps, our
NLCS lands should see increased investment to ensure we are
appropriately investing in our lands and preventing the
maintenance backlogs of the future.
BLM Wilderness Management
We want to call specific attention to the Wilderness Management
program, housed within BLM's National Landscape Conservation System.
The Wilderness program plays a critical role in supporting the agency's
multiple use and sustained yield mission, emphasizing continued
collaboration, public involvement and youth engagement.
--TWS strongly supports restoring BLM Wilderness funding to the
fiscal year 2011 level of $19.663 million. The enacted level
for BLM wilderness management is a step in the right direction,
but still 7 percent lower than the fiscal year 2011 enacted
level in raw dollars. To just keep the fiscal year 2011 level
on pace with inflation the fiscal year 2018 request would need
to be $21.036 million.
U.S. Forest Service Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness
The Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness program provides critical
funding to improve recreational access to our national forests, give
training and employment opportunities for youth and veterans, modernize
and improve the recreational permitting process, and protect our
cultural heritage. We recommend that funding for the Recreation,
Heritage and Wilderness program be restored to support much needed
trails maintenance, update signage, fight invasive species, restore
watersheds, and monitor effects of climate change, among other critical
needs.
--We urge Congress to support wilderness and recreation by restoring
funding to the fiscal year 2010 level of $285.1 million for the
Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Program. Recreation is the
most ubiquitous use of our forest lands, and accounts for more
than half of all job and income effects attributable to Forest
Service programs (over 190,000 jobs and $11 billion in spending
effects by visitors).
BLM Recreation Resources Management
The Recreation Resources Management program provides critical
funding to improve recreation access for all visitors to BLM lands,
engage youth, promote public health, protect visitor safety and
strengthen rural economies. Investments in the Recreation program will
support increased access for all types of recreation by maintaining
trails and roads, increased access for hunters and anglers to world
class fish and game habitat, and small businesses, guides and
outfitters through processing commercial recreation permits.
--TWS strongly supports funding the Recreation Resources Management
program at $56.5 million in fiscal year 2019. This is a small
increase over the currently enacted level and would support
record and growing recreational use of public lands to ensure
efficient processing of recreations permits, oversight, and
visitor safety.
U.S. Forest Service Legacy Roads and Trails
The Legacy Roads and Trails (LRT) program provides essential
funding to improve recreational access, advance collaborative watershed
restoration projects, provide clean drinking water, and protect aquatic
species. Legacy Roads and Trails works because it is targeted--taking
aim at larger road projects that are not able to be fixed with general
road maintenance dollars and which often require leveraging of non-
Federal funds by collaborative partners. It is results oriented. And it
creates high-wage jobs. In 2018, Legacy Roads and Trails celebrated its
10-year anniversary, and the program's accomplishments continue to
accumulate: 19,201 miles of needed roads maintained and/or storm-
proofed to increase their ability to stand-up during powerful storms
and ensure access to Forest Service lands; 1,072 culverts replaced
opening 650 miles of stream habitat for fish; 7,411 miles of unneeded
roads decommissioned greatly reducing the delivery of sediment to
streams, many of which supply drinking water to rural and urban towns
and cities; 141 bridges constructed or reconstructed for safety; 5,392
miles of trails fixed helping to keep the $10.3 billion trail-
contribution to the Gross Domestic Product intact; 800-1,200 jobs
created or maintained on average annually; and $3.5 million per year
reduction in annual road maintenance costs.
--TWS strongly supports funding Legacy Roads and Trails at $50
million, as an individual line-item distinct from other
accounts. We remain concerned about the consolidation of LRT
into the CIM account within the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus. The
highest appropriation for LRT was in 2010 at $90 million, and
still the need far surpassed the program's capacity. LRT
provides tremendous returns, through leveraging other public
and private funding, reducing future maintenance costs, and
creating jobs and contributing to local economies.
energy
Bureau of Land Management Oil and Gas Policy
TWS believes that our public lands should be treasured and
maintained for the benefit of all Americans. As we continue to extract
publicly owned resources--nearly 200 million acres of our public lands
are currently available for leasing--BLM must do so with full funding
for programs that support operational safety, inspections, and both
environmental and fiscal stewardship. BLM funding should encourage
balanced oil and gas development on public lands with natural resource
benefits and recreation uses and ensure that public resources are fully
and fairly valued for the American people.
--TWS supports the recently increased Oil and Gas Inspections level
of $48.4 million, and increased Resource Management Planning
level of $60.125 million.
Sage Grouse Conservation Plans
Ranchers and other Americans benefit from Federal assistance in
managing sagebrush across the western United States. Congress should
fully fund the sage-grouse conservation strategy, which helped to
prevent a listing under the Endangered Species Act. Full funding for
implementation is important for the recovery of this critical western
game species and those who rely on its habitat for their livelihood.
--TWS strongly supports a funding level of $89.7 million in fiscal
year 2019 to conserve and restore sage steppe habitat through
the Bureau of Land Management.
Renewable Energy
TWS is a strong proponent of transitioning our country to a clean
energy economy by developing our renewable energy resources
responsibly. We believe renewable energy is an appropriate and
necessary use of public lands when properly sited in areas that avoid
habitat, resource, and cultural conflicts. Identifying and avoiding
conflicts early helps ensure projects are permitted more efficiently
with limited impact on wildlands. TWS hopes the Department will
continue to support a program that ensures our public lands play an
important role in supporting renewable energy infrastructure through
environmental review, suitability screening, and identification of low-
conflict designated leasing areas where wind and solar projects are
likely to succeed--an approach which cut permitting times in half in
the Dry Lake solar energy zone outside of Las Vegas.
--TWS strongly supports increasing funding for renewable energy
programs across the Department of Interior to $110.4 million in
fiscal year 2018. This increase would provide sufficient staff
capacity to ensure continued implementation of the wind and
solar leasing rule, mitigation strategies, the Western Solar
Plan and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.
Implementation of these programs will facilitate efficient
permitting for projects in designated leasing areas and
identification of new designated leasing areas in regions with
strong development demand. Finally, this funding should support
the ongoing review of the West-Wide Energy Corridors to
facilitate more efficient and appropriate siting and permitting
for transmission lines to ensure greater access for clean
energy development.
[This statement was submitted by Jonathan Asher, Senior
Representative, Government Relations.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Conservation Society
The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) would like to thank
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and the Members of the
subcommittee for providing this opportunity to submit testimony in
support of funding in the Fiscal Year 2019 Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies (Interior) Appropriations Act for the Multinational
Species Conservation Fund (MSCF), Office of International Affairs (IA),
Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), and Cooperative Landscape Conservation
Program (CLCP) accounts at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS),
the International Forestry program at the U.S. Forest Service (FS-IF),
and on preventing any rider from being attached to the bill that would
adversely affect the 4(d) rule revision on the African elephant that
was approved by FWS in 2016. WCS is deeply concerned by the President's
budget proposal, which seeks to retreat from many of the important
investments this subcommittee has made in domestic and international
conservation under the Chair's leadership.
WCS was founded with the help of Theodore Roosevelt in 1895 with
the mission of saving wildlife and wild places worldwide. Today, WCS
manages the largest network of urban wildlife parks in the United
States led by our flagship, the Bronx Zoo. Globally, our goal is to
conserve the world's largest wild places in 16 priority regions, home
to more than 50 percent of the world's biodiversity. We manage more
than 200 million acres of protected lands around the world, employing
more than 4,000 staff including 200 Ph.D. scientists and 100
veterinarians.
The American conservation tradition is based on promoting
sustainable use of our natural resources in order to preserve the
world's species and environment for future generations. In recognition
of the current fiscal constraints, it is important to note that
effective natural resources management and conservation has indirect
economic benefits, including contributing to local economies through
tourism and other means. Internationally, by supporting conservation,
the U.S. is increasing capacity and governance in developing nations
and improving our own national security as a result.
FWS--Multinational Species Conservation Fund--$11.1 Million: Global
priority species, such as tigers, rhinos, African and Asian elephants,
great apes, and marine turtles, face constant danger from poaching,
habitat loss and other serious concerns. MSCF programs have helped to
sustain wildlife populations by controlling poaching, reducing human-
wildlife conflict and protecting essential habitat--all while promoting
U.S. economic and security interests in far reaching parts of the
world. These programs are highly efficient, granting them an outsized
impact because they consistently leverage two to four times as much in
matching funds.
WCS has had great success on projects using funds from the MSCF.
One grant awarded to WCS in fiscal year 2016 through the African
Elephant Conservation Fund will support park protection and management
in and around Southern National Park in South Sudan, an area that has
suffered severe poaching and a lack of governance during the recent
civil wars. WCS is grateful that the Committee appropriated $11.1
million for the program in fiscal year 2018 and support an
appropriation of the same amount in fiscal year 2019.
FWS--International Affairs--$15.8 Million: The FWS International
Affairs (IA) program supports efforts to conserve our planet's rich
wildlife diversity by protecting habitat and species, combating illegal
wildlife trade, and building capacity for landscape-level wildlife
conservation. The program provides oversight of domestic laws and
international treaties that promote the long-term conservation of plant
and animal species by ensuring that international trade and other
activities do not threaten their survival in the wild. Within IA, the
FWS Regional Programs for Africa, Eurasia, and the Western Hemisphere
seek to address grassroots wildlife conservation problems from a broad,
landscape perspective, building regional expertise and capacity while
strengthening local institutions. WCS asks that the subcommittee
maintains support for $15.8 million, equal to the fiscal year 2018
appropriation.
FWS--Office of Law Enforcement--$77.1 Million: The U.S. remains one
of the world's largest markets for wildlife and wildlife products, both
legal and illegal. A small group of dedicated officers at OLE are
tasked with protecting fish, wildlife, and plant resources by
investigating wildlife crimes--including commercial exploitation,
habitat destruction, and industrial hazards--and monitoring the
Nation's wildlife trade to intercept smuggling and facilitate legal
commerce. As the United States developed and implemented a
comprehensive strategy to combat the growing crisis of wildlife
trafficking over the last 5 years, many of the new responsibilities
placed on FWS are enforced by OLE, and WCS supports continuing to fund
the agency at $77.1 million, and maintaining existing language that
allocates at least $7.5 million for combating wildlife trafficking.
Additional funding for the program will support their efforts to
maximize the scope and effectiveness of FWS' response to the
international wildlife trafficking crisis by strengthening forensic
capabilities and expanding the capacity of their Special Investigations
Unit. It will also ensure OLE has an adequate number of law enforcement
agents deployed to enforce laws against wildlife trafficking in the
U.S. effectively and allow the agency to continue to support
coordinated law enforcement actions against wildlife trafficking
overseas through the deployment of FWS attaches in targeted U.S.
embassies.
FWS--Cooperative Landscape Conservation--$13 Million: Many of the
domestic conservation programs in this bill provide funding to States
to implement their conservation goals. But wildlife does not recognize
political boundaries, and scarce conservation dollars can best be spent
when effective planning and coordination takes place across entire
ecosystems. The CLCP funds a network of 22 Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives in the U.S. and Canada, which use a collaborative approach
between Federal, State, Tribal and local partners to identify landscape
scale conservation solutions and work collaboratively to meet unfilled
conservation needs, develop decision support tools, share data and
knowledge, and facilitate and foster conservation partnerships. Funding
would maintain support for landscape planning and design that will
improve the condition of wildlife habitat and improve resilience of
U.S. communities. WCS encourages the Committee to appropriate $13
million for this program.
USFS--International Forestry--$9 Million: The U.S. economy has lost
approximately $1 billion per year and over 200,000 jobs due to illegal
logging, which is responsible for 15-30 percent of all timber by
volume. The FS-IF program works to level the playing field by reducing
illegal logging and improving the sustainability and legality of timber
management overseas, translating to less underpriced timber
undercutting U.S. producers. Through partnerships with USAID and the
Department of State, FSIP helps to improve the resource management in
countries of strategic importance to U.S. security.
With technical and financial support from FS-IF, WCS has been
working to conserve a biologically rich temperate forest zone called
the Primorye in the Russian Far East for over a decade, focusing on the
Amur tiger and Far Eastern leopard and their habitat, species with
approximately 400 and 35-40 individuals remaining the wild,
respectively. Human encroachment, illegal logging, and widespread use
of agricultural burning fracture and threaten the habitat of these
endangered animals and increase human wildlife conflicts. Since the
Amur tiger and Far Eastern leopard are dependent on large tracts of
intact, functional forest ecosystems, WCS has been focusing on these
two species as a means to address larger biodiversity conservation and
scientific-technological capacity building goals throughout the region.
WCS supports an appropriation of $9 million for fiscal year 2019, equal
to the amount appropriated in the current fiscal year.
No Harmful Rider on Ivory: On the ground in Africa and elsewhere,
WCS scientists continue to see, first-hand, the devastating impact
poaching is having on elephants, rhinos, tigers, and other iconic
species. A study published by WCS found that in 2012 alone, 35,000
African elephants were killed for their ivory--that is an average of 96
elephants per day or one killed every 15 minutes. This finding is
supported by a subsequent study which also found that 100,000 elephants
were poached between 2011 and 2013. Both studies show that conditions
are dire for the subspecies of African forest elephants, which has
declined by about two-thirds in a little more than a decade. Poaching
at these rates may mean the extinction of forest elephants in the wild
within the next 10 years and the potential loss of all African elephant
species in the wild in our lifetimes. Action must be taken now to
prevent this catastrophe from occurring.
There is broad consensus that the stunning increase in poaching is
due to one factor--the illegal sale of poached ivory in commercial
markets around the world. The illegal trade in elephant ivory and other
products, like rhino horns and tiger skins, is worth at least an
estimated $8 to $10 billion annually, and because of the lucrative
nature of this industry, evidence is showing increasingly that
transnational criminal organizations and extremist groups that are
involved in other major trafficking operations--drugs, humans and
weapons--are engaged in wildlife trafficking as well.
There is no question that China is the largest market for illegal
ivory. However, the United States is also one of the larger
destinations, both for domestic consumption and as a transshipment hub
for Asia. As part of Operation Crash, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and Department of Justice have successfully arrested criminals
and prosecuted cases in several States involving millions of dollars of
illegal ivory and rhino horn. These busts are strong evidence that
there is a domestic problem with illegal ivory, all of which is
smuggled in from overseas and which frequently crosses State lines,
placing it firmly under Federal jurisdiction.
In 2016, the FWS began enforcing the U.S. Ivory Ban, which closed
loopholes in the that allowed commercial ivory sales that have enabled
illegal ivory to be sold in the U.S. for decades. The rule requires
sellers to demonstrate that ivory items qualify for an exemption from
the law so consumers may be assured they are purchasing a legal
product. It also tightens the existing, Congressionally-mandated ban on
the import of most ivory, with some narrow exceptions, including ones
for sport-hunted trophies and musicians travelling with instruments
that contain ivory. The rule continues to allow the domestic sale of
items such as bona fide antiques and, to accommodate the concerns
voiced by many stakeholders, also allows the sale of items like
firearms, knives, instruments and artworks that contain only a small
amount of ivory. It is also important to note that nothing in the rule
makes the possession of legally-imported ivory illegal.
Past Interior bills in the House contained a provision that would
have blocked FWS from implementing the ban, forcing the continuation of
a system that we know does not work and has been a contributing factor
in the poaching of 100,000 elephants over the past 3 years. WCS is
grateful that the Senate did not included a similar provision in its
bills and appreciate that no adverse rider on the issue appeared in the
final legislation that passed Congress. WCS encourages the subcommittee
not to include the same or a similar rider in the fiscal year 2019
bill.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective and to make
a case for maintaining investments in conservation in the fiscal year
2019 Interior, the Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
Conservation of public lands is an American tradition and, as far back
as 1909, Theodore Roosevelt recognized that the management of our
natural resources requires coordination between all nations. Continued
investment in conservation will reaffirm our global position as a
conservation leader, while improving our national security and building
capacity and good governance in developing countries.
Contact: Colin Sheldon, Assistant Director of Federal Affairs,
[email protected].
______
Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Society
The Wildlife Society (TWS) appreciates the opportunity to provide
testimony concerning the fiscal year 2019 budgets for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Founded in
1937, TWS inspires, empowers, and enables wildlife professionals to
sustain wildlife populations and habitat through science-based
management and conservation. Appropriations for the following programs
within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies will affect the current and future status of
wildlife and wildlife professionals in North America. To enable the
appropriate use of science within these programs and beyond, TWS
respectfully requests the following programmatic funding in fiscal year
2019.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 INTERIOR APPROPRIATION REQUESTS--THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Agency Program 2018 Fiscal Year
Enacted 2019 TWS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State & Tribal Wildlife 63.6M 70M
Grants.
National Wildlife Refuge 486.6M 586M
System.
Ecological Services....... 247.8M 255M
FWS NAWCA..................... 40.0M 40M
NMBCA..................... 3.9M 6.5M
Partners for Fish and 51.6M 54M
Wildlife.
Migratory Bird Management. 48.4M 50M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wildlife & Fisheries 115.8M 121M
Management.
BLM T&E Species Management.... 21.6M 48M
Wild Horse & Burro 75.0M 80.6M*
Management.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecosystems Mission Area... 157.7M 174M
USGS
Cooperative Research Units 17.4M 24M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wildlife and Fisheries 136.4M 140M
Habitat.
USFS
Forest and Rangelands 297M 307M
Research.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* BLM Wild Horse & Burro Management funding request accompanies request
to remove an associated policy rider.
u.s. fish and wildlife service
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (STWG) is the Nation's
only program that encourages developing and implementing State Wildlife
Action Plans (SWAPs), thereby directly supporting States in preventing
wildlife from being listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Collectively, STWG funds support strong partnerships among Federal,
State, Tribal, private, and nonprofit entities that enable wildlife
professionals to implement on-the-ground conservation activities that
benefit over 12,000 at-risk species. Between fiscal year 2002 and
fiscal year 2010, appropriations for STWG were greater than $70 million
per year. Subsequent budget reductions in STWG, however, have not
allowed this highly successful program to reach its full potential. The
Wildlife Society sincerely appreciates the $1 million increase provided
for State formula grants in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus and requests
at least $70 million in fiscal year 2019 to reflect pre fiscal year
2011 funding levels. TWS also requests removal of the fiscal year 2018
omnibus explanatory statement language that requires administrators of
this program to place the highest priority for funding on ESA candidate
species. While many States already utilize STWG funding for ESA
candidate species conservation as outlined in their SWAP, other States
utilize in whole or in part other conservation dollars --such as
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration funds (i.e., Pittman-Robertson) or
ESA Section 6 grants. Removing this language in the fiscal year 2019
appropriations package will ensure States have the flexibility to spend
funds as efficiently as possible through a program that is already
highly accountable to Congressional reporting requirements.
As a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
(CARE), TWS requests at least $586 million for the National Wildlife
Refuge System's (NWRS) operations and maintenance accounts in fiscal
year 2019. The NWRS has long been an economic driver, generating
approximately $4.87 in economic activity for every $1 appropriated by
Congress. However, CARE estimates that NWRS needs at least $900 million
in annual operations and maintenance funding to properly administer
more than 560 refuge units, 38 wetland management districts, and 5
marine national monuments spanning over 850 million acres of land and
water. Without adequate funding, ecosystems are not restored; invasive
species are left unchecked; infrastructure for multiple use
opportunities such as hunting, fishing, and biking are not realized;
and illegal activities, such as poaching, are not curbed.
Through the Ecological Services Program (ESP), FWS works with
diverse public and private partners to help identify species facing
extinction and reduce threats to their populations so that the
requirement of Federal protection can be removed. Wildlife
professionals in FWS are working on new strategies to increase efficacy
of ESP and reduce regulatory burdens on private partners. The Wildlife
Society was encouraged by a $2 million increase in funding provided for
the Recovery line item. To efficaciously move species through all
components of the ESA listing and delisting process, TWS also requests
at least $23 million for Listing, $106 million for Planning and
Consultation, and $35 million for Conservation and Restoration.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) is a
cooperative, non-regulatory, incentive-based program that has
demonstrated success in maintaining and restoring wetlands, waterfowl,
and other migratory bird populations by conserving more than 33.4
million acres since 1989. This program has remained chronically
underfunded despite its demonstrated effectiveness. The Wildlife
Society greatly appreciates the $2 million increase in the fiscal year
2018 omnibus and asks that Congress again provide at least $40 million
for NAWCA in fiscal year 2019.
Since 2002, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA)
has provided more than $62.2 million in grants to support 541 projects
in 36 countries that enable wildlife professionals to conserve 386
migratory bird species on 4.2 million acres in the U.S., Mexico,
Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. Moreover, NMBCA has
achieved a partner match ratio of nearly 4:1 despite requiring only a
3:1 match. The needs of U.S. migratory bird species and conservation
efforts to keep these species common extends to landscapes far beyond
U.S. borders. As a result, TWS recommends Congress increase funding to
at least $6.5 million in fiscal year 2019 to achieve greater
conservation results under the program.
TWS regularly expresses the importance of wildlife habitat on
private lands. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW) allows
voluntary habitat restoration goals, aligned with identified strategic
priorities, on private lands to be achieved through cost-efficient
financial and technical assistance. For the role this program plays in
improving private lands wildlife stewardship while working to preempt
ESA listings through projects like the Monarch Butterfly Conservation
Initiative, TWS requests at least $54 million for PFW in fiscal year
2019.
The Migratory Bird Joint Ventures (MBJV), part of FWS' Migratory
Bird Management program, are locally-directed partnerships that develop
and implement science-based habitat conservation strategies for all
species of birds across North America. These partnerships have
leveraged Federal funds at 31:1 to enhance and protect over 27 million
acres of avian habitat. The Wildlife Society supports $50 million for
Migratory Bird Management for enhancing and promoting MBJV.
bureau of land management
The Wildlife and Fisheries Management (WFM) program maintains and
restores fish, wildlife, and their habitat across a large portion of
America's western landscapes. This includes projects to balance effects
of multiple public land uses, such as energy development and livestock
grazing, with needs of native species. With the continued expansion of
energy development on BLM lands--and the associated mitigation
challenges--TWS recommends Congress support the WFM program with at
least $121 million in fiscal year 2019.
The Threatened and Endangered Species Management Program (TESM)
allows wildlife professionals at BLM to meet the agency's
responsibilities in recovering the over 480 ESA listed species that
occur on BLM managed lands. Program funds also work toward conservation
and recovery of the 31 ESA candidate species on BLM lands prior to ESA
regulations being considered. In a March 2001 Report to Congress, BLM
called for a doubling of the TESM budget to $48 million over 5 years to
meet the needs of the program. Nearly 20 years later, this goal has yet
to be met. TWS strongly encourages Congress to increase overall funding
for TESM to $48 million in fiscal year 2019 to work toward recovery of
ESA-listed species and to proactively conserve ESA-candidate species.
TWS recognizes free-ranging horses and burros in the U.S. as
ecologically invasive, feral species. Free-ranging horse and burro
populations on the range reached >82,000 individuals in March 2018,
exceeding BLM's estimated threshold for ecological sustainability by
over 50,000 animals. To achieve ecologically sustainable levels of
horses and burros on BLM rangelands without substantial budget
increases, the current policy rider limiting sale and/or destruction of
unwanted or unadoptable wild horses and burros must be removed from the
Interior Appropriations bill. Until Congress enables BLM to responsibly
manage free-ranging horses and burros by removing this text from the
appropriations bill, Federal funds will continue to be wasted
warehousing nearly 50,000 animals, rather than spent on productive
rangeland management activities. Given the current management direction
Congress has provided to the BLM, TWS recommends $80.5 million in
fiscal year 2019, thereby restoring fiscal year 2017 funding levels.
The Wildlife Society recognizes that removal of this appropriations
rider will ultimately allow this program's budget to be reduced. The
Wildlife Society is encouraged to see Congressional interest in this
program detailed in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus explanatory statement,
but we urge Congress to take the recommendations provided by the BLM
and bodies such as the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board seriously
when considering appropriated funds and associated riders.
u.s. geological survey
As a member of the USGS Coalition, TWS supports the critical and
unique mission of USGS to provide objective scientific research and
data collection on the complex environmental issues facing our Nation.
TWS specifically requests at least $174 million for the Ecosystems
Mission Area, which contains programmatic resources for fisheries,
wildlife, environments, invasive species, and the Cooperative Research
Units (CRU).
Within the Ecosystems Mission Area, TWS supports at least $24
million for the CRU program. This program fosters Federal, State, non-
governmental organizations, and academic partnerships to provide
actionable science tailored to the needs of wildlife managers on the
front lines, and helps develop the next generation of wildlife
professionals. These partnerships leverage more than three dollars in
outside funds for every Federal dollar invested into the program. An
increase of funding to $24 million would allow the CRUs to fill a
record 36 CRU scientist vacancies (30 percent). These vacancies may
continue to increase in scope if inflation-adjusted funding is once
again neglected by Congress this fiscal year.
u.s. forest service
Improving the future health and sustainability of the Nation's
forests and grasslands requires a strong investment in USFS Research
and Development (R&D). Through long-term monitoring and collaborative
research efforts with States and other partners, USFS R&D generates
broad environmental and societal benefits, including an understanding
of wildlife-habitat relationships for multiple species and communities
that enables informed land management decisions. The Wildlife Society
encourages Congress to increase funding for all Forest Service R&D to a
minimum of $307 million in fiscal year 2018, including at least $224
million directed to Forest and Rangeland Research program areas
exclusive of Forest Inventory and Analysis. Furthermore, TWS is
concerned about the decrease in funding provided to USFS Wildlife and
Fisheries Habitat in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus, and requests a
return to fiscal year 2017 levels of $140 million.
[This statement was submitted by Dr. John E. McDonald, Jr.,
President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe
The Yakutat Tlingit Tribe (hereinafter ``YTT'' or ``Tribe'') makes
the following requests for the fiscal year 2019 Indian Health Service
(IHS) appropriations:
--Appropriate funds to fully cover Section 105(l) leases for
healthcare facilities.
--Continue funding for the IHS Joint Venture Program and ensure that
funds for staffing packages for completed programs are timely
made available.
--Support funding for telecommunications connectivity in rural areas.
--Continue funding the Special Diabetes Program for Indians through
mandatory, multi-year appropriations and continue funding other
critical health programs, such as health education and
Community Health Representatives.
--Continue to fully fund Contract Support Costs.
The Yakutat Tlingit Tribe appreciates the opportunity to submit
testimony on the fiscal year 2019 appropriations for several important
programs. The Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe located on
the eastern shores of the Gulf of Alaska in the City and Borough of
Yakutat, Alaska. We are in a very remote area 225 miles northwest of
Juneau and 220 miles southeast of Cordova, Alaska, and can be accessed
only by boat or air travel. Because of our geographic isolation, we
believe it is absolutely critical that we are able to provide high
quality health services in Yakutat. We currently operate the Yakutat
Community Health Center (YCHC), at which we provide a substantial and
increasing number of community healthcare services and counseling and
prevention services.
The YCHC is funded in part through a community health center grant
with the Health Resources and Services Administration, and we are a co-
signer to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact under which we receive
funding from the IHS under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act self-governance program. Other funding comes to us
through the State of Alaska and third-party collections such as
Medicaid and private health insurance, and we have for many years
received funding from the Universal Service Administration Company to
support our information technology needs to provide health services and
maintain critical connectivity, including our tele-health services and
coordination with Tribal health programs throughout Alaska. The City
and Borough of Yakutat operates a volunteer Emergency Medical Services
squad, but the YCHC is the only healthcare provider in the community.
The Yakutat Borough is in a Medically Underserved Area and is
designated as a Health Professional Shortage Area for medical, dental
and mental health.
fund section 105(l) health facility leases
While the YTT does not currently have in place a Section 105(l)
lease with the IHS, we believe that being able to exercise that
authority under the ISDEAA is imperative to the ability of the Tribe
and other Tribes and Tribal organizations to being able to carry out
health programs in a safe and effective environment. Tribes and Tribal
organizations are increasingly relying on Section 105(l) leases to
address chronically underfunded facilities operation, maintenance, and
replacement costs. This is not just an issue in Alaska, as there are
Tribes outside of Alaska who also desperately need funding for their
healthcare facilities.
However, the administration is again asking this year that Congress
amend the ISDEAA so that the IHS does not have to fully fund such
leases. The IHS's proposed bill language, which appears in the IHS
Administrative Provisions, would effectively overturn the Federal
court's decision in Maniilaq Association v. Burwell, 170 F. Supp. 3d
243 (D.D.C. 2016), in which the court found that Section 105(l) of the
ISDEAA requires full compensation for leases of Tribal facilities used
to carry out ISDEAA agreements. Funding such leases should not be
placed wholly in IHS's discretion as it proposes. We thus ask that the
IHS's proposed amendment to the ISDEAA not be included in the fiscal
year 2019 appropriations bill, and that it be rejected just as it was
when the administration made the same request last year.
fund the ihs joint venture program
The YTT is currently working toward building a new healthcare
facility using its own Tribal funds. The Tribe is doing so under the
IHS Joint Venture Program, authorized by Section 818(e) of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act. The program involves a competitive pool of
Tribes and Tribal organizations who agree to construct, acquire or
renovate a Tribal healthcare facility while IHS commits to funding the
initial equipment and a staffing package for the operation and
maintenance of the new facility. The Tribe was selected for the program
among a competitive pool of applicants, and has not only committed to
constructing the new facility, but also to providing equipment funding.
The IHS will thus be responsible under the program for providing
recurring funding for staffing on completion of the construction
project.
The new, 11,000 square foot facility will be built on land owned by
the Tribe in Yakutat, Alaska. The facility will allow the Tribe to
provide improved and increased health service delivery in our remote
area, and we intend to expand our primary care services and dental
care. We will also have space available for visiting specialty
providers to use, as well as space for our health aides, behavioral
healthcare providers, preventive care and our administrative staff.
The Tribe asks the subcommittees to support the continued funding
for the IHS Joint Venture Program, and in particular asks that staffing
funds be appropriated and made available to the IHS on a timely basis,
so the Tribe can afford to open and staff the new facility on
completion of construction without delay. Tribes like YTT have to
commit far in advance to the construction costs and rely heavily on the
funding for staffing to be available to them as quickly as possible on
completion of the facility. Otherwise, it would be impossible for YTT
to plan for and operate the new healthcare facility once it is
complete. We need the security of knowing that the funding for staffing
will be made available to us on a timely basis, so that we can
advertise for and select new healthcare professionals and other staff
needed for the expanded services, and to allow them time to relocate to
Yakutat, Alaska.
support telecommunications connectivity funding from usac in rural
areas
Last year in our testimony on the fiscal year 2018 appropriations,
we identified what we called a ``potentially devastating development''
related to the subsidy the Tribe receives from the Universal Service
Administrative Company (USAC) for Internet service. The Tribe has for
many years received a subsidy from USAC that pays for our Internet so
that we can connect through satellite. The cost at more than $20,000
per month in the past would be prohibitive to our Tribal budget without
the subsidies, which make it possible for the Tribe to instead pay
around $500 a month.
That devastating development has now come to pass--the USAC has
imposed a pro-rata reduction in Rural Health Care funding due to a
funding cap, which is resulting in an $18 million unplanned shortfall
for connectivity in Alaska for Tribal health programs this year alone.
Nationally, we understand there will be a $50 million cut to subsidies,
meaning Alaska accounts for about one-third of the entire national
cuts. It is expected to double next year, so the impact on Alaska
Tribal programs could quickly rise to over $35 million. Because our
connectivity is our lifeline for the provision of healthcare in Alaska,
we are faced right now with trying to find funding out of our already
limited budget, which will translate into greatly reduced healthcare
services just to cover our Internet service costs.
While we understand this is not within the direct purview of these
subcommittees, and this is a case that needs to be made with the
Federal Communications Commission, this is such an imperative part of
how we are able to carry out healthcare and related services in our
rural community that it will have a devastating effect on our delivery
of quality healthcare. We ask for the Subcommittees' support for
lifting the cap and fully restoring the USAC subsidies to the Tribe and
other Tribal health organizations throughout the State of Alaska.
mandatory funding for the special diabetes program for indians (sdpi)
The Tribe very much appreciates that Congress has reauthorized the
SDPI through fiscal years 2018 and 2019 at the mandatory funding level
of $150 million each year. The SDPI continues to provide critical
funding for diabetes treatment and prevention programs for the Tribe's
Alaska Native and American Indian patients. We continue to see
significant outcomes in our community in terms of increased access to
treatment and prevention services and decreased incidence of new
diabetes diagnoses.
We are very concerned, however, that the President's budget for
fiscal year 2019 proposes to move SDPI funding and a lot of other
funding under the Department of Health and Human Services from
mandatory to discretionary status, meaning that the funding would have
to come out of other appropriated funds within the subcommittees'
allocations. While the Tribe understands that this change from
mandatory to discretionary funding for the SDPI would require Congress
to amend the law establishing the SDPI, we are adamantly opposed to
such a change. It would not only result in the loss of multi-year
authorizations, which are imperative for being able to plan for and
appropriately staff continued diabetes programs in our community, but
would threaten the continued existence of the funding into the future.
We strongly recommend that the subcommittees reject this proposal and
maintain the SDPI as mandatory funding.
On another issue related to the President's proposed budget for
fiscal year 2019, we understand the administration proposes to entirely
discontinue funding for Community Health Representatives and health
education, both of which are crucial IHS programs throughout Indian
Country in general. We support continued funding for those programs, as
well as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Community
Services Block Grants, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program--all of which have direct impacts on the quality of health in
Tribal communities.
continue full funding of contract support costs (csc)
As in previous years, the Tribe wishes to extend its sincere
gratitude to Congress for fully funding CSC in the past three fiscal
years, and for making it an indefinite amount that is in a separate
account in both the IHS and Bureau of Indian Affairs' budgets. The full
funding of CSC has made a significant different in our ability to
successfully carry out our ISDEAA agreements and recognize our rights
and responsibilities under self-governance.
We object, however, to the IHS's renewed proposal to reinstate
restrictions from the fiscal year 2016 Appropriations Act, which we
view as being contrary to the ISDEAA. The administration is again
proposing that the ``carryover'' clause be read to deny the CSC
carryover authority of the ISDEAA, and that the ``notwithstanding''
clause be used as a basis for IHS to deny CSC for IHS grant programs,
like Domestic Violence Prevention, Substance Abuse and Suicide
Prevention and other grants that have been important to YTT's mission
of serving its community. We appreciate that the subcommittees did not
adopt the IHS's proposal in the past two fiscal years, and request that
you again reject the proposal for fiscal year 2019.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration of the concerns
and requests made by the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe.
[This statement was submitted by John Buller, Chairman.]