[Senate Hearing 111-859]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-859
Senate Hearings
Before the Committee on Appropriations
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of the Interior,
Environment, and
Related Agencies
Appropriations
Fiscal Year 2011
111th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
S. Hrg. 111-859
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
Department of Agriculture
Department of the Interior
Environmental Protection Agency
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-974 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
PATTY MURRAY, Washington ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
JACK REED, Rhode Island LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
BEN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JON TESTER, Montana
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
JACK REED, Rhode Island
BEN NELSON, Nebraska
JON TESTER, Montana
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Peter Kiefhaber
Ginny James
Rachel Taylor
Scott Dalzell
Chris Watkins
Leif Fonnesbeck (Minority)
Rebecca Benn (Minority)
Brent Wiles (Minority)
Administrative Support
Katie Batte (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Page
Environmental Protection Agency.................................. 1
Wednesday, March 9, 2010
Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary.............. 53
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................ 109
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 141
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:33 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Reed, Nelson, Tester,
Alexander, and Murkowski.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY BARBARA BENNETT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
opening statement of senator dianne feinstein
Senator Feinstein. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I
want to welcome you to the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee
and our hearing on the fiscal year 2011 budget request for the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, more fondly
known as the EPA.
I am very pleased to welcome back Administrator Lisa
Jackson to testify before the subcommittee. She is joined by
Chief Financial Officer, Barbara Bennett. Welcome.
Since this is our first subcommittee hearing of the year, I
would also like to welcome my colleague, Senator Lamar
Alexander, the distinguished ranking member of this
subcommittee, and say how much I am looking forward to working
with you. We had a good year last year, and there is no reason
why we will not have one again this year. So welcome and it is
great to sit next to you.
Turning to the budget, the administration has requested a
total of $10.02 billion for the EPA for fiscal year 2011. That
is a 3 percent cut below fiscal year 2010's enacted level,
which means that EPA proposes to tighten its belt and reduce
funding for a number of programs. That recognizes, of course,
the constraints of these very difficult economic times, at
least to some extent.
The budget requests $2 billion for the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund and $1.29 billion for the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund. Overall, that is a 5 percent cut for these very
popular programs.
The request further eliminates $157 million for
congressionally designated water and sewer projects. Again, a
very popular program.
The request also reduces funding for the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative by $175 million, a 37 percent cut from
the enacted level, for a total of $300 million.
Because of these reductions, it might be easy to say that
EPA's budget is going in the wrong direction, but I would like
to point out that this subcommittee provided a 35 percent
increase to EPA's budget for fiscal year 2010. EPA also
received an additional $7.22 billion from the stimulus act,
known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA),
including $6 billion in funds for water and sewer
infrastructure alone.
I really believe that America's water and sewer
infrastructure is outdated, and I remember the day before
bottled water when you could literally drink water from the tap
anywhere in the United States. We have more or less regressed,
and, therefore, the ability to provide clean water is
extraordinarily important. We are going to have to see that we
do not backslide with these cuts. I know we had a large amount
last year. I guess it was the largest water and sewer
infrastructure program that we have ever done, but we do not
want to backslide.
I would like to commend the administration for shifting
resources within this tight budget to provide increases for
other critical priorities, starting with climate change. Most
importantly, the budget includes a $43 million increase for a
total of $56 million to move forward with regulation of
greenhouses gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA). I am looking
forward to hearing more detail from you, Administrator Jackson,
on how you would expect these funds to be used.
I am also very pleased to see that the budget includes $21
million to implement the greenhouse gas reporting rule that
this subcommittee directed the agency to promulgate in 2008.
That is a 24 percent increase. This rule takes effect this year
and will provide EPA with critical data on some of the Nation's
largest emission sources.
I am also pleased to see that the administration has used
this budget request to address core air and water quality
improvements. Overall, the request provides a 36 percent
increase for grants to States to monitor and improve air
quality, for a total of $309 million.
The request includes a 20 percent increase for State water
pollution control grants to improve water quality permitting
and enforcement, for a total of $274 million.
And the budget also contains several initiatives to improve
community cleanup efforts, starting with a 24 percent increase
for the Brownfields programs for a total of $215 million. For
me that is a welcome increase.
Now, when we are talking about numbers, I think it is also
important that we discuss some of the policy decisions that
drive this budget because, after all, a budget is in fact a
policy document. Specifically, I want to talk about the choices
that EPA is making as it moves forward with the regulation of
greenhouse gas emissions under the CAA.
It has been 3 years since the United States Supreme Court
ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that EPA has a legal
responsibility under the CAA to determine whether greenhouse
gases endanger public health and welfare. Justice Stevens in
that decision said the following:
``Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air
Act's capacious definition of air pollutant, we hold that EPA
has the statutory authority to regulate emissions of such
gases. EPA can avoid taking further action only if it
determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate
change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why
it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine
whether they do.''
This is the opinion.
``Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the
uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and
concluding that it would, therefore, be better not to regulate
at this time. That EPA would prefer not to regulate greenhouse
gases because of some residual uncertainty is irrelevant. The
statutory question is whether sufficient information exists to
make an endangerment finding.''
The Court's language was clear and unambiguous. EPA is
expected to follow the CAA. That means that once EPA issued its
endangerment finding, the agency was required to regulate
greenhouse gases under all sections of the CAA that apply,
which means EPA is now responsible for regulating both mobile
sources and stationary sources. It is that direct and that
clear.
Now, there are those who chose to question EPA's decision
to follow the law. In particular, a number of my colleagues are
working to pass legislation that would strip EPA of its
obligation and ability to determine whether greenhouse gases
endanger public health and welfare as the CAA requires.
I think this is the wrong approach. Legislation overturning
the endangerment finding countermands the Supreme Court's
landmark decision and contradicts scientific consensus about
global warming. Once more, it also jeopardizes groundbreaking
efforts to harmonize EPA's tailpipe emissions standards with
the Department of Transportation's corporate average fuel
economy standards, which we call CAFE. I very much believe that
opposition to EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions is generated by uncertainty about how EPA intends to
follow the law.
Administrator Jackson, last week you made public additional
details of how and when EPA plans to address regulatory
stationary resources, but it is clear that more questions
remain. I think the most important thing we can do this morning
is try to answer some of those questions. As EPA explains its
plans, I believe my colleagues will increasingly realize that
the agency is proceeding in a deliberate and legally defensible
fashion, beginning with facilities already subject to
regulation, tackling only the largest polluters at this time,
and developing a long-term approach to emissions that is as
cost effective and flexible as the law permits. So I very much
look forward to that conversation.
And I would say one other thing. The alternative to EPA
proceeding in my view is that the Congress passes a new law,
and thus far, we have refused or been unable, whichever it is,
to do so. Therefore, EPA's mandate, given to it by the Court in
the Massachusetts case, I think remains exceedingly clear.
So now I would like to turn it over to my distinguished
ranking member, Senator Alexander, for his opening statements.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chairman, and I look
forward to working with you this year, just as we did last
year.
Ms. Jackson, thank you for being here.
I will reserve my questions until the proper time, but I
would like to indicate the areas in which I am most interested.
In talking with you about the regulation of coal ash,
specifically, what would be the impact to electricity rates and
recycling uses if coal ash were regulated as a ``hazardous
waste.'' I would like to talk about that.
Two, mountaintop mining. Senator Cardin and I have
legislation to end the practice of blowing off the tops of
mountains and dumping the residue in streams, and I want to
discuss that subject a little bit.
Clean air. Senator Carper and I have a hearing tomorrow on
our bill which 11 of us are on, a bipartisan bill, the clean
air bill which moves forward pretty aggressively on
SOX, NOX, and mercury. We call it the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 2009. I want to make sure that we
get from EPA all you can give us about what that bill would
cost, and we will talk more about that. But we need the best
possible information about what the impact upon ratepayers and
utilities would be of that bill.
And then hydraulic fracturing. There is concern that one of
the great advantages we have right now as a country is suddenly
we have a lot of new natural gas which is cheaper and lower
carbon than coal. Well, it is cheaper than most forms of
electricity and it is lower carbon, half the carbon of coal
plants, and could be very useful as a bridge to a cleaner
energy future. The questions about hydraulic fracturing--I want
to make sure that whatever your conclusions are about the
relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water
are peer reviewed so that we can have the maximum amount of
confidence in the results.
The chairman and I have a little different view on climate
change. I agree I am ready to buy some insurance from climate
change. I think it is a problem and we need to deal with it. I
support efforts in the Congress to make that the responsibility
of Congress to deal with rather than the EPA because I think
the current law does not give EPA the appropriate flexibility
to deal with it, and I think it is of such major importance
that it ought to be done by Members of Congress rather than an
agency.
But I look forward to your testimony, and those will be my
questions.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
Administrator Jackson, if you would like to proceed.
I would like the subcommittee to know that we will follow
the early bird rule with 5-minute rounds of questions.
Please proceed.
summary statement of hon. lisa p. jackson
Ms. Jackson. Thank you.
Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander and members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you this morning to discuss the EPA's proposed budget
for fiscal year 2011. This budget fully reflects President
Obama's and my commitment to environmental protection and to
ensure that families all across the country have access to
clean air, clean water, and land.
Much work has gone into this budget over the last year, and
I am proud that it supports my key goals for the agency.
Specifically, this budget is a framework to address climate
change, improve air quality, assure the safety of chemicals,
clean up our communities, protect America's waters, expand the
conversation on environmentalism and environmental justice, and
continue to build strong State and tribal partnerships.
I would like to touch on just some of the highlights of
this budget that will protect human health and the environment
and lay a new foundation for our prosperity.
Let me begin by being direct. The science behind climate
change is settled and human activity is responsible for it. The
global warming from 1980 to 2009, a little more than 1 degree
Fahrenheit is statistically significant at the 99.9999 percent
level. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded it is
unequivocal that the climate is changing and it is very likely
that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human
interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform
the environmental conditions on earth unless countermeasures
are taken. That conclusion is not a partisan one.
The Senate has twice passed on a bipartisan basis a
resolution finding that greenhouse gas accumulation from human
activity poses a substantial risk of increased frequency and
severity of floods and droughts. And Senator Alexander, you
cosponsored that resolution. I thank you for that.
This budget reflects that science and positions EPA to
address this issue in a way that will not cause an adverse
impact to the economy. The budget includes a requested increase
of more than $43 million for efforts aimed at taking action on
climate change. The bulk of this funding, $25 million, is for
State grants focused on developing technical capacity to
address greenhouse gas emissions under the CAA. It also
includes funding for implementing new emissions standards that
will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources such
as passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger
vehicles, a rule that I am pleased was supported by the States,
by the auto industry, and many stakeholders.
This budget also requests an additional $3.1 million to
promote work on current and future carbon capture and
sequestration projects.
While addressing global warming, this budget also takes
steps to ensure that the local air quality is good for all,
including those with respiratory problems. To improve air
quality, EPA will continue our support of enhanced monitoring
and enforcement efforts. This budget requests $60 million for
State grants to address new and expanded national ambient air
quality standards, as well as new air monitoring requirements.
Also, this budget provides $6 million to improve air toxics
monitoring capabilities and address compliance and enforcement
issues in local communities.
But toxins are found not only in air emissions but in many
of the common chemicals that we use every day, and we have an
obligation to the American people to ensure these chemicals are
safe. At the end of 2009, EPA released the first-ever chemical
action plans for four groups of substances. More plans are in
the pipeline for 2010.
In this budget, EPA proposes $56 million for chemical
assessment and risk review, including continued development of
chemical management plans to ensure that no unreasonable risks
are posed by new or existing chemicals.
This budget also promotes new and innovative strategies for
cleaning up communities to protect sensitive populations such
as children, the elderly, and individuals with chronic
diseases.
It proposes $215 million for Brownfields, an increase of
$42 million to support planning, cleanup, job training, and
redevelopment of Brownfields' properties, especially in
underserved and disadvantaged communities.
In addition, this budget proposes $1.3 billion for
Superfund cleanup efforts across the country. Cleanup of
contaminated properties takes pollution out and puts economic
opportunity, jobs, in.
Protecting America's waters is a top priority for EPA due
to the tremendous impact water quality has on human and
environmental health and also on economic health. For fiscal
year 2011, this budget reflects EPA's commitment to upgrading
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure with a substantial
investment of $2 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund and $1.3 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund. This will initiate approximately 800 clean water and 500
drinking water projects across America.
Also, the fiscal year 2011 budget request supports numerous
national ecosystem restoration efforts. For instance, $300
million is requested for the Great Lakes, the largest fresh
water system in the world. There is $63 million for the
Chesapeake Bay program and continued funding for the San
Francisco Bay and other important programs. These programs will
address critical environmental issues such as contaminated
sediments and toxics, nonpoint source pollution, habitat
degradation and loss, and invasive species, including the Asian
carp.
prepared statement
We have also begun a new era of outreach and protection for
communities historically under-represented in environmental
decisionmaking. We are building strong working relationships
with tribes, communities of color, economically distressed
cities and towns, young people, and others, but this is just a
start. We must also bolster our relationships with our State
and tribal partners. These are areas that call for innovation
and bold thinking, and I am challenging all of our employees to
bring vision and creativity to our programs.
Thank you for allowing me to briefly go through the
highlights of EPA's 2011 budget. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lisa P. Jackson
Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to
discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed budget.
Let me first say that I am particularly proud of the fiscal year 2011
budget as it reflects President Obama's continuing commitment to
providing the environmental protection that keeps our communities
healthy and clean and his commitment to fiscal responsibility. Families
across America are tightening their budgets; the President has directed
us to do the same.
Environmentalism is a conversation that we all must have because it
is about protecting people in the places they live, work and raise
families. In fiscal year 2011, EPA is focused on expanding the
conversation to include new stakeholders and involve communities in
more direct ways. Over the years, EPA has worked to prevent pollution
at the source and promoted the principles of responsible environmental
stewardship, sustainability, and innovation. EPA works to improve and
encourage sustainable practices and help businesses and communities
move beyond compliance to become partners in protecting natural
resources, managing materials more wisely, reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, and improving the environment and public health. Today's
challenges require renewed and refocused efforts to address old
pollution and prevent new pollution. The $10 billion proposed for EPA
in the fiscal year 2011 President's budget will support key priorities
during this time of fiscal challenges. These themes are: taking action
on climate change; improving air quality; assuring the safety of
chemicals; cleaning up our communities; protecting America's waters;
expanding the conversation on environmentalism and working for
environmental justice; building strong State and tribal partnerships;
and maintaining a strong science foundation.
These themes are aligned with a Government-wide effort to identify
near-term, high-priority performance goals. For EPA, such goals include
reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, improving water quality, and
delivering improved environmental health and protection to our
communities. EPA will work toward meeting these goals over the next 18
to 24 months.
Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, let me touch on
some of the highlights of this budget, both the hard choices and the
targeted investments that will protect our health and the environment,
advance creative programs and innovative solutions, and help build a
new foundation for our prosperity.
taking action on climate change
EPA continues to take meaningful, common sense steps to address
climate change. Making the right choices now will allow EPA to improve
health, drive technology innovation, and protect the environment; all
without placing an undue burden on the Nation's economy. The budget
includes a requested increase of more than $43 million for additional
regulatory efforts aimed at taking action on climate change. It
includes $25 million for State grants focused on developing technical
capacity to address greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
It also includes $13.5 million in funding for implementing new emission
standards that will reduce GHG emissions from mobile sources such as
passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles,
developing potential standards for large transportation sources such as
locomotives and aircraft engines, and analyzing the potential need for
standards under petitions relating to major stationary sources--all
through means that are flexible and manageable for business.
A request of $21 million will support continued implementation of
the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to ensure the collection of high-
quality data. This budget also requests an additional $3.1 million to
promote work on current and future carbon capture and sequestration
projects.
improving air quality
To improve air quality we'll continue our support of enhanced
monitoring and enforcement efforts already underway. We are also
requesting $60 million for state grants to address new and expanded
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as well as air
monitoring requirements. Through the Healthy Communities Initiative
(HCI) we will provide $6 million to improve air toxics monitoring
capabilities and address compliance and enforcement issues in
communities. I will have more to say both about the HCI and our efforts
to improve air quality momentarily.
assuring the safety of chemicals
Assuring the safety of chemicals in our products, our environment
and our bodies is of utmost concern, as is the need to make significant
and long-overdue progress in achieving this goal. Last year, I
announced principles for modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act.
At the end of 2009, we released our first ever chemical action plans
for four groups of substances, and more plans are in the pipeline for
2010. Using our streamlined process for Integrated Risk Information
System assessments, we will continue strong progress toward rigorous,
peer-reviewed health assessments. Additionally, we will continue focus
on high-profile Integrated Risk Information System assessments on
dioxins, arsenic, formaldehyde, trichloroethylene and other substances
of concern. We are proposing $56 million for chemical assessment and
risk review, including continued development of chemical management
plans, to ensure that no unreasonable risks are posed by new or
existing chemicals. Further, this budget invests $29 million in the
continuing effort to eliminate childhood lead poisoning. We will
implement the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule to address lead
hazards created by renovation, repair and painting activities in homes
and child occupied facilities with lead based paint. In fiscal year
2011, $6 million would support national efforts to mitigate exposure to
high-risk legacy chemicals, such as mercury and asbestos.
cleaning up our communities
Among our highest priorities in this budget are investments in new
and innovative strategies for cleaning up communities, especially to
protect sensitive populations, such as children, the elderly, and
individuals with chronic diseases. We will continue to focus on making
safer, healthier communities. To clean up our communities, we're
proposing investments that will get dangerous pollution out, and put
good jobs back in.
This budget proposes $215 million for Brownfields, an increase of
$42 million to support planning, clean-up, job training and
redevelopment of Brownfields properties, especially in underserved and
disadvantaged communities. EPA encourages community development by
providing funds to support community involvement and is adding area-
wide planning efforts to enhance the positive impacts associated with
the assessment and clean-up of Brownfields sites. Through area wide
planning, particularly by focusing on lower income communities
suffering from economic disinvestment, Brownfield properties can be
redeveloped to help meet the needs for jobs, housing, and
infrastructure investments that would help rebuild and revitalize these
communities, as well as identify opportunities to leverage additional
public and private investment. We'll also provide funding for
assessment and clean-up of underground storage tanks and other
petroleum contamination on Brownfields sites.
In addition, we're proposing $1.3 billion for Superfund clean-up
efforts across the country. We will continue to respond to emergencies,
clean up the Nation's most contaminated hazardous waste sites, and
maximize the participation of liable and viable parties in performing
and paying for clean-ups. EPA will initiate a multiyear effort to
integrate and leverage our land clean-up authorities to address a
greater number of contaminated sites, accelerate clean-ups, and put
sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the
environment. The new Integrated Cleanup Initiative represents EPA's
commitment to bring more accountability, transparency and progress to
contaminated site cleanups.
This budget also requests $27 million for the HCI which covers
clean, green, healthy schools; community water priorities;
sustainability and the air toxics monitoring in at risk communities I
mentioned earlier. Six million dollars is requested for the Clean,
Green, and Healthy Schools Initiative to support States and communities
in promoting healthier school environments, to broaden the
implementation of EPA's existing school environmental health programs
including asthma, indoor air quality, chemical clean out, green
practices, enhanced use of Integrated Pest Management, and safe
handling of PCB-containing caulk. EPA will work in partnership with the
Departments of Education and Health and Human Services to accomplish
this initiative.
HCI also includes an increase of $5 million for and Smart Growth
work, including the Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities
with the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban
Development. The Smart Growth program works with Federal partners and
stakeholders to minimize the environmental impacts of development.
These modest investments will make real, measurable, improvements
in a small number of pilot communities. In addition, the strategies
that will be developed could be used in communities across the Nation.
protecting america's waters
Protecting America's waters is a top priority and EPA has an
ambitious vision for the Nation's waters in the years ahead. Water
quality has tremendous impacts on quality of life, on economic
potential, and on human and environmental health. In fiscal year 2011,
EPA continues its commitment to upgrading drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure with a substantial investment of $2 billion for the
Clean Water State Revolving fund and $1.3 billion for the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund. EPA, the States, and community water
systems will build on past successes while working toward the fiscal
year 2011 goal of assuring that 91 percent of the population served by
community water systems receives drinking water that meets all
applicable health-based standards. EPA's partnership investments will
allow States and tribes to initiate approximately 800 clean water and
500 drinking water projects across America, representing a major
Federal commitment to water infrastructure investment. These
investments send a clear message to American taxpayers that our water
infrastructure is a public health and environmental priority.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request supports national ecosystem
restoration efforts; $300 million is requested for the Great Lakes, the
largest freshwater system in the world. This multiagency restoration
effort represents the Federal Government's commitment to significantly
advance Great Lakes protection, with an investment of more than $775
million over 2 years. The focus is on addressing critical environmental
issues such as contaminated sediments and toxics, nonpoint source
pollution, habitat degradation and loss, and invasive species,
including Asian carp.
We're requesting $63 million for the Chesapeake Bay program
including increased funding to implement President Obama's Chesapeake
Bay Executive Order. We are accelerating implementation of pollution
reduction and aquatic habitat restoration efforts to ensure that water
quality objectives are achieved as soon as possible. A centerpiece of
EPA's fiscal year 2011 Chesapeake Bay activity is the implementation of
the Nation's largest and most complex Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed. The TMDL will involve
interstate waters and the effects on water quality from the cumulative
impact of more than 17 million people, 88,000 farms, 483 significant
treatment plants, thousands of smaller facilities, and many other
sources in the 64,000 square mile watershed.
In addition, the budget request includes $17 million for the
Mississippi River Basin. EPA will work with the Department of
Agriculture and States to target nonpoint source reduction practices to
reduce nutrient loadings. EPA will also work with other Federal
partners to target two high-priority watersheds in the Mississippi
River Basin to demonstrate how effective nutrient strategies and
enhanced partnerships can address excessive nutrient loadings that
contribute to water quality impairments in the basin and, ultimately,
to the hypoxic conditions in the Gulf of Mexico.
The budget also proposes $10 million for green infrastructure
research, more than doubling research that offers the potential to help
us transition to more sustainable water infrastructure systems.
expanding the conversation on environmentalism and working for
environmental justice
We have begun a new era of outreach and protection for communities
historically underrepresented in environmental decision making. We are
building strong working relationships with tribes, communities of
color, economically distressed cities and towns, young people and
others, but this is just a start. We must include environmental justice
principles in all of our decisions. This is an area that calls for
innovation and bold thinking, and I am challenging all of our employees
to bring vision and creativity to our programs. The protection of
vulnerable subpopulations is a top priority, especially with regard to
children. Our revitalized Children's Health Office is bringing a new
energy to safeguarding children through all of our enforcement efforts.
We will ensure that children's health protection continues to guide our
path forward. The increased Brownfields investments I mentioned will
target underserved and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods--places
where environmental cleanups and new jobs are needed.
We're also proposing $9 million for Community Water Priorities in
the Healthy Communities Initiative; funds that will help underserved
communities restore urban waterways and address water quality
challenges.
Furthermore, the fiscal year 2011 President's budget includes
approximately $615 million for EPA's enforcement and compliance
assurance program. This request reflects the administration's strong
commitment to vigorous enforcement of our Nation's environmental laws
and ensures that EPA will have the resources necessary to maintain a
robust and effective criminal and civil enforcement program and pursue
violations that threaten vulnerable communities.
building strong state and tribal partnerships
Another hallmark of this budget is strengthening our State and
tribal partnerships. The budget requests $1.3 billion in categorical
grants for State and tribal efforts. State and local governments are
working diligently to implement new and expanded requirements under the
Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. New and expanded requirements
include implementation of updated National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), for the first time addressing Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions, and addressing growing water quality issues, such as
nutrient pollution. This increase includes the $25 million for
greenhouse gas permitting activities already mentioned, as well as
increases of $45 million for core work under air quality management
grants and $15 million for air monitors, all of which I mentioned
previously.
We are also requesting $274 million, a $45 million increase more
than 2010, to help States enhance their water quality programs. New
funding will strengthen the base State, interstate and tribal programs,
address new regulatory requirements, and support expanded water
monitoring and enforcement efforts.
The request also includes increased support for our tribal
partners. In order to help tribes move beyond capacity building to
implementation of their environmental programs, $30 million is budgeted
for a new competitive Tribal Multimedia Implementation grant program.
These grants are tailored to address an individual tribe's most serious
environmental needs through the implementation of Federal environmental
programs, and will build upon the environmental capacity developed
under the Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP). To further enhance
tribal capacity, this budget also includes an additional $9 million for
GAP grants for a total of $71 million. GAP grants develop capacity to
operate an environmental program, and support a basic environmental
office or circuit rider that can alert the tribe and EPA to serious
conditions that pose immediate public health and ecological threats.
maintaining a strong science foundation
In fiscal year 2011, the range of research programs and initiatives
will continue the work of better understanding the scientific basis of
our environmental and human health problems We are requesting a science
and technology budget of $847 million to enhance--among other things--
research on endocrine disrupting chemicals, green infrastructure, air
quality monitoring, e-waste and e-design, and to study of the effects
of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. It's important to highlight
that most of the scientific research increase will support additional
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants and fellowships to make
progress on these research priorities and leverage the expertise of the
academic research community. The $26 million increase for STAR includes
$6 million for STAR fellowships in support of the President's priority
for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math investments. This
reflects a near doubling of the STAR fellowships program. This budget
also supports the study of computational toxicology, and other priority
research efforts with a focus on advancing the design of sustainable
solutions for reducing risks associated with environmentally hazardous
substances.
These are the highlights of a budget that reduces costs while
strengthening American communities and boosting the green economy.
Responsible, targeted investments will protect our health and the
environment, advance creative programs and innovative solutions, and
help build a new foundation for our prosperity. Thank you again for
inviting me to testify today and I look forward to answering your
questions.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam
Administrator.
You sent a letter to a group of Democratic Senators on
February 22 that says EPA is finalizing two actions to lay out
how it plans to move forward: one action to clarify the
schedule, the other the so-called Tailoring Rule to define
entities EPA would initially regulate. Could you briefly walk
us through your timeline and explain what actions you plan to
take?
CLEAN AIR ACT--REGULATIONS
Ms. Jackson. Certainly, Chairman, yes. The letter on
February 22, first, clarifies that EPA expects that no source
will be required to get a CAA permit to cover greenhouse gas
emissions in calendar 2010. So there will be no CAA regulation
essentially of stationary sources--that is an important
distinction--this calendar year.
Also, it clarifies that we will soon put out a memo that
says that the first potential for regulation of stationary
sources will be early 2011 when the car rules become effective.
If you read the CAA, as you mentioned in your opening
statement, it is the first regulation of greenhouse gases that
then triggers regulatory requirements for greenhouse gases
under other areas of the CAA.
We also talk about the need to respond to the numerous
comments we have gotten on the Tailoring Rule, many from States
who say, listen, we want to get involved in CAA regulation. We
know it is coming. We know that even if there is new
legislation, States will need to get ready for their
significant role under the CAA. But we need more time and we
need resources. That is why the budget includes the $25 million
and resources for States.
My letter also talks about phasing in, even more slowly
than we originally anticipated, regulation of stationary
sources, starting with what we call ``anyway'' sources, those
sources that need what, is called a PSD permit, no matter what.
We would then move to the very largest sources and clarify that
over a 5-year period between next year and 2016, we would phase
in sources so that, over time, you move to regulation of a
larger and larger universe of sources.
TAILORING RULE
Senator Feinstein. Two other quick questions I want to get
to in the 5 minutes.
What percent of emissions do you believe will come under
some form of regulation during 2011?
Ms. Jackson. It is a little difficult until we finalize the
Tailoring Rule to be specific, but let me give you a couple of
numbers I think are helpful. Sixty-seven percent of U.S.
stationary source emissions come from sources that emit more
than 100,000 tons per year of CO2 equivalents.
Seventy percent come from sources larger than 50,000 tons, and
75 percent come from sources that emit more than 25,000 tons.
So you get fully two-thirds of our stationary source emissions,
if you look at the largest sources, those more than 100,000
tons.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
As you say in this letter, EPA plans to start phasing in
permitting requirements for sources that are substantially
higher than the 25,000 tons. Your threshold that you discuss in
your draft Tailoring Rule--how do you define ``substantially?''
Ms. Jackson. We have not selected another number. I am
clear in the letter that we are in the middle of rulemaking,
and so I am somewhat constrained until we finalize a rule or
set of rules. But I believe, based on the almost 500,000
comments we have received and as I said, many from States that
there may be a need to phase in and look at a different number
than 25,000 as being our definition of what are significant
sources.
Senator Feinstein. But if I understand what you are saying
then, for the near future, in terms of the next 2 years, you
are going to be dealing with sources, at least 75,000 or more
than 100,000, but they would all be more than 75,000.
Ms. Jackson. That is absolutely true. It will probably be
at least 2 years before we would look at something like, say, a
50,000 threshold.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Alexander.
COAL ASH
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Administrator Jackson, I would like to ask you some
questions about coal ash. You know, in Tennessee, we had a
problem in the Tennessee Valley Authority at Kingston, a big
coal ash problem, and that raised the issue of who ought to
regulate it. Am I correct? Today EPA does not regulate coal ash
but is in the process of considering whether to regulate coal
ash. Is that correct?
Ms. Jackson. That is correct.
Senator Alexander. And I am correct that a part of that
consideration is whether you consider it hazardous waste.
Ms. Jackson. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Alexander. When that regulation comes down, we will
know whether you are going to regulate it, which I think you
should do, and whether it should be hazardous waste, which I
think it should not be. And I wanted to ask you a few questions
about that and get your thought on it. I will go ahead and ask
the questions and then sit back and give you time to answer.
About half, 45 percent, of 136 million of annual tons of
coal ash is recycled, about half of it. Most of that, a lot of
it, maybe all of it comes from coal plants. Is that what we are
talking about? Let us say all that comes from coal plants that
produce 50 percent of America's electricity. This recycled coal
ash ends up in everything from high-strength concrete for
buildings and roads, structural fills, embankments, wallboard,
asphalt filler, grout, paint procedures, blasting, sanding,
grit, roofing products. It is a lot of stuff, and it is
recycled in a way that gets rid of it, which is important, and
makes it useful and, in the process, gives it some value and
that helps keep down electric rates, which is important for
jobs and heating our homes.
Now, yesterday an entrepreneur came by to see me, and I
will not give his name. You know him, I suspect. But he brought
me these limestone pellets, and he claims that he is able to
turn CO2 from smokestacks into limestone, which he
then can use for concrete or aggregate. Of course, if he can
actually do that in a commercially viable way, that would be, I
guess, the holy grail of electricity and make the job of
dealing with carbon a lot easier because 40 percent of carbon
comes from coal plant smokestacks.
The first question would be if this stuff, coal ash turned
into limestone, is regulated as a hazardous waste, would that
have a chilling effect on entrepreneurs such as the one who
came by to see me and make it more difficult for him to develop
this technology to get rid of carbon on coal plants, which is
something that we all hope happens?
I know enough about this, having been in business--if you
have a business and you buy a plant that is on a ``former
hazardous waste site'', you have a real problem with potential
liability. Let us say you have a food processing plant on a
site that used to be a hazardous waste site. You worry about
whether somebody is going to sue you and shut your plant down
and slow down your operation.
So what I am asking you to consider carefully is not
whether EPA should regulate coal ash. I think you should. I
think it is better that you do. But I think it is better that
you not call it a hazardous waste because if you do and if half
of it is used for products like this and if they turn out to be
commercially viable, this product or some other product that
someone invents that finds a way to remove carbon from coal
plant smokestacks is exactly what we are hoping happens in our
country over the next several years and having a chilling
effect on the development of this technology would be a big
mistake.
So I wanted to ask your thoughts about that whole subject
and where you are in the regulatory process.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator. First, thank you for
recognizing that there probably is a need for an increased
regulatory role at the Federal level. I think the Kingston
spill and subsequent coverage really worried people about the
safety of these big impoundments, as well as what might be
leaching from them. So let me start there.
Your first question was about essentially a stigma. It is
fair to say that many have speculated that a hazardous waste
designation would stigmatize a material that is clearly being
reused in significant amounts; I absolutely agree with your
numbers. I have to preface all this by saying there is no
proposed rule out yet. Please understand we are still working
on it.
The vast majority of uses are fine. They are actually to be
encouraged because they are in places where the material is
essentially not allowed to be subject to leaching.
The concern we have seen with this material are twofold.
Number one, very large pounds that are very wet and full of
very heavy materials so that structurally that material can--
the impoundment can break and you can have the kind of
environmental catastrophe you have down in Kingston. And we are
all working, and I have told you how hard the State of
Tennessee and how much I appreciate their partnership in that
cleanup.
And the second issue is what leaches out of the bottom of
those impoundments because what we have found is that this
material is subject to leaching, and most of those impoundments
are wet impoundments. We realize that you put that much stuff
in those impoundments and let water leach through it, you are
going to see impacts to groundwater and those are documented.
So our primary concern is addressing those issues while not
having the unintended consequence of shutting down reuse in an
industry that we primarily agree with. There are some
relatively minor reuses that might be of concern where you take
large amounts of the same material and use it for fill, sir.
But by and large, the reuse of it in wallboard, in concrete is
admirable and to be encouraged.
So that is what we are trying to do.
I do not necessarily agree that saying that the material in
a landfill as waste stigmatizes the material that is not in a
landfill, but that is something that will certainly be subject
to much comment, I would imagine, during the rulemaking
process.
CARBON
Senator Alexander. I thank you for such a good answer. I
found this a fascinating possibility because, Madam Chairman, I
have never suspected--I am not a scientist--that you could
capture and sequester enough carbon from coal plants to make
that all work. I have always thought somebody would come along
with one or two or three or four ways to get rid of carbon in
the same way we do sulphur, nitrogen, and mercury. I just want
to be real careful that any Federal action we take does not
discourage, that we actually should be encouraging it.
Senator Feinstein. This is a building material?
Senator Alexander. This is limestone. So what this
entrepreneur says--and I will let him speak for himself in the
marketplace--is that he has turned CO2 coming out of
the smokestack into limestone. It is then used in concrete or
in aggregate, and according to him, it has been through the EPA
and it does not leach. So hopefully, there will be four or five
inventions that do a similar thing.
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Senator Alexander. In fact, the cost of doing this would be
substantially less than some other ways of dealing with carbon.
You know, if you are buying a product and it is labeled
``hazardous waste,'' all of a sudden, your lawyers come in and
say, wait a minute. We better not use this in this house or 20
years from now somebody will come and say it is like asbestos
and we will all go to jail or we will all be broke.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Alexander. Thank you for your time.
Senator Feinstein. It was very interesting.
Senator Nelson.
CLEAN AIR ACT--ETHANHOL BLENDS
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Administrator Jackson, thanks for coming by. I was glad to
have the opportunity to meet with you yesterday. One of the
points that we talked about was the EPA's pending decision to
waive the CAA for ethanol blends and gasoline up to 15 percent.
And as you understand, as we discussed, it is critical that the
tests on engine compatibility be completed on time in order to
provide stability to the ethanol industry. Without the increase
in blends, advanced technologies may not materialize that will
allow commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol to develop and allow
high-tech efficiency improvements to continue even in the corn-
to-ethanol process.
As such, can you confirm that EPA anticipates the
Department of Energy (DOE) will finish its testing this April
and get some additional detail from you on the next steps the
agency would take towards a proposed decision increasing
ethanol blends in gasoline?
Ms. Jackson. Thanks, Senator.
I did confirm, after our meeting yesterday, that the DOE
testing remains on schedule. So when we last talked about this
publicly, we said that we believed those tests would finish up
in spring, April or May time frame. As of December, only 2 of
19 tests were completed. That did not seem to be enough
information on which to make a waiver decision. We expect that
once we get that additional data--and it will be publicly
available--then EPA will be in a position to move toward a
final decision on waiver. Late summer is the time period.
Senator Nelson. So at this point, you think things are on
track with the time frame that we talked about.
Ms. Jackson. Yes. We did double check that.
ETHANOL BLENDS
Senator Nelson. We also spoke about the concerns regarding
the impact that increased ethanol blends would have on legacy
vehicles and small motors. During our talks, I cited the
example of Brazil which has a blend level defined in the range
of E-20/25. In the 30-plus years of their use of mid-level
blends, there have been no reported negative impacts on motors
used in the Brazilian fleet, as well as small engines used to
equip motorboats, lawn mowers, and chain saws.
I really, as we discussed, hope that you will look very
closely and the agency will look closely to the successes of
Brazil while making your final determination on the E-15 blend
so we can incorporate the success they have had towards energy
and efficiency and bring that back to America as well, as we
discussed.
Ms. Jackson. Thanks, Senator. As you requested, we are
passing that data and that information on to the technical
staff who are reviewing this matter.
SUPERFUND SITE--OMAHA LEAD SITE
Senator Nelson. I think it would be helpful to have that
other experience in the process of looking at the situation
from our standpoint. We do not have to reinvent all experience
if we can learn from others. So I appreciate your looking at
that.
I was also pleased to see in your written testimony the
continued commitment to Superfund cleanup across the country.
As you know, the city of Omaha has the largest residential
Superfund site in the country. The so-called Omaha Lead Site,
as it is known, contains more than 15,000 yards contaminated
with dangerous levels of lead, posing a significant health
risk.
The EPA, up until now, has worked very closely with the
city of Omaha. They have addressed more than 5,600 yards, and
your staff at Region 7 has been doing an outstanding job with
all interests involved. And I am certain, as we discussed, this
cooperation, this excellent working together will continue
under the new regional administrator, Karl Brooks, with whom we
met recently.
My question today is just to confirm that EPA's budget
request will enable the agency to continue excavating these
contaminated yards in implementing the 2009 record of decision.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Senator, that is absolutely right. We
remain committed. It is a top priority for the Superfund
program.
INTEGRATED RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM (IRIS) ASSESSMENT
Senator Nelson. I appreciate that.
And then finally, I know we touched very briefly on the
arsenic issue, but I wanted to follow up regarding a letter I
wrote you back in October. We discussed EPA's draft--IRIS--
assessment. To be brief, the original arsenic rule set the
arsenic limit for tap water at 10 parts per billion in 2001,
put a lot of major, new costs on small communities across
Nebraska. We have significant numbers of small communities
under 2,500 and under 1,500 and under 750 in population.
Now the new IRIS assessment is proposing even more
stringent regulations which would result in even additional
major consequences. We obviously do not want contaminated
water, but if we are not careful in our efforts here--and I
hope that you will look at Dr. Samuel Cohen from the University
of Nebraska's Medical Center, a leading scientist on this low-
dose arsenic exposure--because if we continue to press smaller
communities, not just in Nebraska, but I would imagine in
Montana and elsewhere, on these stringent requirements, the
communities will shut down their municipal water supply and go
to individual wells and drink the same water without any
oversight by EPA. So we have to have a rational approach to
this that keeps in mind good health but good common sense as it
relates to the economics of communities.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator. I could not agree more.
Common sense needs to always be in the front of our minds as we
make regulation. I pride myself on it.
Dr. Cohen's research--we have it. We are providing the
entire IRIS risk assessment back to our scientific advisory
board. They peer reviewed the draft, but this is such an
important issue that we have asked them to conduct a focused
review of our response to their review. Dr. Cohen's research
will be provided as well. We are being as careful as we can.
Let me just say for the record that as EPA Administrator, I
am absolutely committed to helping small communities deal with
the conundrum that they find themselves in, not to simply put
requirements out knowing that the day we do, those communities
find themselves choosing between having enough money to buy
food and pay the water bill.
Senator Nelson. Well, I know with your leadership and Karl
Brooks' leadership, we will see less command and control
situations and more partnership relationships develop so that
we can solve these problems together rather than create
additional burdens on communities' budgets.
Thank you, Administrator, and thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.
Senator Reed.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
And I want to thank you, Administrator Jackson, and the
chairman for the great support you have given to the Clean
Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. These are
absolutely critical to my State and to many other States, not
only in terms of investment in environmental quality, but also
we have an unemployment rate of 13 percent and all this
eventually translates to people working. In fact, I had the
privilege to accompany Curt Spalding to the Fields Point sewage
treatment facility, and they are doing a major renovation and a
major project. Seventy-five people are at work.
And by the way, that was a wise choice, making Curt an
administrator of Region 1. You and the President should be
commended.
Ms. Jackson. Common sense prevails.
CLEAN WATER AND DRINKING WATER REDUCTION
Senator Reed. I agree.
But the need is so huge. Just yesterday I had the mayor of
Newport, Rhode Island, and they are facing a $180 million need
for water infrastructure improvements. They are in negotiations
with EPA and they understand they have to make water pollution
reductions. But I know you have done a lot, but it is a little
bit concerning to me that the budget calls for a $100 million
reduction in both the Clean Water and Drinking Water State
Revolving Funds.
So could you comment on that difficult choice and also
whether there is an opportunity, perhaps in another recovery
package, to put more funds in?
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for the kind
words about Curt. He is great and so is Karl Brooks in Region
7.
You are absolutely right. There were some tough choices
that had to be made. One of them in the budget was trying to
balance all the priorities that States are facing. I have to
say that one of the pieces of good news has been the State
reaction and responsibility and accountability under the ARRA.
As you know, States got $6 billion of ARRA funding for water
projects, and they also got a requirement that they had to have
that money under contract, absolutely under contract by
February 17 of this year. Every single State made it. So I
think it is a testament to two things: the fact that in the
States folks are working hard and that they understand the need
for clean water, both economically and environmentally and from
a public health perspective. But they also need a lot more, as
you point that out in your remarks.
So I would say that between spending the ARRA money and the
significant amount of money that is in this budget, it is still
twice what we saw at the end of the last administration, a real
acknowledgement that now is not the time to cut those funds,
that they are tied to jobs and create jobs. I believe we have
struck a nice balance.
I have to point out there is also money in this budget, a
significant increase, in money for the State water staff and
air staff, by the way, because we know right now the other
problem that States are facing is they are trying to balance
their budgets. And we are hoping that they do not do that by
laying off State environmental workers because they are the
folks who write the permits and do the work to get these funds
on the street.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Administrator.
One other point I would make is it strikes me that the
delivery system for the State revolving funds has been in
existence for a long time and they have the capacity to get the
money out. There are other State programs across the country
that have not been as successful, but this is one where there
is a very good delivery system. Again, I think your comments
indicate an investment in this is not only appropriate and
necessary, but also it is a pretty efficient way to deliver
resources and get people to work. So I thank you for that
effort.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator Reed.
ENDANGERMENT FINDING
Senator Reed. There is an issue that we will confront
shortly, which a Congressional Review Act motion to essentially
withdraw or compel you to withdraw your endangerment finding on
greenhouse gases. I understand that other countries around the
globe have recognized this, for example, China. And then other
countries are suggesting that it is not a problem, like Saudi
Arabia. I think if I was producing lots of petroleum, I would
also not consider it to be a problem.
But can you comment on the consequences if we do not
address this issue as you propose?
And one other point I would suggest is that what is most
interesting to me in one respect is that this issue of climate
change is now being debated seriously as a national security
problem by defense officials, by planners within the Department
of Defense (DOD), and something that is causing them grave
concern. So I think we might--well, I know we will benefit from
your comments.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator.
The Congressional Review Act resolution asks Senators
essentially to invalidate EPA's finding that greenhouse gases
endanger public health and welfare. It is, you know, 5-10 lines
long. That is all it says, that Congress says that the
endangerment finding is not true.
Senator Reed. Based on our scientific expertise.
Ms. Jackson. Based on something.
I think that simple statement is contrary to multiple lines
of scientific inquiry and the belief of the vast majority of
climate scientists and people who work in the field that not
only is the climate changing, the amount of greenhouse gases in
our atmosphere is continuing to increase. That interference in
the atmosphere is man-made, man-induced, and something needs to
be done.
That is what EPA's endangerment finding says, and I think
for this country, for our U.S. Senate, to take that position in
the year 2010 would, indeed, be an enormous step backwards for
science and the results of decades of scientific inquiry.
You asked about national security considerations. The
endangerment finding in and of itself has no regulation with
it, but it will unlock the key to, first, mobile source
regulation and later, as I discussed in my colloquy with the
chairman, common-sense, step-wise regulation. We do know that
our national security is threatened and imperiled by a reliance
on oil that we import. Well more than 50 cents of every dollar
we spend for gasoline is actually for gasoline that is not
produced here in our country, and we need to find a different
method to power our transportation system. I think Americans
agree with that. But more importantly, DOD, CIA, and NSA people
who worry about our national security, say this is a real
threat.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not bring up the
opportunity for tremendous jobs in dealing with climate
pollution. In dealing with the negative impacts, you have a
tremendous benefit, which is we create opportunities. I was
taken by your example, Senator Alexander, of the limestone
pellets. That is what always happens. When it is clear that
there is a regulatory imperative, America always steps in and
finds new ways to deal with the problem. It happened with
catalytic converters on cars. It happened with scrubbers on
powerplants. I have no doubt in my mind as an engineer that the
engineers in this country will rise to the challenge and create
an entire industry around dealing with carbon dioxide
pollution.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Administrator.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Reed.
Senator Tester.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate you being here today, Administrator Jackson.
And Ranking Member Alexander, when we find CO2
can be an asset, then many more problems will be solved. So I
appreciate you bringing forth the limestone example.
I want to thank you for your leadership in the position you
hold in the EPA. I want to thank you for guiding your agency so
efficiently to direct stimulus funds out to States and into
communities to help restart those economies, while building
critically important infrastructure, and improving
environmental quality. I am proud to say that Montana was one
of the fastest States to distribute those recovery funds, and
they were very much appreciated and infused almost $40 million
into rural communities throughout the State to help with water
distribution and bring them in compliance with drinking water
standards. So it was a good thing and, unfortunately, we need
even more. But thank you for your work there.
I want to touch on a question that Senator Nelson asked. In
Montana, where every community is a rural community--and some
of those rural communities are even frontier communities--their
ability to comply with standards that continue to get tighter
and tighter and tighter is very, very difficult. Make no
mistake about it. I do not want rural America to have
substandard water quality, but as the standards get tighter
with our advancement with science, the folks in a lot of these
areas are asking themselves are the tighter standards really
providing a health benefit.
And so I want to ask you two questions. Number one, as
these standards get tighter down the line and I do not care
there are numerous bad things in the water that you always try
to get to zero, but at some point in time, it becomes cost-
prohibitive. Do you feel strongly about the science as these
standards get tighter and tighter, number one?
And number two, is there any ability to give any relief to
these rural communities? I know Senator Nelson asked a very
similar question, but it is very important because, quite
honestly, they are getting to the point where they cannot
afford it. And they are not poverty stricken areas either.
Could you just kind of touch on those things?
Ms. Jackson. I certainly will.
First, on the science question, I think it is incumbent on
me as head of the EPA to make sure the science is absolutely
strong, especially when we are dealing with something like
drinking water. I mean, we cannot live without it, clearly. But
we also do not want to frighten people unnecessarily with all
the things that they are worried about, especially in this day
and age.
That is why we are going the extra mile on the contaminant
like arsenic, which in many cases is naturally occurring, to
say to people before we move into what this means from a
regulatory position, let us go back and make sure that our
science advisory board, who advised us on this last time,
thinks we took the right approach in responding to their
comments. We will include comments that we have received
already through the public comment period and give those to the
science advisory board as well.
You have my commitment we will be as rigorous as we know
how to be, and generally peer review is a really important part
of ensuring scientific rigor.
On the second question of affordability, there is currently
in the law some ability to look at affordability criterion for
small systems. There are also you mentioned the ARRA and the
budget that passed last year. The Safe Drinking Water Act has
always had, as part of the Drinking Water Revolving Fund, the
ability to have loan forgiveness, essentially grants, to help
smaller communities if they cannot afford it. I think we were
talking recently about this because it came up in another
hearing earlier last week, and I do think EPA will renew its
effort to work at the State level with the professionals of the
State to make sure that it is clear where those flexibilities
that currently exist are because they are significant. A lot of
times the problem is less than the flexibility and more that
there is just more money needed. There is flexibility but there
is not enough money to give out. And that, of course, we know
is a concern in terms of investments in water infrastructure.
Senator Tester. And I appreciate the answer. It is
important to know where the majority of the country is dealing
with hundreds of thousands or millions of people on these water
systems, where I live, for example, you are actually talking
about a couple hundred people that covers an area probably four
times the size of New Jersey. And so it is really important
that, as we move forward everybody wants clean drinking water.
You are exactly right. If we do not have this, we do not
survive. But by the same token, we need to make sure that we
are not eliminating the ability for communities to provide
water or they will disappear. Period.
I have got about 12 more questions, but I will go around. I
assume we are going to have another round, Madam Chair?
Senator Feinstein. Yes, we are.
Senator Tester. Well, thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. I will be back. Thanks.
WATER QUALITY FUNDING AND ENFORCEMENT
Senator Feinstein. Okay, good.
I wanted to change my topic, at least a little bit, to
water quality funding and enforcement. As I mentioned, we put
in nearly $10 billion for water and sewer projects in fiscal
year 2010, including $6 billion through the stimulus. My
understanding is all States needed to have their ARRA funds
under contract by February 17 or risk losing them. Are all of
the ARRA funds under contract at this time?
Ms. Jackson. They are, indeed, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. And how many are there?
Ms. Jackson. There were $6 billion total. Are you asking
for the number of projects?
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Ms. Jackson. I do not know. We will grab that number for
you.
Senator Feinstein. I think it is 3,416. They say do not ask
a question you do not know the answer to.
Senator Feinstein. I think it is that, which I think is a
very good record. We got those projects funded and that was
good.
The New York Times recently reported that more than one-
third of sewer systems have violated clean water laws since
2006. The Times also reported that fewer than 3 percent of
Clean Water Act violation resulted in fines or other
significant enforcement actions.
And as a matter of fact, I must tell you I have noticed
that too. When I was president of the board of supervisors, we
were under a cease and desist order and a sewer connection ban,
and had to build a whole new wet weather sewer system because
the sewers overflowed. If they overflowed more than 200ths of
an inch and the water went into the ocean and the Bay of San
Francisco, it was a bad thing. And so there was a penalty.
Since that time, I have really seen no real penalties.
And I want to get to the delta and all the sewer systems
that empty into the delta area of California in a minute.
But what specific steps is EPA taking to improve
enforcement and what is your time table for making changes, if
there is one?
Ms. Jackson. Chairman, the time table is easy. That is
immediate. It has already begun. The Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement, Cynthia Giles, who is here in response to that
series of articles. There was a series of articles in the New
York Times, and they were not alone. There were lots of people
who were saying that water enforcement had seemed to be de-
prioritized has stepped up enforcement.
Now, I have to tell you we are going to continue to focus
on the biggest threats to human health, not just to get, you
know, cases for the sake of bringing cases. Oftentimes, these
cases can be against municipalities that are already
financially strapped. Our desire is to get them into
compliance, not to take all their money so that they then have
to spend it on a penalty, but to get them into compliance. And
that is what we have been saying.
The other focus is transparency. One of the things that
series of articles did is that the reporter spent an incredible
amount of time going State by State to get data that is not now
nationally available. So people cannot look and see whether or
not systems are complying without lots and lots of work. They
cannot get a picture of the U.S. water compliance. So we are
insisting, when we work with our States they are our partners,
but we are being pretty tough on this that they have to make
that data available and transparently available so that folks
can see what is going on.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me stop you for a minute. Now,
the budget has $45 million. It is an increase for State water
pollution control grants. How are you going to assure that the
States use this money for enforcement?
Ms. Jackson. That money will be for permit writing and for
enforcement. Oftentimes, they are the same person at the State
level, as we all know. And it will be given out through grants
under our performance partnership agreements with the States
and will be conditioned on use and sometimes some amount of
match to ensure that it is used for water programs. There is
actually a slightly larger amount for air programs as well.
States have been asking for this money, and we are proud to
as a former State commissioner, I am proud to be able to give
them some help, especially now.
GREAT LAKES FUNDS
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Let me go on quickly to the Great Lakes. There were $475
million. It was cut to $300 million. As of February 17, I think
you have only obligated or transferred $39 million of that
amount. So we have a huge appropriation out there for the Great
Lakes with very little movement. Why is that?
Ms. Jackson. The President asked me, as head of the Great
Lakes process, to do several things. One was to ensure that we
involved all the Federal agencies that have real work to do on
the Great Lakes. The other was to include a real outreach
process so that we would come out with an action plan, which we
just released about 2 weeks ago, that reflected what the
community and the stakeholders, the States, the tribes, around
the lakes wanted, industry as well. I think it is a very strong
plan. It builds on a lot of work.
And last but not least, we really did not get the
appropriation until the budget was reviewed, and that was
toward the end of last calendar year. And so we could not put
out the grant solicitation until we had the money to back up
that grant solicitation. Those grant solicitations are out now,
and I think we will start to see money awarded very soon. I
also think it will be money for real projects on the ground.
What we have said is what the President said is he wants work
done in the Great Lakes, not lots and lots of
Senator Feinstein. Right, exactly. Well, I appreciate that.
You know, I think we should take a look at that and monitor it
because this is a huge project. And there is a lot of use for
those monies. I am thinking of one specifically in California,
which is the bay delta.
The bay delta is, Senator, a very interesting place. It is
enormous. It has got maybe 2,000 miles of levee. There are a
lot of artificial islands, peat soil. You know, when the soil
leaks into the delta, it throws off trihalomethanes, which are
difficult to treat. It is the source of drinking water for 20
million people. The federally run Central Valley Water Project
has a huge aqueduct, which pumps water out of the delta all the
way down to southern California essentially. And it is under
great stress.
My question to you, Madam Administrator, is what can the
EPA do to achieve the goals you identified in your work plan to
address the water quality issues, including what are growing
discharges of ammonia and something called pyrethroids, which I
gather are dangerous, toxic to crustaceans and therefore fish.
We have two endangered species, namely the smelt and the
salmon, and that impacts everything done in the delta. There is
a real need for some EPA participation in this. So if you have
any suggestions that you would like to put on the table, I
would love to hear them.
Ms. Jackson. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman.
EPA is committed to working on the water quality side of
the equation when it comes to the bay delta. Obviously, there
are water quantity issues, but if the water that we get is
dirty and requires lots of money to treat in order to be used,
whether it is for agriculture or drinking water or whether it
is hurting the ecosystem, at the end of the day, we still have
a problem in the bay delta.
So I think that is where EPA's expertise and assistance to
the State of California can be absolutely invaluable. You have
my commitment that we will work on looking at dischargers to
try to ratchet those numbers down so that people are properly
stewarding the bay in terms of what they discharge and also
looking at ecosystem health and water supply issues from the
context of we do not want dirty water once, we get it, to see
what we can do ensure water quality.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. That is very helpful. Thank
you very much.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING AND DRINKING WATER
Administrator Jackson, $4.3 million requested this year to
undertake a study of the relationship between hydraulic
fracturing and drinking water. This is a pretty important
study. I mean, suddenly in the United States we find we have a
whole lot of natural gas at low prices, which is important for
a wide variety of reasons.
My question is we hear a lot of talk about good science. I
want to make sure that in the review of this issue that you
have the maximum amount of peer review and good science so that
everyone has confidence in the conclusion. What is your plan?
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator.
I am happy to give you that assurance. The study has not
begun yet. In fact, what we are in the process of doing is
reprogramming money for the current fiscal year so that we can
begin the study this year rather than wait. I think this is a
very important and timely issue and we need to start sooner
rather than later. We have not completely scoped out the peer
review aspect of it, but I will be happy to work with you and
your office to ensure you feel comfortable that there is
adequate and sufficient review of the results.
Senator Alexander. I would appreciate that. Would you
consider peer review entities outside the EPA?
Ms. Jackson. They normally are, sir. There are several
options for peer review. Our science advisory board is an
organization that is outside the EPA, but we have also used
different methods for peer review. So I am happy to discuss
that with you.
CLEAN AIR
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
I would like to move to clean air. Two questions.
As I mentioned, Senator Carper and I have a hearing
tomorrow in the Environment and Public Works Committee on our
clean air law, which would be nationally stronger standards for
SO/x/ and NO/x/ and the first law requiring a 90 percent
reduction in mercury from coal plants.
One, will you work with us to make sure we understand the
cost of that? You have a lot of capacity for modeling and a lot
of experience in that. I want to make sure we know what we are
doing. In other words, I do not want us to put a law--in the
early estimates from EPA are that the cost might not be more
than $2 or $3 a month more on the average electric bill by
2025. If that is so, that is not much money. But I do not need
a complete answer today. I just want to get it to the top of
your list in your agency and make sure you give us as much help
as possible, as quickly as possible, in having a reliable cost
estimate because we would like to pass the bill this year.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Alexander. So will you help us?
Ms. Jackson. I am happy to make sure our staff sit down
with you as soon as possible to talk to you about exactly what
analyses you need in order to support your work on the bill
this year.
CLEAN AIR ACT--AMBIENT OZONE STANDARDS
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much.
Now, here is my other question. EPA will soon issue final
regulations to tighten local ambient ozone standards
nationwide, and it looks like it is going to put every
metropolitan area in the country, such as those in California
and Tennessee, Madam Chairman, in nonattainment status with the
CAA.
Now, that is of great practical importance. When I was
Governor and Nissan came to Tennessee, the first thing they did
was run down to the air quality agency and get a clean air
permit so they could open a paint plant. And if Volkswagen has
come to Chattanooga and they are recruiting suppliers, the
first thing they are going to do is, in some case, to have to
get a clean permit.
We have a lot of air blowing into our State, for example,
and a lot of it blows up against the Smoky Mountains. So we
have a lot of special clean air problems, and I know that our
communities are working very hard. Senator Corker, when he was
mayor of Chattanooga, worked very hard. In other words, we are
doing almost all we can locally. Perhaps we can do some more to
clean up our air.
It will take strong national emission controls on coal
plants for us to be able to meet your upcoming stricter local
standards. I want to make sure we do not get the cart before
the horse here. I am working hard for stronger national
emission control standards, but if you come in with unrealistic
local standards, the effect will be to send Volkswagen offshore
with its suppliers, and that will put jobs where we do not want
them.
So what are you doing, as you look over the next 3, 4, 5
years to harmonize your local ambient standards with the
national requirements that will help local communities meet
your upcoming tougher local standards?
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator.
You are absolutely right on the way the CAA works. There
are requirements that are put on States and regions. But one of
EPA's most fundamental responsibilities is to deal with what is
called interstate transport, the fact that the Eastern United
States gets a lot of pollution just by virtue of the way the
wind blows. EPA is planning to release a proposed rule in the
coming months, actually very soon, to replace what is called
the CAIR Rule. You probably recall that CAIR was thrown out by
the courts. The last administration's rule was thrown out as
not following the Clean Air----
Senator Alexander. And the purpose of our legislation is to
fix that problem.
Ms. Jackson. I think we have the same goals there and I
think it is extremely important.
Let me just say one word about the proposed ozone
standards. Those are not final yet. So, again, I do not want
anything I say here to somehow prejudice the public comment
period, which is ongoing and very, very important.
The CAA is also very clear about how standards have to come
to be set. It says, first, figure out what is necessary to
protect health. That is the foundation. And that is based
entirely on science, as you know, not on economics, but then
the regulations that ensue afterwards are very much based on
economics. You, I think, know me now well enough to know that
as we move to the regulatory--whatever happens on the national
ambient air quality standards themselves--I believe it is
important to be honest with the American people. Sometimes we
have good environmental news and sometimes we have challenges.
Until we are clear about what the challenges are, we cannot
expect people to be able to figure out how to solve them.
So we will go through the process and we will move, I
think, in a way that will ensure that the CAA will do what it
has always done. Air pollution is down 41 percent for priority
pollutants, while GDP has gone up. I think that kind of story
is entirely possible. As I know you do, in your proposed
legislation.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
SUPERFUND SITE--LIBBY, MONTANA
Montana also has some other big challenges. I think we have
11 Superfund sites on the national priorities list. They are
some of the biggest and complex in the United States in a
headwaters State.
As I invited you last year to come to Libby, the invitation
is still on to take a look at some and, if you have the time,
all of these Superfund sites. So that invitation still stands,
and I look forward to the time where you can get to Big Sky
Country.
I want to talk about Libby for just a second. First of all,
I want to thank you for your work with Kathleen Sebelius and
with Senator Baucus and myself in declaring the public health
emergency for Libby. That was critically important with more
than 200 folks dead in a very small town, I might add, and
thousands more sick. This designation was warranted and will
help bring proper resources to that community, and I want to
express my appreciation for that, as well as Secretary
Sebelius.
What I wanted to ask you about now, in reference to Libby,
is that last year the subcommittee instructed you to report
back within 180 days, which you have still got about 60 days of
those left, about the known health risks and baseline for
determining the cleanup activities planned for Libby with
sufficient science to develop a record of decision. How is that
report coming?
Ms. Jackson. I believe it is in process. I think we have
continued to work on it, sir, and we will get you a status
report for the record because I do not have the specifics on
the report.
Senator Tester. Okay, that would be good.
[The information follows:]
Determining Clean-up Activities Planned for Libby
A draft report is currently undergoing internal Environmental
Protection Agency review and we plan to transmit the report to you on
schedule.
Senator Tester. One of the things that is going on right
now in Libby is the risk assessment is using old methodology,
both data and methodology from about 2000. So I think, as with
everything--in Libby's case, all we want in the end--all you
want, all I want--is to have a place that is safe to live in.
And so we need to have the best or the newest techniques. So
make sure that we do the work that we do right and make sure we
are not spending our money on stuff that we do not need to be
spending money on.
So the question is since Libby is really setting the
science for asbestos resource, what kind of oversight can we
expect from you or the agency to make sure that we are using
the best science available.
Ms. Jackson. Well, we will continue to--I absolutely agree.
Libby is sort of the frontier of this amphibole asbestos
science. We will continue to make sure that we refine that
science as more information becomes available.
One of the problems in Libby is that we are using very old
risk information. We have committed to updating that toxicity
information, but it will not happen until sometime in 2011.
What my commitment to you, Senator, is that we do not want
to stop all cleanup while we wait for new information.
Senator Tester. No.
Ms. Jackson. So sort of the common-sense approach is where
the risk information is irrelevant, let us move ahead on
cleanup because we know we have to do it, and in those cases
where we need the risk information to make a final decision,
let us hold off, but we want to continue to do both. Right?
Great science but also keeping the cleanup going for the
citizens.
SOUND SCIENCE--ASBESTOS
Senator Tester. And can you give me any sort of assurance
that before that record of decision is issued, that we will
have sound science behind that?
Ms. Jackson. I absolutely will, but let me just be clear
because I do not want you to be angry at me later. There are
some decisions we can make based on the science we have now.
The science we have now is necessary and sufficient to support
some decisions. Let us try to make them, but let us not run to
make a decision if we do not have the necessary science.
Senator Tester. But when that final record of decision
comes out, it has got to be based on solid science.
Ms. Jackson. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Tester. Okay.
There are about 8,000 folks in Libby that have been exposed
to asbestos. There is epidemiological data to bear that out on
those 8,000 folks. I am wondering why that data--if you can
respond to this, and I know it is pretty specific--but why that
data is not being used to evaluate the risk on human health,
rather we are utilizing animal testing.
Ms. Jackson. Yes. I cannot respond to it. It is sort of
beyond what I know of the site. But why do I not check and we
will get back to you.
[The information follows:]
Libby--Using Epidemiological Data
The approach that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
using to evaluate the human health risk from current and future
exposure to Libby amphibole is multifaceted and is described in detail
in the above-referenced report that will be submitted to the Senate
Appropriations Committee. Animal studies are only one component of this
effort. Epidemiologic data based on measured exposures and observed
cancer incidence in Libby mine workers, who also were residents of
Libby, are being evaluated to determine a Libby amphibole-specific
cancer toxicity value. Similarly, epidemiological data based on
measured exposures and observed noncancer effects in processing plant
workers exposed to Libby amphibole are being evaluated to determine a
Libby amphibole-specific noncancer toxicity value. These values,
coupled with exposure concentrations measured in Libby, will be used to
evaluate the risk of cancer and noncancer effects for the Libby
community. These values are expected to be available for use in the
baseline risk assessments for the Libby and Troy communities, which are
planned to be completed in 2012. The animal studies that also are
underway are expected to provide additional toxicity information to
inform the uncertainty sections of the baseline risk assessments. Long-
term epidemiological studies designed to tie health effects to
quantitative measures of exposure to Libby residents that did not work
in the mine or mills are also underway. In order to use epidemiological
data to quantitatively evaluate the incidence of adverse health
effects, quantitative measures of exposures are required. The incidence
of adverse health effects in Libby residents who were not mine or mill
workers is well-documented, but has not yet been tied to quantitative
measures of exposure. This is one of the goals of the long-term
epidemiological studies that are now underway in Libby.
Senator Tester. And I would just say that the CARD Clinic
up in Libby is doing a great job and if EPA utilizes them to
the best of their ability, they can be a great asset for you in
that community because they are on the ground.
One more question very quickly. Libby is complex. There has
not been a risk assessor working with EPA in the community, and
I was wondering what your sentiment is on placing a risk
assessor on the ground in Libby. It could help with agency
communication with the residents. My understanding is--and you
can correct me if I am wrong on this that basically there is a
toxicologist that comes up once a month from California, and
communication is critically important. I just want to get your
perspective on why a risk assessor is not there and if you
think there is a need for one.
Ms. Jackson. I am happy to look into the specific staffing
issues, sir, through the San Francisco office. I would say that
I do know that the daily presence of public health
professionals is extremely important. The risk assessment part
of the science is a bit more wonky and a bit more it drives
cleanup levels, but it is usually not necessary to have someone
there all the time. It is very unusual to have a risk assessor
full-time at a site, but let me check into it.
[The information follows:]
Libby--Full-time, On-site Risk Assessor
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) operates a project
specific information center and field office in Libby that is open
during regular business hours. The Libby office is staffed by an EPA
Remedial Project Manager and a Contract Administrative Assistant who
live in Libby. Their full-time presence in Libby provides the
opportunity for individuals to meet with EPA concerning the site. The
remedial project manager's duties include oversight of field activities
and coordination with the site toxicologist to address community
concerns regarding site risks. The remedial project manager in the EPA
Libby field office, supported by his team of response contractors, also
serves as an Environmental Resource Specialist (ERS) so that if
community members encounter vermiculite that may contain Libby
amphibole asbestos they will be able to get immediate action from EPA.
Action is tailored to the circumstance; EPA may offer on-the-spot
answers to any questions regarding how to address the situation or, if
necessary, on-scene support. This service is available during business
hours and for emergencies. Community members have often sought the help
of the ERS to help reduce the potential for exposure to asbestos.
Regarding a full-time on-site risk assessor, at this time, EPA does
not believe that the tasks associated with the site risk assessor
require full-time residence in the community. Since 2007, contractors
for EPA have been conducting activity based sampling to quantify
current exposures to Libby amphibole asbestos during various types of
yard work and children's playtime. Once Libby amphibole specific cancer
and noncancer toxicity values are developed, the risk assessor will use
these values and the activity based exposure concentrations to
quantitatively estimate risks in the Libby community.
CLARK FORK RIVER
Senator Tester. Okay. Communication, I think, is key and I
think it helps your effectiveness, as well as communities
understanding what is going on and why it is going on. But I
appreciate your attention to that.
Very quickly, and I will just make this my last question.
Currently the State of Montana has a great working relationship
on the Clark Fork River, restoring a watershed and turning that
area into a scenic park. The work will restore clean water,
fish, aquatic species habitat, and revitalize a corridor that
is home to many of Montana's farms and ranches. This site was
listed in 1985. It has waited a long time for cleanup. The
State and the EPA have entered into a consent agreement where
the State is the lead agency, a position well deserved after
their good work, particularly in Silver Bow County and Milltown
Dam.
There is more than $100 million ready to put folks to work
in restoration economy in Montana. Unfortunately, this work is
stalled because of what I would call a minor disagreement
between the EPA and the State. I just need your commitment that
you will work with the State of Montana, which is the lead
agency, to get these issues resolved so that we can get these
projects commenced in a timely fashion. As I said, Montana is a
headwater State. This is no different, and the quicker we get
it cleaned up, I think the better it is for the whole country.
Ms. Jackson. Certainly, Senator. Obviously, we have the
same goal, which is to get it cleaned up.
Senator Tester. Yes. Thank you very much. Once again, thank
you, Lisa. I appreciate your time. I appreciate your answering
the questions.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
Welcome, Senator Murkowski. You are up next if you would
like to be.
STATIONARY SOURCE EMITTERS
Senator Murkowski. Thank you so very much. I appreciate it.
I apologize that I have not been here for opening statements.
We have Secretary Salazar testifying in the Energy Committee,
so we are kind of bouncing back and forth this morning.
But good morning, Administrator Jackson. Thank you for
being here.
A couple questions. You probably already know where I am
going to be coming from in terms of my questions this morning.
When the President spoke to us at his State of the Union
Address, he called on the Congress to develop comprehensive
energy and climate legislation, and then it was just a few days
later when he released his budget, that the EPA requested more
than $40 million in order to begin regulating greenhouse gas
emissions on its own.
I have expressed my concerns about that. I believe it
should be the Congress that does the policymaking in this area.
I am quite concerned that EPA's actions will harm our economy
at a time that we can least afford it.
Now, I understand and I have read the letter that you have
sent just last week--I believe it was last Monday--in response
to several of my colleagues about how you understand the EPA
would implement its proposed regulations. I would like this
morning to just get some better clarification from the points
that were raised in that letter.
According to that timeline, you said that roughly 400
stationary source emitters will face regulation under the CAA
in the first half of 2011. My questions this morning are, given
that timeline then, how many stationary sources do you
anticipate would be regulated in the second half of 2011? I am
trying to anticipate what it is that we might be seeing as we
move through this transition, I guess, for lack of a better
term, that you have proposed. So can you give me some
indicators as to what we might anticipate that second half of
2011 and then how many stationary sources we would see
regulated by the end of 2013?
And then it is my understanding 2016 is when you hit the
smaller sources. So the number of increases that we will
anticipate and when we actually hit what you defined as smaller
stationary sources.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator.
I just have to preface everything I say by saying the
letter was an attempt to give what we know about an ongoing
rulemaking process. I need to just say that up front.
You asked about the first half of next calendar year, first
half of 2011. And then the second half. So as you move into the
second half, it is likely, depending on the final rulemaking,
that you could see up to 1,700 permits manually that would need
to be reviewed for greenhouse gas emissions that would not this
year, for example. So I think that was your question.
Senator Murkowski. So that would be July 2011 you would see
an additional 1,700. Is that right?
Ms. Jackson. Yes. We have not set an exact date, but you
said second half of the year. I feel more comfortable with that
terminology.
Senator Murkowski. Yes, sure.
Ms. Jackson. And then you asked about 2012?
Senator Murkowski. 2013.
Ms. Jackson. Depending on the level that we choose, it
probably looks around 3,000 additional major sources. Again,
that is based on what we know right now from public comment. A
lot of this is based on comment we have received from States
who say, ``This is what we see our workload being.''
And then you asked about 2016 where we are looking at--what
the letter says and what I feel comfortable saying today
sitting here is that it--be no sooner than 2016 that we would
move to the smallest sources.
SMALL SOURCE REGULATIONS
Senator Murkowski. And can you give me then some examples
of what you would consider to be those smaller sources that
would be subject to regulation after 2016? The big concern, the
fear is that the local corner restaurant would be subject to
regulation. Can you give me some examples of what you might
consider?
Ms. Jackson. I do not have any specific categories. I would
say that it would be based on a tonnage amount per year. We
said that would be the smallest of the small sources.
Perhaps this would be helpful. Sixty-seven percent of
covered major stationary source emissions come from facilities
larger than 100,000 tons of CO2 equivalent; 70
percent from facilities larger than 50,000 tons; and 75 percent
from facilities larger than 25,000 tons. So you can see you do
not get a whole lot more in terms of percentage reduction when
you move from, say, 100,000 down to 50,000. And the same is
true when you move from 50,000 to 25,000.
Senator Murkowski. So as you define a small stationary
source by ton, what would that number be?
Ms. Jackson. The letter simply says that in the proposed
rule, we talked about 25,000 tons as being the number.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Ms. Jackson. What the letter says is that we are looking at
a significantly higher level because one thing we have heard
from many, many States is that 25,000 tons would still get in
certain facilities that they do not consider large, and would
more appropriately be considered small. This is the Tailoring
Rule. That is what it is generally called--to tailor greenhouse
gas regulation and phase it in over a long period of time. We
are looking at something significantly higher than 25,000 tons,
you know, 50,000, 75,000. We are looking at those numbers as we
finalize the rule.
Senator Murkowski. Madam Chairman, my 5 minutes are up. I
do not know if we are doing second rounds.
Senator Feinstein. Why do you not take some more time?
REGULATION VERSUS LEGISLATION
Senator Murkowski. Okay, I appreciate that. I appreciate
the indulgence.
Let me ask for some clarification here, and this is
clarification on EPA's position on regulation versus
legislation. There was a statement that was made in Copenhagen
that I think has generated a little bit of confusion. You had
stated--and this was presumably in reference to the choice
between either Congress or EPA acting to reduce emissions--that
``this is not an either/or moment. It is a both/and moment.''
So you have made that statement.
But then you have also made other statements that provide
that ``I absolutely prefer that the Senate take action.''
Elsewhere you have been quoted as saying that you firmly
believe--and the President has said all along--that new
legislation is the best way to deal with climate change.
So I am not sure whether you agree with me--and I think the
President as well--that new legislation is the best way to deal
with climate change or whether it should be EPA regulation. I
would like you to provide to me and certainly to the
subcommittee here to explain what the position is regarding
whether it should be EPA or whether it should be Congress that
should develop our Nation's climate and energy policy.
Ms. Jackson.Well, I stand behind my statement in
Copenhagen. I certainly stand behind the President's call for a
comprehensive energy legislation that puts a price on carbon. I
believe that is absolutely the best way, as you said, to move
our country into a clean energy future. I think it is critical.
I also think that it is not an either/or moment. I think
even legislation that has currently passed the House--that is
the standard we have right now--envisions that EPA will have
certain roles to play. There is lots of regulatory work that
the EPA can do that is entirely consistent with new legislation
in the future. I believe it is incumbent on me as head of the
agency to ensure that regulations that we propose and
promulgate are consistent with what is going on here in
Congress with respect to new legislation. It is complex, but it
is not the time to make a choice as to whether or not EPA can
regulate.
I think the CAIR rules are an excellent example of that
because they are rules that are likely--I do not want to guess
what Congress may do or take away any prerogatives, but likely
to survive because they are such an important milestone for our
country. The auto industry wanted the rules. Labor unions
wanted the rules. Environmentalists believe in the rules.
States wanted the rules in order to have one regulatory picture
for cleaner cars for this country between now and 2016. And I
think those rules are an example of the kind of common-sense,
smart rulemaking we can do that is entirely consistent with my
belief and hope that Congress will, indeed, enact new
legislation in the future.
REGULATORY APPROACH
Senator Murkowski. Well, I think the President, in his
statements that I have read, has been quite clear that he
prefers and is encouraging the Congress to move on climate
policy, and that is the direction that should be taken as
opposed to the regulatory approach.
And I think one of the concerns that we face, what I am
discussing with Secretary Salazar just upstairs, is the concern
that there are policies that are happening over here and
regulation that is basically doing whatever they want within
the agencies. And you do not have a meshing. You do not have a
coordination. We see far too often, I think, kind of this
bootstrap--not necessarily bootstraps. What is the expression I
am thinking of? ``Belts and suspenders'' where you have overlap
of regulation and policy that do not necessarily mix, and then
we do not have a coherent scheme in place.
So, I do not know that I am any more clear, based on your
statement this morning, as to whether or not you think it
should be the Congress and those of us that are elected by our
constituents and accountable to them to enact and advance
climate policy. So we will continue to work and address this.
I have one parochial question, if I may.
Ms. Jackson. If you would not mind, let me just be clear
again that I would like nothing more than to see Congress enact
comprehensive energy and climate legislation. I join the
President in that call. It is my belief that there is no
example out there of EPA regulation, since I have been
Administrator, that is not entirely consistent with a belief
that that is where we are heading.
And it is also my belief that the States, as well as EPA,
will have a significant role to play as we move into a world
where carbon pollution is addressed, hopefully by law. And we
have to get ready for that. We can take steps now that put us
on that road that are entirely consistent with where we are
trying to head. As you know, Secretary Salazar and I are part
of a green Cabinet that meets regularly to ensure that our
efforts under President Obama's leadership are coordinated and
support his call for legislation.
Senator Murkowski. Given what you have just said then,
would you support Senator Rockefeller's proposal to delay for 2
years any implementation of EPA regulations?
Ms. Jackson. I support the need for new legislation to
address carbon pollution, and I support and believe that it is
my duty as EPA Administrator to promulgate and finalize common-
sense, smart regulations that do not put this country in lose-
lose situations, but that are win-win. And I think the
automobile proposal, which we will soon need to finalize, is an
example of how we can do that. I do not think we are at a fork
in the road.
I also think, Senator, and I should point out that the law
compels me as EPA Administrator to follow the Supreme Court
decision of April 2007. The law says that EPA has to move
forward on these issues, and the rule of law and my respect for
it demands that we move forward as well.
VILLAGE SAFE WATER PROGRAM
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. I think there are many of us
who feel that the EPA is expanding their interpretation beyond
what you believe.
Let me ask very quickly a last question here, and again,
this is parochial. This is regarding the village safe water
funding.
Funding for the Village Safe Water program has been reduced
in past years and remained flat-funded in the fiscal year 2011
budget request. We have some pretty considerable needs in my
State for water and sewer infrastructure, but our greatest
needs are in communities that have absolutely no running water,
no sewer service. Approximately 20 percent of our Native Alaska
villages do not have what I think people would consider just
basic services, basic needs.
I would ask that you look at the funding for the Village
Safe Water program. This is something that we have been working
with your agency on, and I would like to think that this is an
area where we can find areas of cooperation as we work to
address some pretty basic needs for people in some of the most
remote areas of the country.
Ms. Jackson. I am happy to do that, Senator.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
GREENHOUSE GASES--MARKET-BASED SYSTEM
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Well, I think it is obvious that I greatly respect Senator
Murkowski, but we have a very different view on this subject. I
strongly believe, based on the Massachusetts case and I have
read the law, the opinion here this morning, that you have to
move forward and should move forward.
However, I just want to say personally I have always felt
that an incremental approach to the legislative approach is a
much better way of going. Some time ago, I introduced a bill
that affected the electricity sector only. I still, to this
day, believe that if we move to institute a system affecting
the electricity sector first, that it would work well and that
people would see how a global warming cap and trade bill could
be put into play. I believe each sector is different, but that
is for another day.
Your budget asks for $7.5 million to fund the development
of national new source performance standards for greenhouse
gases, which you contend, I believe, that it would allow EPA to
consider market-oriented mechanisms and flexibilities to
provide a lowest cost compliance option.
Is it possible to set a market-based system to regulate
greenhouse gases in the utility sector using these standards?
And has EPA ever done something similar to this?
Ms. Jackson. I think, Chairman, the reference to market-
oriented mechanisms should not be read too broadly to imply
that EPA is currently looking at a market-oriented mechanism,
say, cap and trade, such as has been discussed--passed in the
U.S. House of Representatives and is certainly being discussed
in various quarters in the U.S. Senate. Rather, I believe that
section 111 of the CAA might authorize inclusion of some
market-oriented mechanisms. That is one of the discussions that
we are having for certain categories. So I do not want the
language in the budget document to be read too broadly and for
us to assume at this point that the agency has broader
information.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me discuss it with you. As I
understand it, you have created a cap and trade system for
sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide under this provision of the
CAA, known as the CAIR Rule. So EPA can do this. It would have
to be sector by sector instead of economy-wide. And it would
not be able to benefit from offsets. But if you can do it with
sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide, I do not understand why you
cannot do it here too.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Madam Chairman. I am not saying that it
cannot be done. There are certainly limitations on it. I think
it is something that we are happy to continue to work with your
staff as we develop our thinking on where that might be
appropriate.
The New Source Performance Standards have the advantage
under the CAA of being sector-wide so that they are different
than the best available control technology standards under 112,
which are case-by-case analyses. They give a real road map to
where the technology is on any particular pollutant. In this
case, it would be CO2 and greenhouse gas pollution.
So there are real advantages to looking that way, to working
with the industry to say, okay, what is doable, what can be
commercially viable, what do we do now. And it allows the law
to change--excuse me--the regulations to change as we learn
more. But I would say our thinking is not so involved that I
feel comfortable sitting here today telling you the extent to
which that could be done.
Senator Feinstein. Fair enough. Thank you.
Senator, do you have a question?
Senator Alexander. I have only one.
Senator Cardin and I have a bill on mountaintop mining. Our
goal is not to eliminate surface mining of coal but to limit
the practice of blowing off the top of a mountain and dumping
the fill in streams. Would such a bill, if you had a chance to
look at it, help clarify the 404 permitting process that you
are now going through various permits for surface mining?
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator.
In response to requests from you and Senator Cardin, EPA is
completing certain analyses on the bill. Obviously, EPA's
responsibilities are pursuant to the Clean Water Act. In some
ways, they are narrower and speak to a narrower set of issues
than your bill does, which speaks to the practice in general.
But certainly it is my belief that as we learn more and
more from outside scientists and inside scientists, we know
that there are clear water quality impacts that come from
filling in streams--that is pretty intuitive--and from the
valley fills that result when you have to take this tremendous
amount of overburden. It is EPA's focus, in reviewing your
bill, to give you as much information as we can about what your
bill would do to alleviate that situation. That is our
interest. And we are happy to continue working with you on
that.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
And Madam Administrator, let me thank you very much and
everybody with you.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
greenhouse gas (ghg) regulation
Question. Administrator Jackson, you stated in your February 22
letter to Senator Rockefeller and a number of Democratic Senators that
you don't plan to regulate the smallest sources of GHGs before 2016.
Your comments have been interpreted by some to mean that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does in fact plan to regulate
small businesses after all. How do you plan to address the question of
whether to regulate small sources? Will you study how practical it
would be to regulate small sources like family farms, apartment
buildings and dry cleaners before subjecting them to any regulation?
Answer. In the proposed tailoring rule, EPA explained the need to
conduct a 5-year study concerning the potential application of Clean
Air Act permitting programs to sources that emit less than 25,000 tons
per year of GHGs and to follow that study with a rulemaking to
determine how to address such small sources. As I indicated in my
letter to Senator Rockefeller, the final tailoring rule will ensure
that small sources will not become subject to Clean Air Act permitting
for at least 6 years. In any event, I believe there is every reason to
expect that Congress will enact a comprehensive program to address GHG
pollution--a program that settles any questions about small sources--
before 2016. I hope you share that expectation.
Question. During 2011, a very small number of the largest sources
will come under greenhouse gas regulation. This will require these
facilities to use the ``Best Achievable Control Technology'' (BACT).
Calpine and Pacific Gas and Electric's new power plant in California
has voluntarily attained this standard already, so we have a general
picture of what efficiency targets such a permit would require. When
will EPA complete guidance explaining to these sources what EPA
believes the best technology to be?
Answer. EPA worked with the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee to
establish a work group comprised of States, industry, and other
stakeholders that focused initially on the BACT requirement, including
information and guidance that would be useful for EPA to provide
concerning the technical, economic, and environmental performance
characteristics of potential BACT options. In addition, the work group
identified and discussed approaches to enable State and local
permitting authorities to apply the BACT criteria in a consistent,
practical and efficient manner. The work group issued its phase I
report in February 2010.
As a result of the work group's recommendations, EPA is developing
technical information and guidance to assist sources and permitting
authorities as they begin to address GHGs in PSD permitting actions.
EPA plans to issue guidance before January 2, 2011, the date that the
permitting requirements will begin for large sources of GHGs that
already require permits for other pollutants.
state grants
Question. Your budget proposes a $25 million increase for grants to
States to ramp up their ability to issue GHG permits in fiscal year
2011. How do you expect States to use these funds?
Answer. States with approved or delegated permitting programs also
will be incorporating new climate change requirements into their
permitting programs in fiscal year 2011. The $25 million increase for
State grants in fiscal year 2011 will assist in avoiding delays in
evaluating and approving permits. In consultation with the States,
funding will be allocated to the States based on the number of sources
to be permitted, the total emissions from the facilities to be
permitted, and the amount of funding the State is matching under their
existing grant workplan.
Question. How many permits will they be expected to process in
fiscal year 2011?
Answer. After the EPA issues the tailoring rule, the EPA can be
more specific about how many sources will be affected and how the new
requirements will impact State workloads.
Question. Will additional funds be required in the outyears as
States assume more permitting responsibilities?
Answer. At this point we are unable to determine whether States may
need additional funding in the outyears as they assume more permitting
responsibilities. This is dependent on the number of sources that will
be subject to additional permitting requirements and the extent to
which permitting fees offset the cost of running the program.
perchlorate
Question. EPA has been studying perchlorate for years, and the
links between the chemical and health problems are well known. Yet the
Bush administration refused to set a drinking water limit on
perchlorate. You announced last August that EPA was going to re-
evaluate the decision and the scientific data on the health effects
from perchlorate exposure. I am concerned that EPA has not said when it
will finish this new review and hope that this is not a repeat of the
Bush administration's delaying tactics. When will EPA finish its review
and announce whether it will regulate perchlorate?
Answer. EPA plans to complete its drinking water regulatory
determination for perchlorate in 2010. We continue to evaluate the
extensive information in the public comments we have received on this
action. If the determination is to regulate, EPA will move
expeditiously to develop a national drinking water standard for
perchlorate and conduct the health risk reduction cost analyses and
consultations required in developing such a rule.
bisphenol-a (bpa)
Question. I am very concerned about how pervasive chemicals are in
the environment and how little is known about whether these chemicals
are really safe. BPA, for example, has been linked to cancer and
infertility, and yet it is widely used in food packaging and
containers. I have introduced legislation to ban these uses. Last
December, EPA announced it was taking action against four chemicals of
concern, including phthalates, but that action against BPA was still
being developed.
Given all we know about the harms posed by BPA, why hasn't EPA
already taken some action against this chemical?
Answer. On March 29, 2010, EPA posted the action plan for BPA, in
line with the Administrator's announcement to complete and post an
initial four action plans in December 2009, with additional plans at
approximately 4-month intervals. On December 29, 2009, EPA made public
the first four action plans on phthalates, short-chain chlorinated
parraffins, perflourinated chemicals, and Polybrominated diphenyl
ethers. EPA's plan for BPA focuses on the environmental impacts of BPA,
and will look to add BPA to EPA's list of chemicals of concern under
section 5(b)(4) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, and require
testing related to environmental effects. EPA remains committed to
protecting human health, but notes that most human exposure, including
exposure to children, comes through food packaging materials under the
jurisdiction of Food and Drug Administration (FDA). EPA will continue
to consult and coordinate closely with the FDA, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences to better determine and evaluate the potential health
consequences of BPA. The results of this assessment work will factor
significantly in any future EPA decisions to address potential risks to
human health resulting from uses within EPA's jurisdiction. More
information can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/
pubs/actionplans/bpa.html.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
economic diversification
Question. In June 2009, the administration released a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) entitled ``Implementing the Interagency Action Plan
on Appalachian Surface Coal Mining.'' The MOU noted that ``Federal
agencies will work . . . to help diversify and strengthen the
Appalachian regional economy and promote the health and welfare of
Appalachian communities. This interagency effort will have a special
focus on stimulating clean enterprise and green jobs development . .
.''
What new programs or initiatives is the EPA proposing to advance
economic diversification in Appalachia?
Answer. Pursuant to the June 11, 2009 interagency MOU, EPA
continues to work with the Council on Environmental Quality and other
Federal agencies to diversify and strengthen the Appalachian regional
economy. EPA is supporting upcoming community outreach meetings
throughout Appalachia, led by U.S. Department of Agriculture, to foster
community development and regional collaboration. Additionally, EPA is
continuing to support the existing E\3\ initiative (Economy, Energy,
and Environment), in coordination with the Departments of Commerce,
Energy, and Labor, and the Small Business Administration, in
identifying opportunities to apply E\3\ in Appalachia. The State of
West Virginia recently announced a new small business program that will
be coordinated within the E\3\ framework including EPA's Green
Suppliers Network.
Question. What new resources is the EPA requesting to advance
economic diversification in Appalachia?
Answer. EPA continues to work with Federal agencies to identify
promising and coordinated opportunities for promoting Appalachian
economic diversification. EPA continues to provide staff resources and
technical expertise to support upcoming Appalachian listening sessions
and expanding E3 activities (Economy, Energy, and Environment) in
Appalachia. EPA continues to evaluate how its core programs, such as
Brownfields, water and wastewater infrastructure, and E3, can be used
toward promoting Appalachian economic diversification.
Question. In addition to devoting greater amounts of funding to
programs such as Brownfields Redevelopment, and the Clean, Green
Schools Program, how will EPA also use its own technical expertise, and
the expertise and resources of other Federal partners, in order to
strengthen the support and collaboration that are necessary for
grantees' projects to be successful in achieving long-term viability?
Answer. The EPA's goal is for all grant programs to become
successful and achieve long-term viability. The general approach is to
work in partnership with States, tribes, and local governments to
promote and encourage effective development and implementation of
environmental programs. An essential part of this is ensuring that
nongovernmental organizations and the general public have and use
reliable/valid scientific information and exposure prevention
techniques and tools when making decisions that impact human health and
the environment. To this end, the EPA deploys a suite of approaches to
support its grantees. These approaches include:
--Using all available legislative authorities as vehicles for
comprehensive grantee assistance.
--Providing focused outreach and technical assistance to increase
adoption and deployment of assessment tools.
--Continual improvement of transparency and coordination in sharing
information and providing technical assistance, tools and
materials to partners and stakeholder groups, including
information on emerging issues.
--Focusing on improving coordination across the EPA to ensure that
EPA's policies and programs explicitly consider and use the
most up-to-date data and methods.
--Working with other Federal partners to improve government-wide
support in implementing legislative mandates and coordinating
outreach and technical assistance.
The Brownfields program is one example of how EPA uses its
technical expertise and the expertise and resources of other Federal
partners to ensure that grantee's projects will be successful in
achieving long-term viability. Through dedicated project officers,
workshops, and guidance documents, EPA provides technical assistance,
outreach, coordination, and other assistance as quality assurance
reviews to support grantees' projects of assessing and cleaning up
Brownfield sites. To further support the effort to assess and cleanup
Brownfields properties, EPA recently initiated a new pilot program
which will provide grants to disadvantaged communities for the purpose
of preparing an ``area-wide'' plan for sustainable redevelopment, which
is targeted to increase the likelihood of attracting private investors
and Federal and State grant funding for implementation. The Brownfields
program is also engaged with Federal partners on several cross-cutting
priorities. For example, under the HUD-DOT-EPA initiative, EPA is
engaging with other Federal agencies to maximize the expertise offered
under the Brownfields technical assistance and resources provided
directly to communities to generate sustainable community
redevelopment. EPA is also participating in the White House Council on
Automotive Communities and Workers to find productive and efficient
ways to bring Federal resources and technical assistance to communities
suffering from the effects of economic disruption. Through these
collaborative efforts, EPA will continue to look for ways to align and
coordinate the disparate Federal resources to help communities address
their environmental and economic development challenges.
public health issues
Question. What are the levels of metals and other contaminants in
domestic wells and public water systems in communities downstream from
mountaintop mining activities?
Answer. Little data are available that describe the impact of
mountaintop mining activities on domestic wells and public water
systems in Appalachia, especially private wells. Information on the
location of drinking water supplies and private wells in relation to
surface coal mining operations is inconsistently collected by States as
part of permit applications under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA). EPA regions are working with the Corps of
Engineers, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM), and States to improve
data-sharing on the relationship between mountaintop mining activities
and drinking water wells, and to evaluate potential drinking water
impacts from proposed surface mining projects. Because nearby
communities often rely on private wells (those that serve fewer than 25
people and have fewer than 15 connections) that are not regulated by
EPA, data collection poses additional challenges.
With the Public Water System Supervision grant programs, States or
primacy authorities track any violations of Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) or treatment techniques at public water systems, both community
and noncommunity water systems, that serve more than 25 persons. Under
the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA is required to track violations
occurring in public water systems when contaminant levels exceed the
MCL. There have been very few violations of MCLs for metal contaminants
in Appalachia. Such violations, even if discovered, would represent
deficiencies in finished drinking water, not source water.
Question. Do you have a record of water quality violations in
public water systems in communities downstream from mountaintop mining
activities?
Answer. As referenced above, little data are available that
specifically connect the impact of mountaintop mining activities on
domestic wells and public water systems in Appalachia, especially
private wells. There are few public water systems with MCL violations
from metals in Appalachia.
It is worth noting that under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA
tracks public water systems violations that occur in finished water
that has already undergone treatment. As a result, public water system
violations reported to EPA are not meaningful indicators of source
water quality prior to any treatment.
Question. What are the levels of toxic air pollutants and
particulate matter in communities proximate to surface mining
operations and coal processing facilities?
Answer. Most of EPA's monitoring for particulate matter and toxic
air pollutants is focused in areas where populations and potential
exposures are highest. We have limited information about levels of
pollutants near surface mining operations and coal processing
facilities. Surface coal mining operations are generally regulated by
the Department of the Interior's SMRCA. EPA recently finalized new
source performance standards for new coal preparation/processing
facilities which integrated with certain SMRCA requirements. These
standards reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through
the application of the best system of reduction that has been
adequately demonstrated.
Question. What are the human health impacts from mountaintop
mining?
Answer. The scientific literature is increasingly documenting a
relationship between coal mining practices and impacts to human health
in communities near coal mines. The potential human health impacts of
these mining practices were most recently described in a peer-reviewed
analysis by Palmer et al. in Science, as part of a literature review of
the ecological effects of Appalachian surface coal mining.
Additionally, research by Hendryx and Ahern (2009) demonstrates
significant and growing gaps in age-adjusted mortality between coal
mining areas of Appalachia and non-coal mining areas, and that higher
rates of specific illnesses are consistent with a hypothesis of
exposure to pollution from mining activities. A new study by Hitt and
Hendryx (2010 demonstrates significant relationships between coal
mining and both ecological integrity and human cancer mortality in West
Virginia. While such research does not directly identify specific
mining practices or operations as the source of such impacts, their
conclusions point to negative and significant human health consequences
from mountaintop mining that results in impaired watershed health and
decreased environmental quality.
Question. Are people drinking ground or surface waters that are
significantly impacted by alkaline mine drainage? Can you tell us how
many drinking wells you have sampled and what fraction of those have
selenium present at levels that are higher than the background levels
in nonmining areas?
Answer. As discussed above, data on the location of private
drinking water wells, and on the impacts of surface coal mining
activities on private wells or public water systems, are currently
lacking for a variety of reasons. EPA has not sampled private
residential wells and does not have any data showing that water systems
have abnormal alkalinity. Appalachian States may have analytical
results available for private wells.
It is worth noting that under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA
tracks public water systems violations that occur in finished water
that has already undergone treatment. As a result, public water system
violations reported to EPA are not meaningful indicators of source
water quality.
selenium pollution
Question. What are the impacts of high levels of selenium exposure
on the health of humans and animals? Is there recent or emerging
evidence that is of concern to EPA?
Answer. Studies by Hawkes and Keim (2003) identified human data
suggesting the potential for adverse thyroid effects such as increases
in body weight when the diet is supplemented with excess selenium. The
same study also saw the potential for adverse effects on the thyroid
when the diet was made deficient in selenium.
Selenium is an essential nutrient for humans and animals. Either
too little or too much selenium can cause adverse effects in humans.
The EPA reference dose is one that was developed to protect against
clinical selenosis (increased blood clotting time, reduced serum
glutathione, hair loss, nail malformation, and/or loss) based on data
from human subjects living in an area of China that had high levels of
selenium in the soils.
In animals, high levels of selenium are of concern primarily for
egg-laying vertebrates, such as fish and birds. Mammals are less
sensitive than fish and birds. For fish the most sensitive effect is
the occurrence of deformities in offspring spawned from selenium-
exposed adults. For birds the most sensitive effect is a reduction in
hatchability of eggs laid by exposed adults. Recent scientific evidence
better defines the thresholds for these effects but has clarified that
the risks of selenium are confined to a few types of pollution sources,
such as surface coal mining.
Question. What happens to selenium at each mountaintop mining site?
Answer. At mountaintop mining sites, placement of overburden in
valley fills can result in increased surface area available for water
contact with rock particles. Water runoff can have higher
concentrations of major ions and some trace metals, including selenium.
This can result in elevated selenium concentrations in streams and
other surface waters, and potential toxicity to aquatic organisms. In
West Virginia and eastern Kentucky, the source of the selenium at
mountaintop mining sites is thought to be the organic black shale
material associated with the coal seams in this area. The selenium
leaches from the organic black shale material and migrates down
gradient into the aquatic ecosystems and adjacent terrestrial areas.
Question. Is it accumulating in the plants used to reclaim
abandoned mine lands and does this exposure pathway pose a risk to
upland wildlife?
Answer. Most mining companies in Appalachia use a standard set of
plants in the reclamation of the mine sites. The Colorado State
University Cooperative Extension (Series No. 6.109) has researched and
classified plant species based on their ability to uptake and
accumulate selenium. Even though most plant species are
nonaccumulators, almost all plants will absorb selenium if grown in
seleniferous soils.
Question. To what extent is selenium accumulating in aquatic
sediments? Is this storage temporary, and will it eventually release
hazardous levels of selenium over an extended period of time?
Answer. Selenium can cycle in aquatic habitats by moving in and out
of sediments. A large portion of the total selenium in a stream or
reservoir may be present in sediments, deposited directly from the
water or from plants and animals as they die and decompose. However,
this pool of selenium is not permanently removed from the system.
Biological activity, water chemistry changes, and physical disturbance
can mobilize selenium back into water and organisms. This means that
the selenium in sediments may remain active, and may provide a source
of pollution to bottom-dwelling invertebrates and the fish that feed on
them. Case studies show that selenium in sediments can recycle into the
water and food chain for decades after selenium inputs are stopped.
Question. To what extent is selenium accumulating in aquatic plants
and animals, and other wildlife, both on-site and downstream?
Answer. Selenium concentrations have been found to be elevated
downstream of mountaintop mining operations and valley fills. Selenium
can bioaccumulate through the aquatic food web, and elevated levels
have been found in fish in the Appalachian mining region. Scientific
literature suggests that many Appalachian streams surveyed downstream
of mountaintop mining operations and valley fills exceed EPA's national
recommended chronic Ambient Water Quality Criterion for selenium.
Excessive selenium has been associated with increased death and
deformities in fish and reduced hatching in birds in studies of coal
overburden effluents in other mining regions. A recent report from the
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) showed
that fish egg concentrations in largemouth bass exceeded the proposed
selenium fish tissue egg ovary criterion by approximately four-fold.
Question. Are toxic levels being exceeded?
Answer. The WVDEP has completed several studies on accumulation of
selenium in the eggs of several species of waterfowl, amphibians and
fish. Results suggest that selenium may be approaching levels toxic to
aquatic life and that adverse effects on wildlife within watersheds
studied in West Virginia may be occurring. These adverse effects
include fish deformities and poor hatch and survival of larvae.
Additional studies are ongoing.
Question. Are there any State or Federal threatened or endangered
species at risk?
Answer. There may be State or federally listed species at risk.
Several endangered species are found in Central Appalachia, including
several species of freshwater mussels. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service believe that freshwater mussel populations within the Kanawha
River watershed are being threatened by upstream mining activities,
specifically at the Kanawha Falls and the Elk River watersheds. The
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources recently described a new
species of fish--diamond darter--as existing only in the Elk River
watershed, which is threatened by upstream mining activity. This
species is being evaluated by the Fish and Wildlife Service but is not
yet listed.
Question. Are there any birds at risk, such as geese or migratory
waterfowl?
Answer. There may be bird species at risk from selenium. Selenium
has been documented to have toxic effects on waterfowl from areas
around the world; however, the WVDEP study on the Mud River watershed
did not document any problems with birds at this particular watershed.
The WVDEP does not plan to expand the investigation any further at this
time.
Question. How long does selenium persist in stream and reservoir
sediments, and to what extent is selenium pollution from prior decades
contributing to selenium pollution today?
Answer. Selenium can persist in stream and lake sediments for a
long time, but selenium deeper than a few centimeters is generally
described as nonbioavailable. Historic mining in these watersheds may
have minimally contributed to the selenium problem. However, current
large scale mining activities are exposing the organic black shales on
a much greater scale, which is believed to result in greater selenium
exposure and environmental impacts, as discussed above with respect to
impacts to fish populations.
Question. How far downstream are elevated concentrations of
selenium showing up in water, sediment, plants, and animals?
Answer. Selenium levels can be elevated several miles downstream of
mine sites. One measurement of elevated levels of selenium in water
comes from the State's biennial assessment of water quality conditions
under sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. Water segments
with elevated selenium levels (segments with the selenium criterion not
met) are placed on the State's list of impaired waters.
Surface coal mining practices with the potential to expose
selenium-bearing strata are most likely in West Virginia and Kentucky.
In West Virginia, 29 water segments have been placed on the impaired
waters list. Three of the 29 have since been removed from the impaired
water listing. Of the remaining 26, 13 have had studies completed to
determine necessary steps to restore the conditions in the segment to
allow the selenium criterion to be met. Thirteen stream segments were
listed for selenium impairments on the most recent completed assessment
in 2008. EPA is not aware of any 303(d) listings in Kentucky with
selenium listed as the pollutant of concern.
Question. What is the degree of groundwater contamination by
selenium, and what is the physical extent of the contamination? Is
contaminated groundwater able to enter surface water?
Answer. EPA does not have comprehensive data on the degree or
extent of groundwater contamination by selenium, but we are working
gather data relating to drinking water complaints. We do know, based on
an EPA-funded study in selected areas of West Virginia and Kentucky,
that selenium-contaminated water is discharging from the toes of valley
fills at concentrations greater than 5 parts per billion (ppb); 50 ppb
is the maximum contaminant level for selenium. Contaminated groundwater
can enter surface water, depending on the aquifer and its hydrologic
connection to streams.
extent and form of impacts
Question. How is EPA building upon the work that was conducted as
part of the programmatic environmental impact statement on mountaintop
mining and valley fills, in order to maintain an updated and detailed
understanding of the geographic extent of mountaintop mining/valley
fill operations in the central Appalachians? Are the permitting
agencies capable of estimating watershed scale impacts at this time, or
have they obtained such estimates from third parties?
Answer. The programmatic Environmental Impact Statement concluded
that approximately 1,200 miles of headwater streams were directly
impacted by mountaintop mining operations between 1992 and 2002. This
represents a loss of almost 2 percent of the stream miles in the study
area during this 10-year period. Furthermore, the permitted area for
mountaintop mining in the study area over the same 10-year period was
estimated at 403,810 acres. At that time, both mine footprint and
stream losses were projected to double by 2012. The U.S. Government
Accountability Office (USGAO, 2009) recently updated this inventory by
reviewing permits issued between 1990 and 2008. However, updated
estimates of stream loss and other cumulative impacts associated with
these operations are not yet available.
Question. Do accurate maps exist and, if so, are they being used to
guide monitoring and evaluation?
Answer. Large scale maps depicting impacts in select areas of the
Appalachian region exist, and are being used where available.
Typically, however, resolution on these maps is not fine enough to be
used for site-specific monitoring. EPA and our other Federal and State
regulatory partners are working to improve our capabilities in this
regard, but we are not currently at the point of mapping impacts in all
watersheds. To that end, however, EPA is working with the OSM on
collecting and sharing geospatial data in order to evaluate existing
impacts and better inform decisions on proposed surface coal mining
projects.
Question. What evidence exists to suggest that the runoff or export
of mining-derived pollutants (sulfates, manganese, selenium, aluminum,
etc.) declines following reclamation of mountaintop mining/valley fill
projects?
Answer. According to a draft EPA review of scientific peer-reviewed
literature, there is no evidence that current reclamation approaches
reduce conductivity downstream of valley fills. For example, in larger
streams of the Kanawha Basin, Paybins et al. found that median
concentrations of sulfate had increased 1.6 times between 1980 to 1998
(Paybins et al. 2000).
Question. How long does the process take?
Answer. Concentrations of metals that are not soluble in alkaline
conditions, including total iron, manganese, and aluminum, decreased by
approximately one-third to one-half during the 1980 to 1998 time
period. Their decrease may reflect the increased sources of alkaline
water from valley fills.
Question. We have heard a lot about mayflies, and it is my
understanding that their loss indicates unsuitable water quality. But
are there other species being lost as well? What impact has mountaintop
mining had on the loss of species other than mayflies? For example,
could the loss of sensitive animals like salamanders wind up negatively
affecting the larger animals, such as bear?
Answer. Mayflies have long been recognized as important indicators
of stream ecosystem health and are a very important part of the native
organisms in the central Appalachian streams. Significant effects on
macroinvertebrate communities, including other aquatic insects,
crayfish, and other invertebrates from burial, loss of habitat, and
water quality impacts from mountaintop mining activities will be
transmitted up the ecosystem. This is true especially of sensitive
species, such as salamanders, some fish species, and insectivorous
birds and bats. Outside the aquatic ecosystem, land clearing from
mining activities can also adversely affect bird and bat species.
The Central Appalachians ecoregion where the majority of
mountaintop mining is located has some of the greatest aquatic animal
diversity of any area in North America, especially for species of
amphibians, fishes, mollusks, aquatic insects, and crayfishes.
Salamanders in particular reach their highest North American diversity
in this ecoregion. For example, nearly 10 percent of global salamander
diversity is found within streams of the Southern Appalachian
Mountains. It is likely that many of the aquatic organisms inhabiting
these stream systems are eliminated or displaced when headwater streams
are buried or blasted during the mining process. It has also been
documented that other specialized wildlife such as some neotropical
migrant birds and forest amphibians rely on natural headwater streams
and adjacent forest types exhibited in this ecoregion. Finally, it is
unclear what impact, other than habitat fragmentation and displacement,
surface mining has on larger wildlife populations such as bear, that
are not exclusively dependent on aquatic resources for their food
supply.
regulation, compliance, mitigation
Question. How many times over the last decade have mining companies
been cited for violating water quality standards associated with
mountaintop mining/valley fill activities?
Answer. With respect to the number of violations, we are not able
to determine violations specifically associated with mountaintop mining
or valley fill activities, but we can provide data on violations
involving bituminous coal or lignite surface mining more broadly.
Please note that this category includes bituminous coal and lignite
preparation plants that perform such activities as cleaning, crushing,
screening, or sizing that are operated in conjunction with a mine site,
or operated independently, as well as conventional surface mining
operations. To date we have found 15 permitted bituminous coal or
lignite surface mining permitted facilities that have violated their
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits
since January 2000. The facilities are located in Kentucky (1), West
Virginia (1), Illinois (7), Louisiana (1), Montana (4), and Utah (1)
and violated their permits by either exceeding their limitations,
failing to report discharge monitoring data, or by reporting a single
event violation. This number is out of 857 NPDES permits for bituminous
coal or lignite surface mining facilities for which we have permit and
effluent limitation data. The following chart shows which facilities in
which States had what type of violation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Permit number Facility Violation type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL.............................. IL0061166.......... JADER FUEL COMPANY, INC............. Single event
IL.............................. IL0061247.......... FREEMAN UNITED COAL--INDUSTRY....... Single event
IL.............................. IL0064611.......... JADER COAL COMPANY.................. Single event
IL.............................. IL0072745.......... KNIGHT HAWK COAL, LLC............... Single event
IL.............................. IL0073351.......... ARCLAR COMPANY, LLC................. Single event
IL.............................. IL0078026.......... KNIGHT HAWK COAL, LLC............... Single event
IL.............................. IL0078565.......... Sugar Camp Energy, LLC.............. Single event
KY.............................. KY0043133.......... HARLAN CUMBERLAND COAL TOTZ......... Failure to report
LA.............................. LA0064076.......... DOLET HILLS LIGNITE CO., LLC........ Single event
MT.............................. MT0000892.......... DECKER COAL CO (WEST MINE).......... Single event
MT.............................. MT0023965.......... WESTERN ENERGY COMPANY.............. Single event
MT.............................. MT0024210.......... DECKER COAL CO (EAST MINE).......... Single event
MT.............................. MT0021229.......... WESTMORELAND RESOURCES, INC......... Single event
UT.............................. UT0024368.......... Crandall Canyon Mine................ Single event
WV.............................. WV0050717.......... UPSHUR PROPERTY, INC................ Exceeded limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What have companies done in response to these violations?
What additional protections have been implemented by violators to
prevent future water quality degradation?
Answer. Two recent civil judicial settlements--with Massey Energy
Company (Massey) in 2008 and Patriot Coal Corporation (Patriot Coal) in
2009--provide examples of what mining companies have done in response
to Clean Water Act violations and to prevent future water quality
degradation:
--In its 2008 Federal consent decree, Massey agreed to invest
approximately $10 million to develop and implement a set of
procedures to prevent future violations. Massey agreed to
implement an innovative electronic tracking system that allows
the company to quickly address compliance problems and correct
any violations of permit limits. This measure is part of a
comprehensive environmental compliance program that Massey has
agreed to implement under the decree, which includes in-depth
internal and third-party audits, employee training, and a plan
to prevent future slurry spills. Massey also agreed to set
aside 200 acres of riverfront land in West Virginia for
conservation purposes and is required to perform 20 stream
restoration projects downstream from mining operations.
--In its 2009 Federal consent decree, Patriot Coal agreed to
implement extensive measures to prevent future violations and
to perform environmental projects at a total estimated cost of
$6 million. Patriot Coal will develop and implement a company-
wide compliance-focused environmental management system
including: creation of a database to track information relevant
to compliance efforts; conducting regular internal and third-
party environmental compliance audits; implementing a system of
tiered response actions for any possible future violations; and
conducting annual training for all employees and contractors
with environmental responsibilities.
Question. What is EPA's protocol for measuring stream ecosystem
structure and function (for instance, how much water was running
through the stream before the mining occurred)? If there is not a
functional assessment available, how have permittees been complying
with the Clean Water Act regulations?
Answer. EPA is currently working with the Huntington District Corps
of Engineers to develop an assessment protocol to appropriately
describe the ecological condition of Appalachian headwater streams and
to develop an accounting system that assures functions will be
effectively compensated. The protocol has recently been advertised on
public notice by the Huntington district. EPA has been working to
incorporate mitigation performance measures within the permit
conditions to ensure that the stream mitigation proposal meets the
requirements of the Clean Water Act and the 2008 Compensatory
Mitigation Rule. We strongly agree with the importance of providing
permit applicants with technically sound, consistent, and cost
effective methods for meeting the information requirements of the
agencies' regulations.
There are numerous existing stream assessment protocols available
for use by mining companies applying for CWA permits. In lieu of a
single approved assessment protocol, applicants may currently select an
existing assessment protocol of their choosing and submit their
functional analysis to the Corps as part of their permit application.
The Corps generally relies on information submitted by permit
applicants to determine if proposed mining projects comply with
requirements of the CWA regulations. EPA believes that the development
of a standard assessment protocol that ensures scientifically sound and
repeatable evaluations of high-gradient streams in the coal fields of
Central Appalachia will better ensure effective and consistent
implementation of regulatory requirements.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson
combined sewer overflow (cso)--infrastructure in omaha
Question. Like hundreds of localities across the country, the city
of Omaha administers a combined sewer system that is no longer able to
perform at a level necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act. As
such Omaha was directed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
develop a long-term control plan to upgrade the sewer system. The city
has completed this task and has in place a process to fund the
necessary upgrades via user fee increases. The infrastructure upgrades
associated with this project are going to cost well more than $1.5
billion and result in significant fees on the community.
While I applaud the city of Omaha for addressing this issue head on
I'd prefer to see the Federal Government, as the entity mandating these
changes, play a greater role in the financing of the required upgrades.
Does the EPA have a plan for addressing the costs that localities
will incur in order to upgrade combined sewers outside of State
revolving loan funds and/or allowing localities to completely self-
finance? If so, what is that plan and did EPA describe the plan in its
fiscal year 2011 budget request?
Answer. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program is the
EPA's method for assisting States and localities to address water
infrastructure improvements, including CSOs. Since 1988 and through
2009, the CWSRF has provided approximately $7.2 billion in assistance
for CSO projects thereby helping communities across the country improve
their respective water infrastructure systems. The fiscal year 2011
CWSRF request level represents a substantial increase more than
requested and enacted levels prior to fiscal year 2010 and the fiscal
year 2009 Recovery Act. The fiscal year 2011 CWSRF request level is a
190 percent increase more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request contains language requiring
that up to 30 percent of the CWSRF funds be used by the States to
provide grants, forgiveness of the principal, or negative interest
loans. This provision will help communities that otherwise could not
afford a standard State revolving fund loan.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
office of pesticide programs (opp)
Question. Congress's key purpose in adopting procedural
requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act and other statutes
that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implements, is to allow for
meaningful public participation in the regulatory process. This
participation ensures that those affected by EPA's regulations have a
voice in the process. It also ensures that EPA bases its decisions on
sound science and the all available scientific expertise on a topic. On
October 7, 2009, EPA publicized its notice that it would re-evaluate
Atrazine and called for written comments by October 23, 2009. This gave
the public only 16 days to prepare for and provide written comment on a
complicated scientific review. Is 16 days really sufficient lead-time
to ensure meaningful public participation and to ensure that EPA
benefits from the best thinking of the many non-EPA participants with
expertise in the science underlying the registration of Atrazine?
Answer. We believe there was sufficient lead time for public
participation in the November meeting on Atrazine because the meeting
was not held to discuss or review the substantive science issues; it
merely presented the proposed plan for re-evaluation in the upcoming
year. The Federal Register notice announcing the meeting (October 7,
2009, 74 FR 51593), indicated that the November Scientific Advisory
Panel (SAP) meeting was an informational meeting only, to inform Panel
members and the public about EPA's plans for three SAP meetings planned
for February, April, and September 2010. The meeting was intended to
communicate and clarify the nature, scope, and breadth of the Atrazine-
related discussions planned for those three 2010 SAP meetings. Although
EPA encouraged submission of written comments by October 23, the notice
said the EPA would accept written comments until the day of the
meeting, November 3, 2009 (thereby providing an additional 11 days for
the submission of written comments). Due to the informational nature of
the November Atrazine meeting, we believe the time allotted for public
comment was adequate.
The October 2009 notice also provided information relevant to the
upcoming SAP meetings including how and when to participate. Background
documents for the Atrazine SAPs are available through the EPA public
docket (http://www.regulations.gov) and the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) SAP home page (www.epa.gov/
scipoly/sap).
Question. EPA announced its scientific review plan for Atrazine on
November 23, 2009--less than 1 month after closing the public comment
period. How many studies does EPA have on file on Atrazine?
Answer. There are more than 6,000 studies in EPA's files on the
human health and environmental effects of Atrazine.
Question. How many SAPs have been created to review Atrazine?
Answer. Prior to the November 2009 informational meeting of the
SAP, the EPA has held seven SAP reviews exclusively on Atrazine
(September 1988, June 2000, June 2003, July 2003, October 2007,
December 2007, and May 2009). Some of these meetings were to address
human health issues and others were to address ecological effects
issues.
Question. What is the cost of empanelling a SAP?
Answer. The resources associated with organizing, convening, and
developing the final report for the April FIFRA SAP meeting is
estimated to be approximately $200,000. This cost estimate is
comparable to the cost of a typical SAP meeting.
Question. What is the mean number of studies for all registered
products?
Answer. Since there are more than 6,000 Atrazine studies and there
are 6 technical registrations, the mean number is approximately 1,000
studies. For a new food-use pesticide active ingredient registration,
EPA would require at least 100 studies.
Question. Is this adequate time, given the number of studies that
EPA has on file on Atrazine?
Answer. Yes, this was adequate time for EPA staff working on
Atrazine to prepare. Most of the 6,000 studies on file for Atrazine
were reviewed prior to the Atrazine Interim Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (IRED) in 2003. In 2001, EPA developed a preliminary risk
assessment based on many of these studies and published a risk
assessment for public comment as part of the re-registration process.
As a result, most of the stakeholders interested in the regulation of
Atrazine are also very familiar with the body of Atrazine research,
having followed developments closely over the last decade.
In the 7 years since the 2003 IRED was issued, significant Atrazine
research has been done, with more than 100 new studies available on its
potential human health effects. These additional data have been
received from the Atrazine registrants, or published in the peer-
reviewed open literature. EPA reviews these new data internally as
quickly as possible within the overall framework of the program. For
example, after the water monitoring data have been reviewed and quality
controlled, the EPA makes these data available to the public via its
Web page.
Question. Is this adequate time given that EPA just re-registered
Atrazine in 2006 and concluded it could be used without harm to humans?
Answer. Yes, this is adequate time. The 2003 IRED was the EPA's
decision on the individual chemical Atrazine, establishing data
requirements and risk management measures for the uses of Atrazine and
associated human health and environmental risks. However, Atrazine's
re-registration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions could
only be finalized once the cumulative assessment for all of the
triazine herbicides was completed. The EPA's publication of the
triazine cumulative risk assessment in 2006, therefore, finalized the
EPA's Atrazine re-registration decision.
Since the 2003 IRED was published, the EPA has continued its review
of Atrazine as data have become available through IRED-required studies
and water monitoring programs, published literature, registrant-
submitted studies, and EPA-sponsored studies. The OPP keeps in place an
Atrazine team consisting of scientists and regulatory managers to
ensure that the review of data and implementation of decisions reached
in the 2003 IRED for Atrazine are current.
OPP has received and reviewed ongoing monitoring data as a
condition of re-registration. For example, the EPA has received an
extensive amount of drinking water and ambient surface water monitoring
data from the registrants of Atrazine as an ongoing condition of
Atrazine's re-registration under the 2003 IRED. EPA continuously
reviews and makes decisions based on these data. In accordance with the
2003 IRED, the EPA has added 26 new community water systems into the
monitoring program (as of April 2010) because they warranted closer
scrutiny, and removed others where no immediate problems or violations
were identified. Additionally, EPA is aware of recent Atrazine research
in the fields of both epidemiology and laboratory toxicology. Moreover,
three FIFRA SAP meetings have been convened by EPA to review new
Atrazine research and methods to assess its risk since the re-
registration decision was reached, but prior to the 2009 decision to
re-evaluate Atrazine.
In sum, EPA scientists and regulatory managers have stayed abreast
of developments in Atrazine research, and have continually kept the
public informed about new data through the SAP review process.
Question. On October 7, 2009, Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Stephen Owens was
been quoted by the New York Times in a story regarding EPA's plans to
re-review the registration of Atrazine as saying that you at EPA ``have
a question: Did the decisions made in previous administrations use all
available science?'' Does this statement accurately reflect the basis
for decisions at EPA regarding resource allocation, that EPA intends to
reach back and re-consider the scientific decisions already made by EPA
scientists?
Answer. The EPA has an ongoing statutory responsibility to ensure
that pesticides currently on the market continue to meet the standards
in the FIFRA. Over the last 7 years since the Atrazine re-registration
decision was completed, the EPA has received additional data and
convened a number of FIFRA SAP to review new research and methods to
assess Atrazine's risks. Moreover, the EPA has received an extensive
amount of drinking water and ambient surface water monitoring data from
the registrant, which was a condition of re-registration. EPA
continuously reviews these data. In addition, the 1994 Atrazine special
review covering cancer issues and drinking water remains open,
highlighting the EPA's historical and ongoing focus on the potential
health effects of Atrazine.
Question. Is EPA reconsidering all of its own past scientific
analyses?
Answer. Consistent with our statutory mandate, EPA will revisit its
past pesticide assessments whenever warranted by new information and at
least every 15 years.
Question. What is the basis for reconsideration?
Answer. Atrazine is one of the most widely used pesticides in the
United States and is the subject of significant scientific research and
regulatory interest. Given the new body of scientific information, as
well as the documented presence of Atrazine in both drinking water
sources and other bodies of water, the EPA determined that this is an
appropriate time to consider the new research and other information to
ensure that our regulatory decisions about Atrazine protect public
health. Therefore we are re-evaluating of Atrazine.
In the 7 years since the IRED was issued, significant Atrazine
research has been done, with close to 100 new studies available on its
potential human health effects. The EPA has also received an extensive
amount of drinking water and ambient surface water monitoring data from
the registrants of Atrazine as an ongoing condition of re-registration.
Given the new research and the availability of additional data on
Atrazine in drinking water sources and other bodies of water, the EPA
is reviewing the new data to ensure that our regulatory decisions about
Atrazine are protective.
EPA has continued to work on Atrazine since the 2003 IRED. EPA has
convened a number of SAPs in the last 7 years to review issues
concerning cancer, effects on amphibians, and evolving methods to
assess ecological risks. The EPA also continues to review drinking
water monitoring data collected as a condition of re-registration. EPA
has already modified aspects of its 2003 decision based on the results
of these SAPs and implementation efforts.
Question. Just 3 months ago, EPA announced on its Web site that
Atrazine is not likely to cause cancer in humans. Furthermore, the next
round of registration review for Atrazine was already scheduled to
begin in 2013, which would have ensured an appropriately deliberative
process. Given EPA's tight budget and many competing environmental
demands for resources, why is EPA abandoning its plan and now rushing
to re-review Atrazine now?
Answer. There is more than one review process by which EPA is
looking at potential risks associated with the use of the pesticide
Atrazine. These review processes have been integrated and are ongoing.
In November 1994, EPA initiated a special review for the triazine
pesticides, which at that time included Atrazine, Simazine, and
Cyanazine. The special review process is set in motion when EPA has
reason to believe that the use of a pesticide may result in
unreasonable adverse effects on people or the environment. The basis
for the special review of the triazines included the potential for
cancer risks resulting from dietary or occupational exposure, as well
as the potential for human health risks resulting from drinking water
exposure caused by ground and surface water contamination.
When the EPA initiated the re-registration process for Atrazine, it
took Atrazine's special review into consideration. In 2000, the EPA
determined that Atrazine was not likely to cause cancer in humans.
However, in an abundance of caution, the 2003 Atrazine IRED committed
the EPA to present to the FIFRA SAP its assessment of all available
data about the potential carcinogenicity of Atrazine--both epidemiology
studies and laboratory animal studies--including its review of
forthcoming results from the National Cancer Institute's Agricultural
Health Study. Thus the EPA's commitment to convene an SAP on Atrazine
and cancer well pre-dated the EPA's Atrazine re-evaluation announcement
of October 2009. The 2003 IRED also required a drinking water
monitoring program, which is ongoing. The special review case for
Atrazine remains open, highlighting the EPA 's historical and ongoing
focus on Atrazine and its potential health effects from drinking water
exposures.
The 2003 IRED is the EPA's decision on the individual chemical
Atrazine, establishing data requirements and risk management measures
for the uses of Atrazine and associated human health and environmental
risks. However, Atrazine's re-registration eligibility and tolerance
reassessment decisions could only be finalized once the cumulative
assessment for all of the triazine herbicides was completed. The EPA's
publication of the triazine cumulative risk assessment in 2006,
therefore, finalized the EPA's Atrazine re-registration decision.
Atrazine is one of the most widely used pesticides in the United
States and is the subject of significant inquiry and regulatory
interest. Given the new body of scientific information since the 2003
IRED, as well as the documented presence of Atrazine in both drinking
water sources and other bodies of water, the EPA determined it
appropriate to consider the new research and to ensure that our
regulatory decisions about Atrazine protect public health.
EPA is following an open and transparent process and has presented
its approach to the SAP on several occasions to ensure the scientific
soundness and integrity in the review process for Atrazine. In February
of this year, the SAP met to focus on generic issues concerning
approaches for reviewing epidemiology studies and their use within risk
assessments. An SAP review scheduled for later in April will evaluate
laboratory studies addressing the human health effects of Atrazine as
well as sampling protocols used to monitor Atrazine levels in community
water systems. The SAP will also meet this September. At the fall
meeting, EPA will present and seek peer review of its evaluation of
Atrazine health effects based on experimental laboratory studies and
epidemiology studies. This review is intended to also include any new
experimental laboratory data since the April SAP meeting.
Also, EPA will present and seek peer review of its evaluation of
Atrazine cancer and noncancer effects based on animal laboratory
toxicology studies and epidemiology studies. This review is intended to
include the most recent results from the National Cancer Institute's
Agricultural Health Study.
Question. Does this review currently underway satisfy the
registration review of Atrazine scheduled for 2013--and if not why
again require significant EPA resources for another review in 2013?
Answer. The current re-evaluation will help address aspects of the
registration review scheduled for 2013 that involve human health risk
assessment. As a result, the current re-evaluation of Atrazine should
reduce the resources needed to complete the registration review, and
possibly reduce the scope of the EPA's final plan for Atrazine, which
would likely be implemented between 2013 and 2019.
As mentioned above, based on this evaluation, the EPA will decide
whether to revise its current Atrazine risk assessments and whether new
restrictions are necessary to better protect health. For more
information on this and other Atrazine-related programs as well as the
schedule for the upcoming SAP meetings, see the Atrazine Web page at
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/
atrazine_update.htm#ewmp.
Question. Congress adopted the FIFRA, and the Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which together ensure the registration and
safe use of herbicides in the United States. Under these laws, EPA
established long-standing requirements to ensure the scientific
integrity of data that underlies decisions under FIFRA and FDCA. EPA
regulations require that studies relied on to register products meet
Good Laboratory Practice standards (GLPs). These standards are intended
to ensure the quality and reliability of information in a FIFRA study.
Does EPA consistently require that all studies used to support FIFRA
registrations meet these standards?
Answer. EPA evaluates available information from all kinds of
sources--pesticide companies, other governments, academia, or the
published scientific literature--to ensure that its decisions are
informed by the best science available. We look closely at every study
to determine whether the results are scientifically sound. The fact
that a study may not have been conducted under prescribed GLP
conditions does not necessarily mean that it is of lesser quality than
a GLP study. EPA scrutinizes the experimental procedures used and the
overall quality of the resulting data for each individual study and
then makes a weight of evidence judgment of the quality and robustness
of that study.
EPA has promulgated regulations that describe procedures designed
to enhance the integrity of scientific data. This regulation is
referred to as the GLP standards. GLP regulations cover broad topics
ranging from archiving to personnel training. They also require that
registrants or applicants for registration submit with any data
intended to support registration a statement ``describing in detail all
differences between the practices used in the study and those
required'' by the GLP regulation. The regulations further provide that
EPA ``may refuse to consider reliable for purposes of supporting an
application for a research or marketing permit any data from a study
which was not conducted in accordance'' with the regulation. As a
result of this study-specific review, EPA may not require that a given
study used to support a FIFRA registration meets every GLP standard
because some failures to follow those standards do not result in data
that are unreliable. It is possible that a study may not be fully GLP
compliant for a reason that does not compromise the integrity or
validity of the study (e.g., personnel training records may not have
been provided).
In sum, even when relying on non-GLP studies, the EPA adheres to
its high standards of evaluating the integrity, quality, and robustness
of the studies under consideration. Our analysis gives greater weight
to better run studies and those findings confirmed by multiple sources.
Ultimately, EPA looks at all of the studies to decide what the
preponderance of evidence shows.
Question. As EPA works through the latest Atrazine review, will EPA
be requiring that all data used to make all of its decisions regarding
the continuing use of Atrazine meet GLP standards?
Answer. No, whether they follow GLP standards or not, the EPA has
historically considered all scientifically reliable and relevant data.
In the evaluation of all studies, the EPA makes a weight of evidence
judgment, which involves evaluating the quality and robustness of each
individual study. The study needs to be well-documented with respect to
the methods used and the results, so an independent analysis and
scientific review can be conducted. Greater weight is given to high-
quality and well-documented studies and those findings confirmed by
multiple sources. As EPA evaluates each study it considers a variety of
factors such as the study design, the dose response, the cohesiveness
of results with results seen in other studies, and the current
understanding of the mode of action of toxicity for the compound.
Ultimately, EPA looks at all of the studies to decide what the
preponderance of the data shows.
Question. What new scientific studies led EPA to re-review Atrazine
and who conducted the study?
Answer. The EPA did not base its decision to formalize the re-
evaluation process on the results of any one study. Atrazine's re-
evaluation process has always been dynamic. Over the last 7 years since
the 2003 Atrazine IRED was completed, significant Atrazine research has
been done. Moreover, the EPA has received an extensive amount of
drinking water and ambient surface water monitoring data from the
registrants of Atrazine, as an ongoing condition of re-registration.
With respect to environmental toxicology studies, the EPA has so far
identified approximately 100 studies which are being considered in the
2010 re-evaluation (www.regulations.gov, docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0125-
0022). In addition, more than 40 epidemiology studies published since
2004 are being considered as part of the 2010 re-evaluation. A subset
of these epidemiology studies were included as a case study at the
February 2010 SAP (www.regulations.gov, see docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0851-0002). The remaining epidemiology studies will be included in
subsequent SAP reviews.
Given this significant body of new scientific information as well
as the documented presence of Atrazine in both drinking water sources
and other bodies of water, the EPA determined it appropriate to
consider the new research and to ensure that our regulatory decisions
about Atrazine protect public health.
Question. Did EPA conduct internal data evaluation reviews of the
new data prior to announcing the re-review?
Answer. In the case of Atrazine, formal Data Evaluation Records
were not generated. However, EPA determined these newer studies,
warranted a closer look at the data to determine whether there are
other health concerns not previously identified, whether our current
understanding of how Atrazine produces its toxicity has changed and to
re-evaluate the amount and duration of exposure that may lead to an
impact human health. Reviews of these studies are being included as
components of the 2010 SAP review. Given the amount of data the EPA is
aware of since the IRED, internal review of data can occur rapidly to
protect the public.
Question. Were these studies conducted in compliance with EPA's GLP
standards? If not, why isn't EPA following its own standards in
reviewing scientific evidence?
Answer. Since the most recent human health risk assessment in 2003,
more than 100 new studies on a variety of scientific topics have been
published (details provided above), of these only a small number (< 10)
were conducted under GLP standards. In the case of the Atrazine review,
sole reliance on GLP studies would require the EPA to ignore important
information on the human health effects of Atrazine. EPA evaluates all
available information from every source--whether from pesticide
companies, other governments, or the published literature. The EPA
utilizes a weight of evidence judgment which involves evaluating the
quality and robustness of each individual study. Thus, when relying on
GLP or non-GLP studies, the EPA adheres to its high standards of
evaluating the integrity, quality, and robustness of the studies under
consideration. A number of the new experimental toxicology studies were
conducted at EPA's Office of Research and Development's (ORD) National
Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory. ORD conducts research on
environmental chemicals to ensure the strongest possible scientific
basis for EPA risk assessments and risk management decisions. While ORD
labs are not required to follow GLP procedures, they are required to
conduct their research under the NHEERL Quality Management Plan (2005)
which ensures that data generated are of the highest quality and fully
transparent.
pesticide registration fees
Question. Administrator Jackson, the President's budget proposes a
host of new fees on pesticide registrants, including the imposition of
tolerance fees, enhanced registration service fees, and additional
pesticide maintenance fees. Will the proposed fees be retained by the
EPA, or returned to the Treasury?
Answer. The administration's fee proposal would authorize EPA to
collect fees beyond the current fee authorization, which expires at the
end of fiscal year 2012. If authorized, the administration's proposal
would direct increased receipts to the Department of Treasury and be
subject to congressional appropriation with one exception: in fiscal
year 2011 maintenance fee collections up to the current authorization
amount will continue to be directed to the Reregistration and Expedited
Processing Revolving Fund (Treasury Account Number 020-00-4310).
Question. How will these fees increase the EPA's ability to review
these products or to increase its efficiency in review of new
registrations and the renewal of existing registrations?
Answer. Proposed fee increases are intended to better align
existing user fees with the full cost of direct services provided by
the Federal Government to pesticide registrants. EPA expects the cost
of reviewing new and existing pesticide registrations to increase in
the future due to higher fixed costs (e.g., payroll and benefits) as
well as the continued desire for more detailed screens on submissions,
expedited data review, earlier feedback to applicants, and consultation
and implementation of the Endangered Species Act with the Services.
EPA intends to pursue further improvements to processing times with
investments in helping registrants develop complete and error-free
submissions through training events and by developing and implementing
electronic application and review tools. The EPA's long-term goal is
for registrants to apply electronically via the Web and for routine
parts of the application or submission to be reviewed electronically,
thereby reducing both amount of time and burden imposed on regulated
entities to develop an application and for the EPA to reach a decision.
Question. Does the EPA regard the Pesticide Registration
Improvement Renewal Act as having been successful in ensuring that fees
assessed to registrants are retained by the EPA to perform its duties
and in providing the EPA with dedicated funding to expedite the review
process?
Answer. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act and the
Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act specify how collected
fee receipts will be used by EPA. Specifically, registration service
fees are to be used by the EPA for the review and decisionmaking
related to specific pesticide registration applications, including
costs associated with salaries, contract employees, advisory
committees, peer reviews, information management expenses, and
collecting the registration service fees. EPA has used the resources
consistent with the law.
climate protection program
Question. Administrator Jackson, the President's budget proposes
funding in the Science and Technology, Climate Protection Program of
$16.94 million for fiscal year 2011. This represents a $1.875 million
reduction from the fiscal year 2010 appropriation.
What impact will the reduction have on the laboratory's operations,
particularly in the area of research and development?
Answer. This $1.857 million reduction will have limited impact on
the laboratory's operations. The funding request reflects a phase down
of the Federal cost-share for California technology demonstration
partnerships while retaining the traditional focus on development of
advanced automotive technologies in support of the administration's
goal to take action on climate change. The administration is also
supporting the deployment of alternative and advanced vehicle
technologies and providing opportunities for demonstration and
commercialization through substantial resources provided by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for these activities in the
Department of Energy.
Question. As EPA contemplates additional regulation to curtail
greenhouse gas emissions, what additional research is needed to achieve
additional reductions in the following vehicle classes: Passenger
vehicles, light trucks, medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks.
Answer. The Climate Protection Program, and specifically the Clean
Automotive Technology Program, emphasizes research and collaboration
with the automotive, trucking, and fleet industries. The Program will
continue its focus to transfer the research advances of the hydraulic
hybrid technology to the industry, and demonstrate the effectiveness of
the high-efficiency, clean-combustion, gasoline, homogenous-charge
compression ignition (HCCI) engine.
However, analyses to inform regulatory decisions are conducted
through a different program, namely the Federal Vehicles and Fuels
Standards and Certification Program. In fiscal year 2011 the
President's budget requests an increase of about $4 million to support
additional needs for heavy-duty vehicle and engine greenhouse gas (GHG)
standards and for initial analysis and technology assessment efforts
needed to support potential development of GHG emission standards for
other mobiles source categories. Additionally, the budget requests an
additional $2 million to support promulgation of GHG standards for
passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger
vehicles.
Question. Does the funding requested facilitate this research? If
not, what additional resources would be required?
Answer. Yes, the requested funding is adequate to achieve our
highest-priority research goals.
Question. What is the status of the commercialization of the
hydraulic hybrid technology? Is this technology ready for deployment in
fleet vehicles, medium and heavy-duty trucks and busses? If not, what
additional research needs to be conducted? What additional resources
are needed?
Answer. EPA has been actively working with its broad mix of partner
companies to demonstrate that its unique hydraulic hybrid technology
works and that there are no fundamental technical barriers or road
blocks that could prevent its commercialization.
EPA has focused its initial technology transfer demonstrations on
prototype series hydraulic hybrid technology in class 6 urban delivery
vehicles such as UPS and FedEx trucks. These successful demonstrations
have sparked some interest among the heavy fleet industry to purchase
series hydraulic hybrid trucks, which spurred several of EPA's
technology transfer partners to progress to the early stages of
designing and building their first pre-production series hydraulic
hybrid trucks.
In fiscal year 2011, because of technical challenges of this
patented EPA technology, the manufacturers require EPA's technical
assistance, expertise and experience to get these vehicles operating
effectively.
In order for hydraulic hybrid technology to gain acceptance
industry-wide, the program tries to leverage other projects to also
demonstrate its application in other vehicles including shuttle buses
(partnering with California's Air Resources Board and the South Coast
Air Quality Management District) and nonroad trucks such as cargo
handling equipment used in sea ports in California and the rest of the
Nation.
The core technology is ready for proof of concept demonstrations in
commercial trucks (meaning there are technical improvements needed, but
no technical barriers or road blocks that should prevent its
commercialization), and commercial truck companies and suppliers are
working with EPA in designing and developing their pre-production
vehicles. Industry is now preparing to build its initial pre-production
vehicles and will test them in various pilot commercial truck fleet
trials during 2011 and 2012.
The technology for delivery vehicles and shuttle bus applications
is ready for initial field evaluations. Research is underway to
overcome some application specific hurdles for other types of vehicles
such as passenger cars and light trucks, including research to increase
the efficiency of various hydraulic components, reduce their weight,
reduce the ``hydraulic noise,'' and extend service intervals.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
inorganic arsenic impacts on drinking water
Question. Due to the consequences and implications of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Integrated Risk Information
System assessment of inorganic arsenic on drinking water, agriculture
practices, and the perceived safety of the food supply compliance, do
you agree the EPA should extend the comment period by 30 days and
include a broader peer review?
Answer. EPA believes that this second review and the announced
public comment period are appropriate and adequate. The EPA agrees that
the public should be afforded an opportunity for review and comment on
EPA's draft human health assessments, and that this review period
should be of adequate length to ensure that the public's participation
is full, transparent, and open. EPA also agrees that it should bring
the best available science and scientific analyses to bear on such
assessments.
In 2005, EPA's draft human health assessment for carcinogenic
effects of long-term exposure to inorganic arsenic was provided for
public review and comment and the resulting public comments were made
available to EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) as part of its
independent external peer review. In June 2007, the SAB issued a final
report, ``Advisory on EPA's Assessments of Carcinogenic Effects of
Organic and Inorganic Arsenic: A Report of the US EPA Science Advisory
Board.'' EPA then revised the draft assessment to address the
recommendations and comments as part of the EPA's standard process for
the development of human health assessments.
EPA has now taken the extra step of requesting that the SAB conduct
an evaluation of the EPA's interpretation and implementation of key
recommendations included in the SAB's 2007 peer review report. This
will act as a useful check to ensure that EPA is achieving our goal of
having the best science inform this assessment.
A 2-month public comment period on the EPA response to the SAB's
2007 report was announced in the Federal Register on February 19, 2010.
In accordance with EPA's peer review guidance, the SAB panel will be
provided with the public comments submitted by the end of the announced
public comment period. After the SAB's review is complete, EPA will
finalize the assessment based on the public and expert comments and
include it on the IRIS Web-based database.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
department of energy (doe) small refinery study
Question. In the RFS II rulemaking, did Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) rely on the DOE small refinery study that Congress had
determined to be unreliable and needed to be revised? If so, please
justify such reliance.
Answer. The criteria specified by statute (Clean Air Act section
211(o)(9) for providing a further compliance extension to small
refineries is a demonstration of ``disproportionate economic
hardship.'' The statute provides that such hardship can be identified
through the DOE study (CAA section 211(o)(9)(A)(ii)), or in individual
petitions submitted to the Agency (CAA section 211(o)(9)(B)). However,
the DOE study concluded that no disproportionate economic hardship
exists, at least under current conditions and for the foreseeable
future under RFS2. DOE had not revised its study, as requested by
Congress, as of the time of the RFS2 rulemaking. Therefore, EPA had no
basis under section 211(o)(9)(A)(ii) to extend the temporary exemption
for small refiners but indicated that it could do so in the future on
the basis of either a revised DOE study or in response to a petition
under section 211(o)(9)(B).
We are aware that there have been expressions of concern from
Congress regarding the DOE study. Specifically, in Senate Report 111-
45, the Senate Appropriations Committee ``directed [DOE] to reopen and
reassess the Small Refineries Exemption Study by June 30, 2010,''
noting a number of factors that the Committee intended that DOE
consider in the revised study. The final Conference Report 111-278 to
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act (H.R. 3183),
referenced the language in the Senate Report, noting that the conferees
``support the study requested by the Senate on RFS and expect the
Department to undertake the requested economic review.'' At the time
EPA issued the RFS2 rule, however, the DOE study had not been revised.
If DOE prepares a revised study and the revised study finds that there
is a disproportionate economic hardship, we will revisit the exemption
extension in accordance with section 211(o)(9)(A)(ii).
Question. Because DOE is currently revising the small refinery
study, would you support extending the temporary exemption of small
refineries from the RFS until a credible and valid study is completed
and the facts surrounding the issue are actually known?
Answer. EPA does not currently have authority to grant such an
extension of the temporary exemption, since the statute states that
such relief shall only be provided upon a demonstration of
``disproportionate economic hardship''. As previously noted, if DOE
prepares a revised study and the revised study finds that there is a
disproportionate economic impact, we will revisit the exemption
extension at that point in accordance with section 211(o)(9)(A)(ii). In
addition, EPA is prepared to review and act on individual petitions for
an extension of the temporary exemption on the basis of
disproportionate economic hardship experienced by individual
facilities.
Question. Has EPA corresponded with DOE regarding this study since
enactment of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010? If so, please provide me with copies of that
correspondence.
Answer. We are working on assessing potential correspondence
regarding DOE's Small Refinery Study and will respond further once we
finish reviewing the relevant documents.
Question. Is EPA participating with DOE in the revised small
refinery study? If so, what is the status of that study?
Answer. We anticipate that we will be coordinating with them as
they move forward--in particular providing them with information
related to the RFS standards and compliance issues.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
long creek watershed
Question. The Long Creek watershed near Portland, Maine is one of
the first in the Nation being required to reduce nonpoint source
pollution under the Clean Water Act. This will affect 110 landowners.
The affected businesses, local government entities, and National
Estuary Program (Casco Bay Estuary Partnership) have formed a nonprofit
organization to help acquire grants and other funding to assist
landowners with the cost of the clean up. I recently met with Regional
Administrator Curt Spalding, who pledged to help with this unique
project. Will you also work with the Long Creek watershed groups and my
office to identify EPA funding that could help landowners meet their
Clean Water Act obligations?
Answer. Yes, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will work
with Long Creek watershed groups to help them identify funding for the
landowners required to reduce stormwater pollution under the residual
designation. While EPA's State Revolving Fund is the most likely source
of funds for small business owners who need assistance to comply with
National Permit Discharge Elimination System permit requirements, other
Federal and State funds may also be available. EPA is prepared to work
with your office to assist the landowners in identifying various
funding sources.
mercury
Question. I have long believed that we, as a Nation, are not paying
sufficient attention to the dangers posed by mercury to our children
and, in general, to all of our citizens. When I have spoken to experts
in Maine about this problem I have learned that each new scientific
study finds more mercury in the environment and more affected species
than the previous study. In 2006, when EPA released a major new mercury
regulatory rule, its Inspector General found that data for mercury
pollution models was severely lacking and recommended EPA implement a
national mercury monitoring network. Last year, to address this need
for better data, I and Senator Carper introduced the Comprehensive
National Mercury Monitoring Act to ensure that we have the information
we need to make decisions necessary to protect our people and
environment. Do you support implementing a National Mercury Monitory
Network? What specific steps will the EPA take in the coming year to
protect us against this persistent and dangerous neurotoxin?
Answer. EPA recognizes the value in comprehensive, long-term
mercury monitoring data and has made significant and tangible progress
toward collecting national mercury monitoring data. Mercury is a
complex and multi-faceted issue that is present in all media, including
air, water, sediments, fish, and wildlife. EPA is collaborating with
Federal, State, and tribal agencies, and academic partners to provide a
comprehensive understanding of mercury in the environment using
existing data, monitoring capabilities, and resources. EPA has convened
workshops to discuss the design of a comprehensive national mercury
monitoring program.
--In 2003, EPA co-sponsored a workshop with the Society for
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry to develop a national-
scale program to monitor changes in mercury levels in the
environment resulting from anticipated mercury emissions
reductions in the United States. The workshop recommended a set
of environmental measurements and indicators, EPA is evaluating
these recommendations.
--In 2008, EPA co-convened a follow-up workshop with experts from
USGS, NOAA, USFWS, NPS, State and tribal agencies, the
BioDiversity Research Institute, the National Atmospheric
Deposition Program, industry, academic institutions, and
Environment Canada. Workshop participants agreed on a goal and
major design elements for a national mercury monitoring
program, EPA is evaluating these recommendations.
--Since 2008, EPA and its partners have achieved significant progress
in developing new mercury monitoring and assessment capacity,
including the National Atmospheric Deposition Program's newly
established North American network that monitors atmospheric
concentrations of mercury at 20 sites throughout the United
States and Canada, and collaborative efforts to develop common
databases of multi-media mercury concentrations for the Great
Lakes Region that can be merged with existing databases from
the Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada.
Mercury emissions have declined substantially in the United States
since 1990 through regulatory and nonregulatory measures. Total
estimated mercury emissions were reduced from about 246 tons in 1990 to
103 tons by 2005, about a 58 percent reduction, largely due to
reductions from municipal waste combustors and medical waste
incinerators, but also due to reductions from other sectors, such as
chlor-alkali production plants. Moreover, reductions are currently
being achieved from the steel industry through the National Vehicle
Mercury Switch Recovery Program and a 2007 National Emissions Standard
for electric arc furnaces at steel mills, as well as hazardous waste
combustion units. EPA is also in the process of developing revised
standards for Portland Cement Kilns, Industrial/Commercial/
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, and Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration units. In 2011, EPA plans to
continue progress with reducing mercury emissions and continuing its
progress in significantly reducing exposures to mercury by 2015.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Feinstein. I believe that concludes the hearing for
today. So we will stand recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., Wednesday, March 3, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Leahy, Reed, Nelson, Tester,
Alexander, Cochran, Bennett, and Collins.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DAVID J. HAYES, DEPUTY SECRETARY
PAMELA HAZE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Good morning, everyone. I would like to
welcome you to the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee's second budget oversight hearing.
This morning, in addition to discussing the Department's
fiscal year 2011 funding request, Senator Alexander and I would
like to expand this hearing and take a closer look at the issue
of renewable energy development on public land. We believe this
is an extremely important public policy matter with many
critical questions yet to be answered. Our goal will be to ask
some of those questions and, hopefully, get the kind of answers
that will allow the public and the Congress to know precisely
how the administration intends to move forward in this area.
We have, I think, four votes at 11 a.m., so we want to move
right around. We follow the early bird rule, and time is
limited to 5 minutes a Senator.
Testifying on behalf of the Department is our former
colleague, our friend, Secretary Ken Salazar. Mr. Secretary, it
is very nice to have you back in the Senate, and we look
forward to your testimony.
Also, joining us this morning to weigh in on the renewable
energy issue is David Hayes, the Department's Deputy Secretary,
and last but not least, we are joined by Pam Haze, the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Budget. We welcome all of you here.
CALIFORNIA WATER
Before we begin, I would like to take a moment to thank
you, Mr. Secretary, for the efforts that you and your staff
have made over recent weeks to supply additional water to
California farmers using administrative means consistent with
the biological opinions. Mike Connor, Commissioner of
Reclamation; David Hayes, sitting on your right; Don Glaser and
Ron Milligan in the region have done yeoman's work on this
issue, and I greatly appreciate the effort that has been made.
Water is one of the more painful parts of our job it seems.
BUDGET
Turning now to the budget, as proposed by the President,
the Department's funding request for fiscal year 2011 totals
$11.1 billion for the agencies and programs under the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee. While that amount is
virtually unchanged from what was provided last year--so the
budget is flat--there are significant funding increases that we
should look at in several program areas.
An additional $100 million is requested for land
acquisition. That is 31 percent more than last year.
An additional $35 million is requested for the climate
change adaptation initiative. That is an additional 26 percent
increase.
And an additional $20 million is requested for beefed-up
law enforcement in tribal areas. Most of that is new money that
will allow for 81 FBI personnel.
Now, Mr. Secretary, each of these is an important priority
for you--we understand that--and for the administration. And I
know you will speak passionately about these programs.
My concern is that in order to pay for these, the
administration is proposing cuts elsewhere that may well be
untenable. And so let me spell some of that out.
The construction accounts at the National Park Service
(NPS), FWS, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) would be cut $164 million. That is a 33
percent reduction from the current level. Now, each of these
agencies has separate maintenance budgets, but the construction
accounts are where much of the major repair and restoration
work is addressed. And that is a problem.
The administration has also proposed cutting the
Department's hazardous fuels reduction account by $44 million.
That is a 21 percent reduction. Given the level of fire on
public lands, particularly in the Western States, over the past
several years, that is a cut that is very hard for me to
understand, let alone support.
The budget proposes having the various bureaus absorb $108
million in unfunded fixed costs. Now, these include
congressionally mandated pay raises, increased employee health
benefits, and increased rent and utilities. Each of these must
be paid for but in this budget they are not.
So where does the NPS come up with the $32 million it needs
to cover its fixed costs? That question I hope you answer in
your opening remarks. BIA would have to absorb $19 million in
fixed costs, and that virtually wipes out the $19 million being
added for law enforcement.
The administration has also proposed cutting $78 million
across the board as a result of various management
efficiencies, including $18 million in information technology.
The budget suggests consolidating e-mail systems and computer
help centers as the way to make this work. Now, I support those
actions, but the amount that can be cut from each agency are
estimates of potential savings.
So the question is immediately raised, what happens to law
enforcement in our National Parks and refuges or Indian
education or the fire program if we adopt those budget cuts and
then find out that the savings do not materialize? So we hope
you will address those.
The Department has made great progress on several fronts
over the last year or 2, and I am aware that your budget was up
14 percent last year. So maybe you can absorb some of this, but
our staff has said it is going to be very difficult if not
impossible.
And finally, Mr. Secretary, before turning to Senator
Alexander for any comments he might care to make, I would just
like to congratulate you on the tremendous job you have done in
utilizing the $3 billion provided through the stimulus, or the
Recovery Act. I know that you have until September 30 to
obligate all the funds, but I understand that the Department
has made significant progress in awarding 3,400 Recovery Act
projects. I also understand that many of these projects have
come in below budget, which is very unusual around here, and
because of that savings, it will enable you to undertake an
additional 140 projects at our parks and wildlife refuges. So
we really appreciate this. I think it shows solid management
and is really impressive.
Now, I would like to turn this over to my friend and my
colleague and the distinguished ranking member of this
subcommittee, Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chairman. It is good to
see you and especially to see our friend Ken.
The Department lost one of its fine public servants in Sam
Hamilton. We all regret that and admire his life and public
service, 30 years with the FWS.
I appreciate the difficult financial environment.
I thank you for your work, especially with Congressman
Shuler on the North Shore Road to bring that to a conclusion.
That was a difficult problem that has been going on since World
War II, and I think your decisions have helped bring that to a
successful conclusion.
I also thank you for coming to the 75th anniversary of the
Great Smoky Mountain National Park where you attracted nearly
as much attention as Dolly Parton did.
Senator Feinstein. Without the assets.
Senator Alexander. Well, he had a hat.
Senator Leahy. I have so many things I want to say.
Senator Feinstein. Do not say them.
Senator Alexander. Senator Dirksen once told Senator Baker
he should try to be guilty occasionally of unexpressed
thoughts.
So I think all of us will do that here.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), I am going to
reserve my comments until the questions, but here are the areas
that I will be interested in. The difference between the
funding for Federal and for State-side of land and water. The
State comes up pretty short.
You and I have talked about additional operations and
maintenance fundings for the National Parks. Senator Feinstein
just talked about that.
I continue to be concerned because the Great Smoky
Mountains, because of historical circumstances, has two or
three times the visitors of our other major parks, but gets
about one-half the funding of similar parks.
I would like to mention Education in the Parks initiative
which we worked on last year, and as Senator Feinstein said, we
do not want to destroy the environment in the name of saving
the environment. At least one major conservation group has
talked about the renewable energy sprawl, and you have talked
about treasured landscapes. We simply want to work with you to
make sure there are clear policies about what is appropriate
and what is not. I will be giving you a letter later today with
some suggestions for what I hope could be a part of the policy
that we are looking forward to receiving from you later, and I
look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
Mr. Secretary, please proceed.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very, very much, Senator
Feinstein, not only for your leadership of this subcommittee,
but for your leadership on so many issues. More recently I have
been seeing a lot of you, as has David Hayes, with respect to
California water and it is a crisis and we hope we find our way
through.
Senator Alexander, thank you for your leadership, for
welcoming me to the 75th anniversary of the Great Smoky
Mountains, and I look forward to working with you as well on so
many issues.
To all of you, the members of this subcommittee, my good
friends, Senator Collins, who really was the chief sponsor of
so many movements on the LWCF; to Senator Leahy, who took me
into Jordan and lots of other places, and under his wing; and
to Senator Cochran, who in front of this Senate introduced Sam
Hamilton to be the Director of FWS; and to John Tester, the
Senator from Montana, who has taken me to Glacier National Park
and other places, you are a wonderful group of people. It is my
honor to appear before you today.
With me today is David Hayes, who is the Deputy Secretary
of the Interior and has been leading the efforts on California
water, as well as on climate change and renewable energy within
the Department. I think you want to hear some comments from him
briefly after my opening comments.
And Pam Haze, our Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget,
who has put together this budget.
In the audience, is Steve Black, who is our counselor on
energy and has worked with you on the monument issues in
California, Senator Feinstein; Mike Poole, who is Deputy
Director of the BLM; Mary Catherine Ishee who is heading up our
renewable energy efforts on the Atlantic offshore wind, as well
as Gary Frazer from FWS.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MISSION
Let me simply start out by saying the Department of the
Interior has a very important mission and it is a mission which
I like to carry out every day, thinking that it is probably the
most important mission of the executive agencies of the
Government. That mission simply is to protect the Nation's
natural resources and the Nation's natural and cultural
heritage. We do that every day with all of the authorities in
each of the agencies under my jurisdiction.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
It is also important, when we think about Interior, to
recognize there is a huge economic contribution the Department
of the Interior makes to this country. Whether it is at Acadia
National Park in Maine or the great wildlife refuges of
Mississippi, we know there is a huge economic contribution that
comes from the activities of this Department. Our economic
analysis, which I had the economists in our Department complete
about 1 month ago, demonstrates that we generate about 1.3
million jobs a year out in the private sector. The economic
contribution that comes from visitation to our National Parks,
oil and gas production, renewable energy production, and all
the rest of the activities of the Department nears almost $400
billion a year. So unlike other parts of the Government, we are
significant economic generators in each of your States, and we
are very proud of that.
BUDGET
This budget reflects tough choices in some very tough
times. It is not a budget we would be presenting here if we
were navigating through times where there would be the ability
to access funds with your support to help us fulfill some of
the greater visions that we have. So there are tough choices
here. I think as both Senators Feinstein and Alexander alluded
to, we had to make some tough choices as we went through the
budget.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TRAVEL REDUCTIONS
For example, I know the cuts you alluded to, Senator
Feinstein, on travel and information technology are just real
cuts. We are having our employees travel less. We are being
smarter in how we travel. Information technology--instead of
spending more than $1 billion a year, which we are spending in
the Department with each bureau doing its own thing, we are
doing a consolidation so we can have better information
technology but also doing it in a way that saves money.
For my time in the Department of the Interior over the last
14 months, I have had 5 simple priorities.
ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
The first is to work as part of the Obama team, working
with this Congress on a new comprehensive energy program for
the Nation and tackling the issues of climate change which
affect each and every one of your States.
On the energy front, we have moved forward with a robust
conventional energy program, which has included both onshore
leasing and production for oil and gas and other resources, as
well as offshore. In comparison to what has happened in the
previous 8 years, I think we have stayed apace with respect to
the rates of leasing of the public lands for oil and gas
production, including in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
With respect to renewable energy, we have launched a new
direction on renewable energy, and this budget proposes that we
will be standing up more than 9,000 megawatts of renewable
energy power just on the onshore. With respect to the offshore,
in particular, we have a focus on the Atlantic because so many
of the governors along the Atlantic want us to move forward
with an offshore renewable energy program. We think there is
great hope there, and we are very focused on making that
possible.
As part of the energy future for America and a
comprehensive plan, we also have tackled the realities of
climate change. I know there is great debate here today and
will be in the year ahead about what we do with energy and
climate change, but I see it when I go to Glacier National
Park. I am told by our scientists there that the glaciers will
not be there by the year 2020, or in the Apostle Islands in
Lake Superior where the waters are 5 degrees warmer than they
were just 30 years ago, or in the Colorado River Basin, which
is so water-short and our projections are that we will be
having 20 percent less water there than we have had
historically. Those are huge issues that we have to address.
TREASURED LANDSCAPES
Second, America's great outdoors. Senator Alexander, from
the days of President Eisenhower and on, has carried on the
baton moving forward with what we do with our great outdoors.
It is important for hunters, for anglers, and working in the
right way with local governments and respecting private
property rights, that we move forward with an agenda on that,
and the LWCF increases included in this budget are very much a
part of that agenda.
WATER
Third, water. We have initiatives in here with respect to
new water management initiatives on conservation and reuse and
recycling, as well as dealing with specific water conflicts we
face including the water conflict in the San Francisco Bay-
Delta. Hopefully, those will help us move forward to a 21st
century approach to water conservation.
YOUTH IN NATURAL RESOURCES
Fourth, youth. We educate millions of young people in our
national parks and wildlife refuges across the country. We have
about 400 million visitors throughout the Department's
facilities. Many of them are young people, and we actually
educate in the classroom more than 2 million young people just
through the NPS alone. Through the employment side of things,
we have moved forward with a robust jobs program for young
people. Our hope is that we will be able to have more than
12,000 young people working as seasonals with the Department of
the Interior.
EMPOWERING NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES
And finally, Native Americans. We have had a long and
sordid and negative history and conflict with the Native
Americans of the United States, 564 tribes who have a nation-
to-nation relationship with the United States and a trust
responsibility with the Department of the Interior. This budget
supports addressing many of the issues in Indian country,
including law enforcement.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I would like to have David Hayes, Madam Chairman, give a
quick overview of the renewable energy efforts.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ken Salazar
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here today to present the details of the 2011 budget request for the
Department of the Interior. I know that you have a particular interest
in the Department's role in building a new energy future, and look
forward to speaking with you about this important issue. I want to
thank the Chairman, the members of this subcommittee and the
Appropriations Committee for your support of our Department and ongoing
reforms that are important to the stewardship of the Nation's natural
and cultural resources and to fulfilling our trust responsibilities to
American Indians and Alaska Natives. Your support for Interior's
programs is helping us to build a strong foundation to achieve a clean
energy future, tackle climate change impacts, conserve our treasured
landscapes, and empower tribal communities. I look forward to working
closely with you to continue to advance these priorities.
I look forward to a continued partnership with you and your staff
to address another issue--California's water problems. The situation in
California's Bay-Delta ecosystem is a full-blown crisis that requires
all hands on deck. Although many of California's water managers served
by the Federal Central Water Project anticipate receiving adequate
water supplies, some managers face a fourth straight year of uncertain
water supplies due to the legacy of 3 straight years of drought and the
near collapse of the ecosystem, which has affected deliveries to
agricultural and urban water customers south of the delta and
devastated the commercial salmon fishery.
My Deputy Secretary, David Hayes, is leading Interior's
implementation of the administration's Interim Federal Action Plan for
the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), has a key role in this plan. In the 2011 budget before this
subcommittee and your colleagues on Energy and Water Development, the
Department requests $155.2 million for studies, projects and other
efforts directly in the Bay-Delta, an increase of $50.6 million above
2010. In addition, the budget includes $72.9 million for WaterSMART
grants and studies to support water recycling and reuse projects and
address water availability issues throughout the country.
introduction
I am honored to serve as the 50th Secretary of the Interior and to
oversee this Department and its vast domain. Our mission is as simple
as it is profound. We protect America's natural resources and cultural
heritage. Our land and community-based programs touch the lives of most
Americans, including 1.7 million American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Interior manages 500 million acres or about 1 in every 5 acres in
the United States, including 392 national park units, 551 wildlife
refuges, the 27 million acre National Landscape Conservation System,
and other public lands. These places are treasured landscapes. They
provide us with scenic landscapes, recreational opportunities and they
tell our history and our varied culture. They serve as economic engines
for tourism and growth opportunities for recreation, drawing visitors
and supporting jobs and businesses in surrounding communities.
The Department's public lands and 1.7 billion acres on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) supply nearly one-third of the Nation's
domestic energy production. These resources are vital to the Nation's
energy security and provide economic returns to the Nation. In
addition, the mineral and timber resources that are from the public
lands support industry, help to pave our roads, and build our homes.
The Department of the Interior's people, programs, and information
have an impact on all Americans. Interior recently analyzed the
economic impacts of its programs and activities, and estimates that the
Department generates the following in economic benefits: The Department
supports more than 1.3 million jobs and more than $370 billion in
economic activity. Parks, refuges, and monuments generate more than $24
billion from recreation and tourism. Conventional and renewable energy
produced on Interior lands and waters results in $292 billion in
economic benefits and the water managed by the Interior supports more
than $25 billion in agriculture.
The Department fulfills its special responsibilities to American
Indians and Alaska Natives, managing one of the largest land trusts in
the world including more than 55 million surface acres and 57 million
acres of subsurface mineral estates held in trust for Indian tribes and
individual Indians, more than $3.6 billion of funds held in more than
2,700 trust accounts for approximately 250 Indian tribes, and more than
380,000 open Individual Indian Money accounts. The Bureau of Indian
Education school system provides services to approximately 42,000
students in 23 States attending 183 elementary and secondary schools
and supports 30 tribally controlled community colleges, universities,
and postsecondary schools.
The Department of the Interior is truly the Department of America.
We are uniquely positioned to provide enduring benefits to the American
people. We will invest the resources included in the 2011 budget and
make wise and prudent investments that will allow us to maximize
opportunities to realize the potential of our lands and waters,
resources, and people.
the first year
In January 2010, I celebrated my first anniversary as Secretary of
the Interior by recognizing the achievements of Interior's 70,000
employees, including:
--Restoring the Everglades.--Beginning construction of the 1-mile
bridge on the Tamiami Trail and breaking ground on the Picayune
Strand Restoration project in the Everglades in Florida--to
restore water flows and revive 55,000 acres of wetlands for
wildlife habitat;
--Negotiating a Settlement of the Long-running and Highly contentious
Cobell v. Salazar class-action lawsuit.--Resolving trust
accounting and management issues after 14 years;
--Advancing Renewable Energy Development.--Establishing renewable
energy coordination offices in four States and teams in six
States to facilitate renewable energy production on public
lands and issuing four exploratory leases for renewable wind
energy production on the OCS;
--Moving forward to invest $3 billion available from the American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act in facility renovation and energy
efficiencies, habitat restoration, increasing water supplies
and water conservation, supporting renewable energy
development, and reducing human hazards;
--Restoring confidence and accountability in our energy programs by
beginning an orderly termination of the Royalty-in-Kind program
and reforming the management of onshore oil and gas resources;
--Coming to the aid of drought-stricken California with emergency aid
and infrastructure investments;
--Expanding Opportunities for Youth.--Employing 8,200 young adults in
2009;
--Opening the Crown of the Statue of Liberty for Public Access.--The
Crown has been closed to the public since 9/11;
--Ending a Stalemate at the Flight 93 National Memorial.--Completing
the acquisition of land in cooperation with willing sellers and
clearing the way for construction of a memorial to honor the
Nation's heroes;
--Delisting the Brown Pelican.--A case of complete recovery for a
species that was first listed as endangered in 1970;
--Increasing Transparency.--Reversing and withdrawing flawed oil and
gas leases with potential impacts to national parks in Utah and
oil shale research, development, and demonstration leases that
may have shortchanged taxpayers; and
--Helping to negotiate a collaborative solution that would end
decades of conflict and potentially allow for the restoration
of the Klamath River Basin in California and Oregon.
overview of the 2011 budget
Interior's 2011 budget reflects an aggressive agenda in the context
of challenging fiscal times. The 2011 Interior budget request for
current appropriations is $12.2 billion, $38.7 million or 0.3 percent
below the level enacted by Congress for 2010. Permanent funding that
becomes available as a result of existing legislation without further
action by the Congress will provide an additional $5.8 billion, for
budget authority totaling $18 billion for Interior in 2011.
Within this amount, the budget proposes investments for high-
priority goals and initiatives. With the 2011 budget, the Department
will:
--Implement a comprehensive New Energy Frontier strategy that creates
jobs, reduces the Nation's dependence on foreign oil, and
reduces environmental impacts. The budget requests an increase
of $27.4 million for renewable and conventional energy
programs.
--Confront the realities of climate change by launching an integrated
strategy for Climate Change Adaptation. An increase of $35.4
million is requested to implement the Department's integrated
program.
--Develop a 21st century conservation agenda that protects Treasured
Landscapes. The 2011 budget includes increases of $106 million
for Land and Water Conservation Fund programs and $71.4 million
for investments in major ecosystem restoration projects in the
Chesapeake Bay, California's Bay Delta, the Gulf Coast of
Louisiana and Mississippi, and Everglades.
--Tackle the water challenges facing the country with a new strategy
to Sustain and Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow. The
Department's WaterSMART sustainability agenda includes
increases of $36.4 million.
--Engage America's Youth in Natural Resources.--The budget increases
funding for youth programs by $9.3 million.
--Honor Trust Responsibilities and Empowering Tribal Nations.--The
budget includes targeted increases for contract support and
other tribal priorities.
These increases are possible within a level budget as the
Department is proposing $750 million in terminations, reductions, and
management efficiencies and absorption of $108.7 million in fixed
costs.
The 2011 request includes $11.1 billion for programs funded in the
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This is
$16.7 million, or 0.2 percent, below the level enacted for 2010. The
2011 request for the BOR and the Central Utah Project Completion Act,
funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, is $1.1
billion, $22 million or 2 percent below the level enacted for 2010.
In 2011, Interior will continue an exemplary record of producing
revenue for the U.S. Treasury. The estimate for revenue collections by
the Department in 2011 is $14 billion, more than offsetting the budget
request for current appropriations.
new energy frontier
The Department of the Interior oversees one-fifth of the Nation's
landmass and more than 1.7 billion acres of the OCS. As the steward of
the Nation's energy and mineral estate, the Department has a leadership
role, promoting clean energy that can reduce climate impacts, and
responsibly developing conventional energy sources to reduce reliance
on foreign oil.
The New Energy Frontier initiative will create clean sources of
energy using the Nation's vast domestic resources. The New Energy
Frontier initiative invests $73.3 million in renewable energy programs,
an increase of $14.2 million more than 2010. The initiative includes $3
million for BLM to focus on the environmental elements of renewable
energy projects, $3.2 million for Materials Management Service (MMS)
region-specific planning needs, $3 million for USGS to analyze and
document the effects of renewable energy on wildlife populations, $4
million for FWS to carry out endangered species consultation and other
wildlife conservation efforts and provide timely environmental review
of projects, and $1 million for BIA to support renewable energy
development efforts on tribal lands.
The Department has a High Priority Performance Goal to increase
approved capacity for solar, wind, and geothermal energy resources on
Interior-managed lands, while ensuring full environmental review, by at
least 9,000 megawatts by the end of 2011.
The 2011 budget continues support for the development of
conventional energy, with $460.2 million in BLM, MMS, and BIA. This is
a net increase of $13.1 million more than the 2010 level. Within this
requested level, there is an increase of $4.4 million for MMS's 2007-
2012, 5-year program and $10 million for audit costs to support the
transition from Royalty-in-Kind to Royalty-in-Value. The 2011 budget
increases the MMS inspection fee on OCS above-water oil and gas
facilities by $10 million. A reduction of $13 million is proposed in
the net BLM oil and gas program appropriation, which is offset by $10
million in new inspection fees in the onshore oil and gas program; the
remaining $3 million reduction results from the completion of a
legislated energy study. BIA's budget includes an increase of $1.5
million for conventional energy leasing activities on the Fort Berthold
Reservation, including support for a ``one-stop-shop'' to streamline
development activities in the area.
climate change adaptation
Resource managers consider climate change to be the single most
challenging issue they face. In order to equip them with the tools and
strategies they need, Interior's Climate Change Adaptation initiative
will investigate the causes and formulate solutions to mitigate climate
impacts to lands, waters, natural, and cultural resources. As the pre-
eminent manager of lands and resources, Interior will leverage its
experience and expertise in partnership with other governmental and
nongovernmental entities. Interior's Climate Science Centers and
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives will conduct and communicate
research and monitoring to improve understanding and forecasting for
those natural and cultural heritage resources that are most vulnerable
to climate change impacts.
The Department's High Priority Performance Goal for Climate Change
Adaptation is to identify areas and species most vulnerable to climate
change and begin implementing comprehensive adaptation strategies by
the end of 2011.
The 2011 budget includes $171.3 million for the Climate Change
Adaptation Initiative, an increase of $35.4 million more than 2010.
This includes continued investments in the USGS National Climate Change
and Wildlife Science Center ($8 million), which will serve as the nexus
for 8 Climate Change Science Centers; expansion of monitoring in USGS
($1 million) and FWS ($8 million) that will be integrated,
standardized, and accessible to Interior bureaus, partners, and the
public; expansion of the USGS carbon sequestration project by $2
million; expanded science and planning capacity in FWS ($8.8 million)
and BLM ($2.5 million) to support additional Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives; and FWS adaptive management activities with private
landowners ($2 million). Beginning with the 2011 budget, the BOR and
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) identify dedicated climate change
funding, including an increase of $3.5 million for Reclamation basin
studies and scientific support and $200,000 for BIA participation in an
LCC.
watersmart
The 2011 budget proposes a sustainable water strategy to assist
local communities to stretch water supplies and improve water
management. A High Priority Performance Goal is established to enable
capacity to increase water supply for agricultural, municipal,
industrial, and environmental uses in the Western United States up to
350,000 acre-feet by the end of 2011 through the BOR's conservation
programs including water reuse and recycling and WaterSMART (formerly
challenge) grants.
The budget for the WaterSMART program--Sustain and Manage America's
Resources for Tomorrow--includes $72.9 million, an increase of $36.4
million more than the 2010 enacted level for sustainability programs in
Reclamation and USGS. Reclamation will use $62 million, an increase of
$27.4 million, to improve water management by encouraging voluntary
water banks; reduce demand; implement water conservation and water
reclamation and reuse projects; and take action to improve energy
efficiency and reduce environmental conflicts. The USGS will use $10.9
million, an increase of $9 million, for a multi-year, nationwide water
availability and use assessment program.
youth in natural resources
The future of resource conservation depends upon the next
generation's understanding of the importance of natural resources and
cultural treasures. The 2011 budget continues the Youth in Natural
Resources initiative which signals the Secretary's emphasis on youth
involvement.
The Department's High Priority Performance Goal for Youth in
Natural Resources is, by the end of 2011, to increase by 50 percent
from the 2009 level, the employment of youth (ages 15 to 25) in the
conservation mission of the Department.
The budget includes an additional $9.3 million for programs at the
parks, refuges, and other public lands. This includes $5.8 million for
youth employment and education programs in the National Park System
(NPS) and $2 million for youth programs at national wildlife refuges.
The budget also includes $2 million for FWS and BLM to partner with the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in public-private partnerships to
engage youth through conservation projects on public and private lands.
The total for youth programs includes an elimination of a $500,000
earmark in the FWS Migratory Bird program. In addition, NPS has
committed to dedicate a total of $6.4 million, $2 million more than
last year, of recreation fee revenue collected at parks to youth
projects that benefit the visitor experience.
treasured landscapes
The 2011 budget reflects the President's agenda to protect
America's treasured landscapes and demonstrates a sustained commitment
to a 21st century conservation agenda. The budget will allow Interior
to intensify efforts to protect treasured landscapes; to participate in
major restoration efforts to restore, protect, and preserve key
ecosystems; and to operate and maintain landscapes.
Interior's 2011 budget includes $445.4 million, an increase of $106
million for Interior Land and Water Conservation Fund programs
including Federal acquisition and State grants. The budget also
includes $288.2 million, an increase of $71.4 million targeted to key
ecosystems for restoration and renewal--the Everglades, California's
Bay-Delta ecosystem, the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Mississippi, and
the Chesapeake Bay.
President Obama's 2011 budget protects open spaces, forests, and
wildlife habitat by funding $619.2 million in Land and Water
Conservation Fund programs in the Department of the Interior and USDA
Forest Service. This is a 29 percent increase more than the 2010
enacted and a 104 percent increase more than the 2009 level. With these
consecutive increases, appropriations from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund are on track to reach the full funding level of $900
million annually by 2014.
The 2011 budget also includes $288.2 million for high-priority
ecosystem restoration, an increase of $71.4 million from the 2010
level. This includes $148 million that is requested as part of the
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriation, an increase
of $25.9 million. The balance is requested in the BOR budget. These
ecosystem restoration efforts build on existing programs and efforts
and feature the following efforts targeted for 2011 funding increases.
The Department of the Interior, through the NPS, FWS, USGS, and the
BIA, is a key player in restoring the Everglades ecosystem. In 2011,
the budget includes $74.5 million, an increase of $6 million more than
the 2010 enacted level for restoration of the Everglades. This request
includes $8 million for the Tamiami Trail 1-mile bridge, a component of
the Modified Waters Delivery project that is being managed by the Corps
of Engineers.
The 2011 budget includes an increase of $50.6 million for increased
efforts by the BOR, FWS, and USGS to conduct studies, projects, and
other efforts in the California Bay-Delta. These activities will
support the December 22, 2009, Bay-Delta Interim Action Plan, investing
in short- and long-term actions for sustainable water and ecosystem
restoration. This request will fund habitat restoration efforts, the
development of fish screens and fish ladders, efforts to eradicate or
mitigate invasive species, various water quality and quantity studies
and assessments, and other efforts. This includes $5 million for FWS
and $45.6 million in the BOR budget.
The FWS owns and manages 10 National Wildlife Refuges totaling
300,000 acres along the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi. For FWS and
NPS, there is a net funding increase of $4.8 million in 2011 to support
the restoration of key fish and wildlife habitat along the Gulf Coast
of Louisiana and Mississippi and enable FWS to provide its expertise to
multi-agency projects in the area. This includes a reduction of
$192,000 to the NPS Gulf Coast Programs.
The Department's 2011 budget for USGS, FWS, and NPS includes $31.6
million, an increase of $10 million to expand the Department's efforts
to conserve and restore the Chesapeake Bay's cultural and natural
resources.
empowering tribal nations
The Empowering Tribal Nations initiative includes programs to
advance nation-to-Nation relationships, improve Indian education for
students in BIE funded schools, improve the safety of Indian
communities, and reform trust land management with an ultimate goal of
greater self-determination. In November 2009, the White House held a
Tribal Nations Conference, which was attended by more than 400 tribal
leaders. At the conference, the President pledged to strengthen Nation-
to-nation relationships, improve the tribal consultation process, and
empower strong and stable Indian communities.
Overall, the 2011 budget request for Indian Affairs is a reduction
of $3.6 million from the 2010 enacted amount, after excluding the $50
million in one-time funding to forward-fund tribal colleges in 2010.
Maintaining key increases for law enforcement and education programs,
the 2011 budget request includes programmatic increases of $70.6
million for the Empowering Tribal Nations initiative. Specifically, the
2011 budget:
--Advances nation-to-Nation relationships and Indian self-
determination by providing additional funding of $21.5 million
for contract support costs and the Indian Self-Determination
Fund, $2.9 million to assist with the unique needs of small and
needy tribes, and $2 million for social services.
--Protects Indian country by providing $19 million to increase the
number of Federal Bureau of Investigations agents that are on-
the-ground and dedicated to Indian country.
--Advances Indian education with $8.9 million to address
environmental and security concerns at BIA schools and
strengthen grant support funding for tribally operated BIA
schools.
--Improves trust land management with increases of $11.8 million to
promote both renewable and conventional development on tribal
lands, defend and assert Indian water rights, and assist tribes
with dam safety.
The Department's High Priority Performance Goal for Safe Indian
Communities will achieve significant reductions in criminal offenses of
at least 5 percent within 24 months on targeted tribal reservations by
implementing a comprehensive strategy involving community policing,
tactical deployment, and critical interagency and intergovernmental
partnerships.
Settlement of the Cobell Lawsuit.--On December 8, 2009, the parties
in Cobell v. Salazar announced a pending settlement of the 14-year-old
class-action lawsuit alleging the Federal Government's mismanagement of
assets held in trust on behalf of individual Indians. Under the terms
of the settlement, approximately $1.4 billion would be distributed to
the class members with each member receiving $1,000 for their
historical accounting claims and some receiving additional funds
related to trust management claims. The second part of the settlement
provides for a $2 billion fund for the purchase of fractionated land
interests held in trust on behalf of individual Indians. In addition,
as an added inducement to facilitate the purchase of fractionated land
interests, up to $60 million of the $2 billion for land acquisition
will be contributed to an existing, nonprofit organization for the
benefit of educating American Indians and Alaska Natives. On February
12, 2010, the President transmitted to Congress a package of budget
amendments that includes the Cobell settlement. Final disposition of
the settlement is pending congressional action and approval by the
Court.
management effectiveness
This subcommittee's leadership on high-priority public lands issues
has been critically important, including the Wild Horse and Burro and
Wildland Fire programs as highlighted below. The subcommittee has also
helped us to accelerate our efforts to protect the public and public
lands from marijuana trafficking and remediate abandoned mine site
hazards. The budget maintains a strong commitment to make progress on
these issues, which are high priorities for the Department.
Wild Horse and Burro Program.--The current path of the Wild Horse
and Burro program is not sustainable for the animals, the environment,
or the taxpayer. On October 7, 2009, I announced a new comprehensive
long-term plan to put the wild horse and burro program on a sustainable
track. The plan identifies three management strategies to improve the
protection and management of wild horses:
--Managing sustainable herds on western rangelands through the
aggressive application of fertility control measures.
--Establishing new wild horse preserves, primarily in the Midwest and
East for horses that must be removed from western rangelands.
--Providing special designations for selected treasured herds in the
West.
The 2011 BLM budget includes $75.7 million, a program increase of
$12 million, for the Wild Horse and Burro Management program. The BLM
LWCF budget includes an increase of $42.5 million to acquire land for a
wild horse preserve. Initial costs for implementing the proposals would
be significant as the BLM acquires preserves and works to achieve
sustainable herd levels on public rangelands, but overall program costs
should decline in the future. The plan will enable BLM to achieve
appropriate management population levels on the range in the near
future.
Responsibly Budgeting for Wildfire.--The budget responsibly budgets
for wildfires and includes $933.9 million for Wildland Fire Management,
an increase of $78 million. The 10-year average of suppression costs is
fully funded. The budget proposes continuation of a regular suppression
account and the FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund, and includes a
new Presidential Wildfire Contingency Reserve account. Regular
suppression will support initial attack and predictable firefighting
costs; the FLAME funds will be used in cases of severe, complex, and
threatening fires and be used as a contingency reserve. The
Presidential Contingency Reserve would require the issuance of a
Presidential finding when the suppression and FLAME appropriations are
soon to be exhausted. There is a proposed program reduction of $42.6
million in the hazardous fuels reduction program. Fire management
resources would be used in a cost-effective manner in high priority
areas, such as the Wildland Urban Interface to more effectively reduce
the risk of wildfire to communities.
Program Reductions.--Consistent with the President's directive to
freeze spending on nonsecurity discretionary spending, we took a hard
look at all of our programs across the Department. We found more than
$750 million in program reductions for ineffective or low-priority
programs, including the elimination of one-time funding. Included
within these reductions is $50 million for a one-time payment to
forward-fund tribal colleges. This was a one-time increase in the 2010
budget to provide funding in advance of the academic year, and the $50
million is not needed in 2011. The budget also contains a $163.9
million reduction, or 34 percent, for Interior construction accounts.
These reductions take into consideration the $3 billion Interior
received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The 2011
budget proposes reductions of $38.4 million to terminate the Save
America's Treasures and Preserve America programs managed by the NPS
and reduces the Heritage Partnership Program grants for National
Heritage Areas by 50 percent.
Management Efficiency Savings.--The 2011 budget assumes management
efficiency savings throughout the Department totaling $82.1 million.
All bureaus and program offices, including the Working Capital Fund,
assume reductions from efficiency savings that are either bureau-
specific or are part of a Department-wide reform. The budget assumes
$20.1 million in bureau-specific management efficiency savings which
includes $3.4 million from property consolidation.
The Department's 2011 budget assumes $62 million in savings from
three specific Department-wide management initiatives launched in
2010--travel, information technology consolidation, and strategic
sourcing. All of these improvements were identified from the
administration's SAVE Award effort, where Federal employees across the
country put forward their best ideas to improve Government operations.
Each of these initiatives targets unnecessary redundancy. Implementing
management policies will reinforce these initiatives to ensure
efficiencies are achieved. Savings from these reforms are assumed in
each bureau and program office budget request commensurate with
established criteria.
legislative and administrative proposals
The budget assumes enactment of a number of legislative proposals,
including:
--Termination of mandatory payments from the General Treasury to
States and tribes that have been certified as completing
reclamation of abandoned coal mine sites and, consequently, no
longer need funds for that purpose.
--A $4 per acre fee on nonproducing Federal oil and gas leases on
Federal lands and waters to provide a financial incentive for
oil and gas companies to either get their leases into
production or relinquish them so that the tracts can be re-
leased to and developed by new parties.
--The budget proposes to make permanent the current arrangement for
sharing the cost of administering energy and minerals receipts.
Under current law, States receiving significant payments from
mineral revenue development on Federal lands also share in the
costs of administering the Federal mineral leases from which
the revenue is generated through a 2 percent deduction from
their payments.
--The administration will submit legislation to repeal portions of
section 365 of the Energy Policy Act. Section 365 diverted
mineral leasing receipts from the Treasury to a BLM Permit
Processing Improvement Fund and also prohibited BLM from
establishing cost recovery fees for processing applications for
oil and gas permits to drill.
--The administration will submit legislation to repeal section 224(b)
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The repeal of section 224(b)
will permanently discontinue payments to counties and restore
the disposition of the geothermal revenue to the historical
formula of 50 percent to the States and 50 percent to the
Treasury.
--The budget proposes to repeal section 344 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. Section 344 extended existing deep gas incentives to
ensure that Americans receive fair value for federally owned
mineral resources.
--The administration proposes to reauthorize FLTFA, eliminating the
2010 sunset date and allowing lands identified as suitable for
disposal in recent land use plans to be sold using the FLTFA
authority. FLTFA sales revenues would continue to be used to
fund the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and the
administrative costs associated with conducting sales.
--Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps, commonly
known as Duck Stamps, were originally created in 1934 as the
Federal licenses required for hunting migratory waterfowl. The
administration proposes to increase these fees to $25 per stamp
per year, beginning in 2011. Increasing the cost of Duck Stamps
will bring the estimate for the Migratory Bird Conservation
Account to $58 million.
--The Office of Insular Affairs is currently engaged with the State
Department, the Defense Department, and other agencies in a
review of the Compact of Free Association with the Republic of
Palau. Permanent and indefinite funding for the compact expires
at the end of 2010. The 2011 budget seeks to authorize
permanent funding for the Compact as it strengthens the
foundations for economic development by developing public
infrastructure, and improving healthcare and education.
Through appropriations language, the administration proposes to
implement the following changes:
--Create an inspection fee in 2011 for onshore oil and gas drilling
activities that are subject to inspection by BLM. The proposed
inspection fee is expected to generate an estimated $10 million
in 2011, offsetting about 25 percent of the cost of onshore
inspections.
--Continue a fee for processing drilling permits through
appropriations language, an approach taken by Congress in the
2009 and 2010 Appropriations Acts. A fee of $6,500 per drilling
permit was established in 2010, and if continued, would
generate an estimated $45.5 million in offsetting collections.
--Increase the inspection fees in 2011 for offshore oil and gas
drilling activities that are subject to inspection by MMS. The
increased fees are expected to generate an estimated $20
million in 2011, offsetting about half of the cost of
inspections.
sam hamilton, director, fws
Before I conclude my statement, I want to pay tribute to a great
conservation leader that died last month. Sam Hamilton was a visionary
and a professional whose years of service and passionate dedication to
his work have left an indelible mark on the lands and wildlife we
cherish. His forward-thinking approach to conservation--including his
view that we must think beyond boundaries at the landscape-scale--will
continue to shape our Nation's stewardship for years to come. He as a
remarkable leader and a compassionate, wise, and eternally optimistic
man.
When Sam become the Director of the FWS on September 1, 2009, he
brought more than 30 years of experience with the Service, beginning
when he was 15 years old working as a Youth Conservation Corps member
on the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in Mississippi. Throughout his
career, Sam exhibited outstanding leadership and fostered creative and
innovative solutions to the challenges facing wildlife conservation. In
the Southeast Region, he supported efforts leading to the establishment
of a carbon sequestration program that has helped biologists to restore
roughly 80,000 acres of wildlife habitat. His emphasis on partnership
activities bolstered the Service's fisheries program and helped
establish the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership to restore vital
aquatic habitats across the region.
Sam provided key leadership and oversight to restoration work in
the Everglades and oversaw the extensive recovery and restoration
efforts following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which devastated coastal
wetlands, wildlife refuges, and other wildlife habitat areas along the
Gulf of Mexico.
Sam believed that the sustainability of the Nation's fish and
wildlife resources require our cooperative efforts and he worked
tirelessly toward building collaborative partnerships for conservation
of resources for this and future generations. We will miss Sam.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
President's 2011 budget request for the Department of the Interior. I
want to reiterate my appreciation for the long-standing support of your
subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee. We have a
tremendous opportunity to improve the future for our children and
grandchildren with wise investments in clean energy, addressing climate
impacts, treasured landscapes, our youth, and the empowerment of tribal
nations. I look forward to working with you to implement this budget.
This concludes my written statement. I am happy to answer any questions
that you may have.
Senator Feinstein. Please proceed Mr. Hayes. Glad to have
you here.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DAVID J. HAYES
Mr. Hayes. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you,
members of the subcommittee.
I will be very brief in terms of reviewing our priorities
on the renewable energy side.
As you know, this is a Presidential priority and, as the
Secretary just mentioned, one of his priorities, which is to
facilitate more attention on bringing more renewable energy
opportunities through our public lands and our offshore
resources.
The approach has been to focus on key study areas and
corridors, and as Bob Abbey, our Director of BLM likes to say,
do it right from the start, get the right sites that work from
an environmental perspective, put our resources into
streamlining those projects and implementing them.
On the solar side, we have implemented that by taking the
programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) that had been
started at the end of the prior administration and bringing
definition to it; finding 24 areas that looked most promising
in the West, as identified by the Western Governors Association
and by a process that had begun in California, and doing a
deeper dive into those 24 specific areas so that we could get a
better look as to which of those looked the most promising in
terms of development.
We have also identified a number of fast-track projects
that we are working on and working through in a coordinated
fashion with other stakeholders to determine whether they are
good candidates for potential stimulus funding. We have a
number of those projects moving along this year.
Throughout, we are looking to complete thorough
environmental analysis, take no shortcuts when it comes to the
environment, including taking an eye towards species impacts,
mitigation, and siting concerns. That is why, Senator
Feinstein, we have worked with your office, for example, to
ensure that our projects are consistent with your plans for
Mohave Trails National Monument.
On the wind side, as the Secretary mentioned, we have taken
a special focus on offshore wind off the Atlantic. The
Secretary recently met with the governors of the Eastern States
and has set up a special process with them. Each of the
governors is identifying a resource person to work with our
team and develop a strategy moving ahead on the east coast. A
tremendous opportunity there, as Senator Collins well knows, in
part because of the magnitude of the resource and how close it
is to those load centers.
On transmission, this is a key issue to unlock some of the
renewables. If we cannot get the renewables, for example, in
Montana and much of the Intermountain West to those large load
centers, then we will not have that development. Steve Black
and the Secretary have been working on a project with other
Federal agencies. We have an Memorandum of Understanding and we
are working very closely with the Department of Energy (DOE),
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Secretary of
Agriculture, and others to coordinate our planning. We have a
series of fast-track projects. We are bringing the Federal
Government together to help make the projects that make sense
go forward.
Let me also mention, finally, we are looking for developing
tribal opportunities in the renewable energy area as well.
There are 77 tribal reservations that have commercially viable
wind resources. We want to help tribes develop those resources
and bring them to market.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Finally, geothermal and hydro are also areas of attention
by the Department. We are looking for the broadest sweep
possible of development on the renewable side that makes sense,
and we appreciate the support of this subcommittee both in
terms of providing the funds needed to make sure we do this in
a smart and environmentally responsible way.
Thank you, Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David J. Hayes
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee I am pleased to have
the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department's Renewable
Energy program. This is an exciting and unprecedented direction for the
Department and we are moving rapidly to remove the barriers to
renewable energy development in the United States--responsibly in a
manner that protects the environment.
clean energy future
During the first year of his administration, President Obama has
led the United States toward a clean energy future. A primary reason
for delivering this change is that the United States cannot afford to
fall behind in the energy technologies that will shape this century. We
spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year on imported oil--our
oil dependence poses risks to our national security.
Renewable energy development is one of President Obama's highest
priorities, and the United States has come far in developing renewable
resources this past year under the President's leadership. New jobs are
being created and many more are coming in the clean energy sector.
America's abundant natural resources can help us rise to meet the
challenges we face.
The great promise of solar energy and other renewable resources has
led us at the Department of the Interior to change how we do business.
For the first time, environmentally responsible renewable energy
development is a priority at this department. Until now, our deserts,
plains, forests, and oceans have been largely unexplored for their vast
clean energy potential.
opportunities
The possibilities are immense, and the opportunities are great. The
Department oversees 20 percent of the Nation's lands and 1.7 billion
offshore acres. The Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy
Laboratory estimates the wind potential off the East Coast of the
United States in the Atlantic Ocean to be more than 1,000 gigawatts,
greater than our entire national electricity demand. Turbines are
already springing up to capture the energy of the wind that blows
across the Great Plains. We have huge solar potential in the deserts of
the Southwest containing an estimated 2,300 gigawatts of energy
capacity, not far from the great cities of Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and
Phoenix. Geothermal energy opportunities are bubbling up across the
country. We have great opportunities to increase hydropower production
through improvements in efficiency, by adding power generation units to
existing facilities, and through pumped storage.
During the past year, we offered new areas for oil and gas
development, but instituted reforms to ensure we are offering leases in
the right places and in the right way. Importantly, and relevant to
today's hearing, we have also opened the new renewable energy
frontier--not just for solar power, but also for wind, geothermal, and
hydropower--on America's lands and waters that will help power our
clean energy economy.
We have opened Renewable Energy Coordination Offices in California,
Nevada, Wyoming, and Arizona and established teams in six other
States--Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon/Washington, and
Utah--that are charged with expediting the required reviews of solar,
wind, geothermal, and biomass projects and supporting the prompt
permitting of appropriate transmission-related projects on our public
lands.
We worked with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to develop
and enter into a memorandum of understanding that resolved
jurisdictional concerns that had resulted in the delay of renewable
energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). We have also put
in place long-awaited offshore renewable energy rules, creating the
first-ever framework for offshore renewable energy development, which
we expect to result in the development of significant offshore wind
energy potential. We subsequently awarded four exploratory leases for
wind energy production on the OCS offshore of New Jersey and Delaware.
The Secretary recently announced that the Minerals Management
Service (MMS) will establish an Atlantic renewable energy regional
office--this will be the first Federal office specifically supporting
renewable energy development on the OCS. Two weeks ago the Secretary
met with the governors of 11 Atlantic Coast States that are considering
the development of offshore wind energy projects to explore how to
support and coordinate the development of this new industry. All agreed
that the United States cannot be left behind and that cooperative
planning is needed to move forward. The Secretary established a
consortium of Federal agencies and Atlantic States to pro-actively
determine the best sites for renewable energy development rather than
let the applications drive the process. As the Department explores the
potential for renewable energy in offshore areas, wind energy
production in the Atlantic offers great promise. This collaboration
will allow us to move smartly to identify the areas most suitable for
development and streamline the permitting process.
As we open this new energy frontier, new development and new
technology deployment on public lands will help solve key challenges in
reliability, storage, and transmission of renewable energy and
ultimately could mean lower costs to the private market in meeting
energy demands.
We cannot afford to fall behind in the development of solar energy
technologies. Over the past year, as we have worked to make the
President's vision a reality, there has been much discussion in the
media about the development of these technologies in other nations. We
have heard that China is now the world leader in the manufacture of
solar panels and wind turbines, and it has targeted the development of
renewable and low-carbon energy as a priority. A number of European
countries, including Spain and Germany, have developed aggressive
policies that have led to expanded development of renewable,
specifically solar, energy.
The Department's vast land ownership and the breadth of our
management responsibilities over those lands puts us in a unique and
important role with regard to the domestic development and transmission
of solar energy. The possibility of capturing the Sun's abundant energy
and making it usable as a clean, nonpolluting source of power; the
potential of American ingenuity to drive more efficient applications;
and the promise of additional jobs for the new energy economy are
ensuring that we at the Department are moving quickly to responsibly
develop this tremendous energy potential on our public lands.
Renewable energy was the subject of Secretary Salazar's first
Secretarial Order, issued in March 2009. That order made facilitating
the production, development, and delivery of renewable energy,
including solar energy, on public lands and the OCS top priorities at
the Department. The Secretary has pledged that these goals will be
accomplished in a manner that does not ignore, but protects our
signature landscapes, natural resources, wildlife, and cultural
resources.
moving forward
Over the past year we have worked diligently to prioritize the
development of renewable energy on our public lands and our offshore
waters. Last June, Secretary Salazar and Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid announced the identification of 1,000 square miles, 24 tracts of
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered land, in the West as Solar
Energy Study Areas. We are fully evaluating these areas for their
suitability from an environmental and resource perspective and for the
large-scale production of electricity from solar energy.
Along with the Department of Energy, we are preparing a Solar
Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, due for
public release in late 2010. This EIS will be a landscape-scale plan
for siting solar energy projects on our public lands in the Southwest
that have been identified as having the best potential for utility-
scale solar energy development. The BLM has identified approximately 23
million acres with solar energy potential, including the 24 Solar
Energy Study Areas, which are being reviewed as part of this process to
evaluate the environmental suitability of solar energy development
across the West. The Solar Energy Study Areas alone have the technical
potential to generate nearly 100,000 megawatts of solar electricity,
enough to power millions of American homes. The public comment period
on these solar study areas closed in September 2009, and we are
evaluating the comments we received.
We believe that landscape-scale planning and zoning for solar
projects on our public lands will provide a more efficient process for
permitting and siting of this type of development.
To further our goals, we have announced 34 ``fast track'' renewable
energy projects. Fast-track projects are those where the companies
involved have made sufficient progress in the environmental review and
permitting process and they could potentially be cleared for approval
by December 2010, thus making them eligible for economic stimulus
funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Fourteen of the 34 fast-tracked projects are solar energy projects.
These include several different types of concentrated solar thermal
technologies--like solar engine, parabolic trough, and power tower--and
photovoltaic cells, and are located in Arizona, California, and Nevada.
All are currently undergoing detailed environmental impact reviews, and
if ultimately approved, some 5,000-6,000 megawatts of new capacity
could be permitted for construction by the end of this year. Moreover,
our analysis indicates that tens of thousands of jobs could be created
in the development of these projects alone.
In this same vein, last fall Secretary Salazar and California
Governor Schwarzenegger announced a memorandum of understanding between
the State and the Department that will expedite the process of siting,
reviewing, approving, and permitting renewable energy projects on
Department-managed lands in California.
We must also recognize that the development of transmission
capacity for this new energy production is a crucial element.
Developing solar and other renewable energy resources, which are often
located in remote areas, will require new transmission capacity to
bring this clean energy to the population centers where it is needed.
The Department has already identified and designated more than 5,000
miles of transmission corridors on the lands it manages to facilitate
the siting and permitting of transmission lines in the right ways and
in the right places, and we are processing more than 30 applications
for major transmission corridor rights-of-way on the lands we manage,
with 7 applications in Idaho, California, and Nevada that could add
more than 1,000 miles of new transmission, on the ``fast track'' to
potential permitting this year.
This administration is working smartly to cut through bureaucratic
barriers. In October 2009, the administration announced that 9 Federal
agencies, including Interior, had signed a memorandum of understanding
designed to expedite the siting and permitting of electric transmission
projects on Federal lands. This agreement commits the participating
agencies to close coordination and a number of procedures to improve
the Federal process under existing authorities, including establishing
a single point of contact for all required Federal authorizations.
budget
The 2011 budget supports our efforts to create clean sources of
energy using the Nation's vast domestic resources. The New Energy
Frontier initiative invests $73.3 million in renewable energy programs,
an increase of $14.2 million more than 2010. The initiative includes $3
million for BLM to focus on the environmental elements of renewable
energy projects, $3.2 million for MMS region-specific planning needs,
$3 million for U.S. Geological Survey to analyze and document the
effects of renewable energy on wildlife populations, $4 million for
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to carry out endangered species
consultation and other wildlife conservation efforts and provide timely
environmental review of projects, and $1 million for Bureau of Indian
Affairs to support renewable energy development efforts on tribal
lands.
The Department has a High Priority Performance Goal to increase
approved capacity for solar, wind, and geothermal energy resources on
Interior-managed lands, while ensuring full environmental review, by at
least 9,000 megawatts by the end of 2011.
The Department is redoubling efforts to evaluate existing
applications for renewable energy projects. The BLM is currently
processing approximately:
--130 applications for utility-scale solar projects that involve
approximately 77,000 megawatts and 1.2 million acres of public
land;
--22 geothermal development plans that total 761 MW;
--249 applications for wind energy applications--207 for testing; and
--42 applications for wind energy projects that involve 5,861 MW.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
Department's Renewable Energy program and thank you for your leadership
to advance responsible renewable energy development. This is a
breakthrough time for the Nation's energy future. We will continue to
work with you to ensure a balance between meeting the Nation's energy
needs and careful stewardship of our natural and cultural resources, in
partnership with local communities across the country. This concludes
my written statement. I am pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
ENERGY
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Appreciate that.
Mr. Secretary, because of the time and we have these votes,
I am going to take my budget questions and send them to you and
would appreciate a response in writing and go right to the
energy questions, of which there are many, but I will do just
one or two with my time.
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN CALIFORNIA DESERTS
More than 100 developments--energy--have been proposed for
California's deserts, and less than 5 have even begun the
formal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitting
process. So here is the question. How many pending applications
to develop the California desert stand before BLM today? How
many have begun the formal NEPA review? And how many do you
expect BLM to complete reviewing by the end of this year?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Feinstein, total solar projects
in the California desert are 52. Under formal NEPA review at
this time, there are nine. We expect to be able to have nine of
those approved by the end of the year.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, good.
How many of the solar development proposals in fast-track
permitting would be halted by the legislation I have submitted,
the Mohave Trails National Monument, and other provisions of
the Desert Protection Act which I authored in the 1990s? And
how many acres of the solar study zones overlap the proposed
monument?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Feinstein, let me just say we
have been working closely with you to avoid conflicts between
the siting of these solar facilities and the areas that need
protection, and I think our staffs have essentially come up
with agreement on the boundaries so we can avoid conflicts to
the maximum extent. There may be some projects that are
affected, but I think at the end of the day, we have come to
understand your legislation is exactly what our approach is,
that there are right places for there to be development, and
there are places where we ought not to have development. I
think in working closely with you and the stakeholders in
southern California, we have achieved that balance under your
legislation.
I will say this. Overall, our goal is by the end of this
year, 2010, December 1, because of the economic recovery
program efforts, we want to have permitted approximately 5,000
megawatts of renewable energy power across the western
landscape, and much of that is in California, Nevada, and
Arizona.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. My understanding--because we
have worked together, I wanted to get you on the record--is
that there are zero projects affected by fast-track permitting
that would be halted, and in terms of acres of the solar study
zones overlapping the monument, there are zero acres there as
well.
Secretary Salazar. David, will you confirm that fact?
Mr. Hayes. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
SOLAR DEVELOPMENT PERMITTING
Solar development permitting requires completion of spring
biological surveys. As spring approaches, will BLM require all
developers proposing development on public land to either
complete necessary spring biological studies or give up their
applications? The question is why or why not?
Secretary Salazar. It is the first time, Senator Feinstein,
that somebody raises the question with such specificity, but
only the chairman of this subcommittee would do that in terms
of the spring efforts that have to be done.
We are working very hard with the applicants of these
projects and with our sister Federal agencies to make sure the
EIS process is followed. We are tracking each of the projects
within the 34 listed projects for fast-track possibility, and
we want to make sure we are not doing anything that is in
conflict with environmental legal requirements. If the work has
to be done in the spring, I am certain that is what is being
done.
Senator Feinstein. Yes. Because we believe there is a
provision that the work has to be done, and what you are
telling me is that will then be the requirement. Is that right?
Secretary Salazar. If that is the requirement of the law,
that is what we shall do.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS
What are the criteria that the BLM will use with regard to
endangered species impacts, viewshed impacts, water use
impacts, cultural impacts, and other impacts on the public
land?
Secretary Salazar. What we have tried to do is to minimize
those impacts, and so as David Hayes testified, our approach
has been to be smart from the start and to be proactive in
planning. I think in the past, before this administration,
essentially what would happen is that applications would be
taken in and they would be processed without a sense of where
it was appropriate to do the development. Through our efforts,
including the programmatic EIS with respect to solar, the one
with respect to wind, and the other environmental planning
efforts that we have underway, we want to essentially zone out
those areas where we think we have the greatest promise for
renewable energy development. When we look at the Western
States, the programmatic EIS is covering about 23 million acres
of land. As we go through that effort and as we burrow down
even further, we hopefully will be able to isolate those areas
where there is conflict so we can have more of a green light
with respect to those areas that are appropriate for renewable
energy development, as we have with your monument legislation.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Your work is very
much appreciated. Thank you.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Mr. Secretary, you mentioned 5,000 megawatts of energy. You
mean 5,000 megawatts of capacity or actual production?
Secretary Salazar. It is 5,000 megawatts of permitted
energy projects.
Senator Alexander. Well, but if it is a solar or wind
project, they only operate about a one-third of the time. So it
would probably be more accurate to say if it is 5,000 megawatts
of capacity, it would be 1,500, 1,700, or 1,800 megawatts of
actual production, or about the equivalent of 2 nuclear
reactors.
Secretary Salazar. What we are talking about is the total
that would be developed from any of these energy projects. So,
Senator Alexander, my understanding has always been if we are
developing a 350 megawatt solar power project in the deserts of
the Southwest, that it will produce 350 megawatts. And so, yes,
when there are clouds that come over, you do not have the sun,
you are not going to have that kind of power being produced.
What is expected--with each of these applications--is that is
the total quantum they would produce on an annual basis.
Senator Alexander. The point I am leading to is that we
often talk with renewable energy about 1,000 megawatts of
electricity for wind and solar when only a one-third of that is
actually produced by comparison with a coal plant or a gas
plant or a nuclear powerplant where the electricity is produced
90 percent of the time.
So as an example, based on my computation--and I would like
to discuss wind in the same way that Senator Feinstein
discussed solar--in order to produce 20 percent of our
electricity from wind turbines, it would take 186,000 wind
turbines, which would cover an area the size of West Virginia,
but it would only take 100 reactors covering 100 square miles,
which is the reason why some conservation groups are becoming
concerned about the so-called renewable energy sprawl.
I am happy, A, that you are focusing on treasured
landscapes and, B, that the President--over the last 6 weeks--
has begun to take significant steps to encourage nuclear power
because it has less impact on the landscape. The scale of it is
so small.
SITING
In the case of the wind turbines, as Mr. Hayes mentioned,
if we had 186,000 wind turbines, we would need about 19,000
miles of transmission lines, whereas if we had 100 new
reactors, we would need almost no new transmission lines
because they could go over existing lines.
So my questions would be, as I understand today's policy,
we do not site new energy projects in National Parks or
refuges. Is that correct?
Secretary Salazar. That is correct.
Senator Alexander. And would that also be true with new
renewable energy projects?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Alexander, there are renewable
energy projects that we do have on wildlife refuges or National
Parks. They are the kinds of small solar or even small wind
projects that essentially produce electricity for those
refuges. We do not have commercial scale kinds of facilities.
But if I may take your question because I think this is the
broader question. What are you planning to do with renewable
energy and how does that tie into the whole energy plan of the
administration? The President has been clear from day one that
a comprehensive energy plan needs to have a very broad
portfolio. Yes, he has taken a strong position with respect to
nuclear. We will have an oil and gas component, as we have
executed that program in the last year. But renewable energy
and clean energy is very much a part of that energy future.
Senator Alexander. I do not want to be rude, but I only
have a minute left.
Secretary Salazar. Your point on intermittency with respect
to wind and to solar is part of what we have to do as we create
a Smart Grid system to make sure we address that issue.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Senator Alexander. My concern is especially with the ridges
of the Eastern United States, as you know, because we have
talked about it because they are the only place, except for the
coastlines, where wind works well. And in the Southeastern
United States, it barely works at all. We have spent more than
a century and billions of dollars of public and private money
protecting these landscapes and these areas.
For example, the Appalachian Trail runs 2,178 miles from
Georgia to Maine, and were we to run a row of 50-story wind
turbines adjacent to the trail, it would only equal the power
produced by four nuclear reactors and we would still need the
reactors for when the wind does not blow.
So my question would be, are you considering in the East,
as a part of your treasured landscape, finding ways to protect
the Appalachian Trail specifically and its viewscapes from
large 50-story wind turbines and leaving the production of
carbon-free electricity to other forms of electricity that
might not interfere with that viewscape?
Secretary Salazar. Our own view, Senator Alexander, is
there are appropriate places for siting the wind-energy
potential and places that we ought to protect. I know, for
example, that you will not see wind turbines in the viewsheds
of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park or the ridge lines
that I know you have protected.
It is a very legitimate question. As we stand up renewable
energy, whether it is wind or solar, do you want it to be
everywhere? The answer to that is no. There are places where it
ought not to be, and that is why smart from the start is really
the way to go with respect to renewable energy.
Senator Alexander. Madam Chairman, I have a letter to the
Secretary which I will give to him and I will submit my other
questions in writing. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
And I want to thank the Secretary for being here today. It
is always good to see you and, David Hayes and Pamela Haze,
thank you for being here too and the rest of your team, Mr.
Secretary. I very much appreciated the opportunity to visit.
First of all, I need to ask how many folks do you have in
the Department of the Interior. How many folks work there?
Secretary Salazar. Approximately 70,000.
MONUMENT MEMO
Senator Tester. Seventy thousand. There has been concern in
Montana about a leaked memo by one of those 70,000 people on
national monuments. Being from the West yourself, you probably
understand those concerns. In fact, I am sure you do.
So I guess my first question is, are there any plans to
designate national monuments in Montana by the Department?
Secretary Salazar. The answer to that is there are no plans
that we have to move forward. There have been no directions
from the White House that we move forward with the monument
designation. It obviously is a Presidential exercise of
authority.
What there have been conversations about, Senator Tester,
are the same kinds of conversations I have had with many of you
on this subcommittee over the last year, and that is in 2010,
it is about 102 years after President Roosevelt called the
leaders of America together to essentially launch the
conservation agenda, which has made America very unique. That
is the kind of conversation and dialogue we hope to be able to
have with people across the country, including the people of
Montana, and we will do that with you and with State and local
and private landowners in your State.
Senator Tester. We will appreciate it.
Just to follow up, so that if there is any sort of activity
like that going on, public input on the ground would be sought
out by your Department.
Secretary Salazar. Absolutely.
Senator Tester. Okay.
MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS
Another issue similar. There has also been talk about
possible land agreements along the Missouri River breaks. Some
folks are fired up about the Department coming in and actively
planning to pursue purchase along the Missouri River in the
breaks region. Do you know, is this something that is real or
is it something that is not real? Does the Department plan on
buying land in the breaks?
Secretary Salazar. I am not aware that there is any such
plan, Senator Tester. The fact again here is that the best way
these things work is exactly the kind of effort many members of
this subcommittee were involved in, and that was the passage of
the Public Lands Management Act of 2009. For me, that was the
first chapter of the America great outdoors agenda. All the
pieces that were included in that legislation, which included
some 2 million acres of wilderness, 1,200 miles of wild and
scenic rivers, National Park improvements, and a whole host of
other things, it was members of this subcommittee that were
driving that legislation based on what the local community
wanted. That is what we intend to do.
ABANDONED MINES
Senator Tester. Moving over to abandon mines, the AML was
zeroed this year, as it was in last year's budget. There are
many in Montana, as there are in California and throughout the
West. In Montana, we have a law that requires Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act funds to be used for cleanup. We
cannot use it for funding education or prisons or anything like
that. If it comes in from the Federal Government, it has to be
used for mine cleanup.
Could you give me any sort of perspective on how we could
get this money reinstated and if you think it would be a wise
thing to be reinstated if the States were required to use it
for mine cleanup?
Secretary Salazar. This is one of those tough choices kinds
of questions because we are in the process of deficit reduction
and trying to keep our budget controlled. We looked at the coal
mine dollars that were coming back, and saw that those monies
were supposed to be going for coal mine reclamation. We know
what happens is it ends up shorting States like Montana and
others who are using that money for reclamation of abandoned
mines. It is a huge issue in this subcommittee, including
Senator Feinstein, who have taken a huge lead role in
addressing the problem that we have with tens of thousands of
abandoned mines in the West.
So at the end of the day, it is an appropriation issue. We
did our best in the administration to try to come up with a way
of moving forward. So let me just leave it at that.
Senator Tester. Okay.
RENEWABLE ENERGY PILOT OFFICES
David Hayes talked about renewable energy, and I appreciate
your perspective on that. Over the last year, pilot offices
have been opened up in Wyoming, Arizona, California, and Nevada
for renewable energy projects to help streamline those projects
to get through the redtape, so to speak. I think there is a
tremendous amount of opportunity, and I think your Department
and your leadership by Secretary Salazar has been critically
important.
Is there a plan to expand and have more pilot offices other
than just those four States? And the reason I ask is because
Montana has incredible wind opportunities, not just on the
ridges, but also on the flats that blows well. Is there any
opportunity to help? Because I think those pilot offices are
critically important if we are going to get--when you talk
about transmission, generation--and you can defer to Mr. Hayes,
if you want, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Salazar. Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Hayes. Senator, we actually have a special team
dedicated to Western States. We are using the four offices as
satellites, but there are teams in important Western States
working closely.
We are very aware of the special opportunities in your
State and we will work with the existing offices. I am sure we
would be delighted to open up additional offices as well, but
we are finding these offices are working well in the States
where they do not physically reside, as well as the ones where
they do.
Senator Tester. We will work you. I would just say that I
think that we have tremendous opportunity, as the Secretary has
pointed out, and I do not want to see that opportunity go by
the wayside. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I think all of us are going to brag to you about the
strength of our wind resources in our States, whether it is
Montana or Maine. But, Mr. Secretary, Deputy Secretary Hayes,
as you know, my State of Maine has some of the strongest
offshore wind resources in the Nation, as well as the
scientific and manufacturing capacity to lead the Nation in
developing new composite materials for deep water offshore wind
turbines. And I would say to my dear friend from Tennessee that
an advantage of offshore wind is you do not have the aesthetic
issues that you do with onshore wind. In addition, deep water
offshore wind is much stronger and more persistent than some of
the onshore wind sites. So in Maine, we are very excited about
the possibility of leading not only the Nation but the world in
the development of deep water offshore wind.
FEDERAL PERMITTING
But to realize that vision, we need improvements in the
Federal permitting process. The offshore wind industry, a
coalition of offshore wind groups, just recently issued a white
paper in which they estimate that the process that the Minerals
Management Service (MMS) uses would take some 7\1/2\ years for
a qualified offshore wind developer who submits an initial
application today to secure the regulatory approvals needed to
start construction. I am told that this is more than three
times the period that is required to permit a typical gas
turbine plant, and it is longer than the anticipated timeline
to grant a permit to a new nuclear plant.
I am very concerned about that long delay because we see
China leaping ahead in the development of alternative energy.
We see England taking a lead in permitting offshore wind. I do
not want our country to lose the edge in the development of
alternative energy, particularly offshore wind, because our
permitting process is so slow and cumbersome.
So I would ask both of you whether you are looking at the
industry's suggestions for reducing that long permitting
process. For example, it is my understanding that MMS currently
requires two EIS, one for getting the lease for the area and a
second to begin construction. Is the Department looking at ways
to shorten that permitting process, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Collins, the answer to that is
absolutely yes, and it is absolutely unacceptable that any
Government process like this should take 3 to 9 years. In the
onshore area, for example, we are fast-tracking projects where
we will have permits by December of this year.
Three things just briefly on Atlantic offshore wind.
One is we are working with the Governors of the Atlantic
States to develop a consortium to develop offshore wind all
along the Atlantic.
Two, there are huge opportunities with respect to
transmission in the Atlantic that essentially would allow for
the flowering of the offshore wind in the Atlantic, and we are
very hopeful we can move forward with that.
Three, I have charged a group of people, led by David Hayes
and Steve Black, to come up with recommendations on how we can
redo the process with respect to permitting in the offshore
wind.
To the extent we require legislative assistance, we will be
back to the Congress to get that assistance, but in the
meantime, I believe there are ways in which we can shorten that
process by borrowing some of the same processes we are using on
the onshore.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
I also hope that as MMS looks at leasing opportunities on
the OCS for renewable resources, that you will revise the draft
regulations which do not include the Gulf of Maine at this
time. We obviously need to protect sensitive fishing grounds,
but that is a very large area. And I have submitted formal
comments on those issues, and I hope you will revise the list
of potential areas to include the area off the coast of Maine
for renewable energy. I hope to see that in the final version.
Madam Chairman, I know my time has expired. I will submit
the rest of my questions for the record.
Mr. Secretary, let me just end by thanking you for coming
to Acadia National Park last summer for that wonderful visit. I
want to join Senator Feinstein in applauding your use of
Recovery Act monies, including the most recent $4.7 million for
the Schoodic Environmental Research Center, which you toured
this summer. So thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Collins.
Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, it is always good to see you. You are dear
friend and it is nice to see Mr. Hayes and Ms. Haze here with
you.
Senator Leahy. You can note for the record those last names
are spelled differently.
And you are always welcome to come visit Vermont if you
would like to.
Secretary Salazar. I will be there.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, and I will welcome you there.
FULL FUNDING FOR LWCF
I am glad to see in the budget request that you put us on
track to fully fund the LWCF by 2014. These are very needed
funds for national parks and refuges. They protect endangered
species habitat. They promote outdoor recreation. What it does
is preserve land for our children and our grandchildren. If you
make a mistake and preserve too much, you can always sell it
back, but you do not get to get it if it is not preserved in
the first place. It has been in the budget for far too long. So
I am glad to see your efforts to put it back into full funding.
WHITE-NOSE BAT SYNDROME
Let me talk to you about an issue that involves me and
unfortunately is about to involve Tennessee and many other
States. Our last few winters have been very serious but not for
the obvious reasons. We have experienced a die-off in our bat
population of historic proportions. Adrienne is putting up a
map over there showing the spread of white-nose syndrome of
bats. It was first discovered in our bat population in 2007. It
has now spread infected every hibernacula in my State.
Populations have been completely wiped out. It has caused the
steepest decline in North American wildlife in the past century
and has killed more than 1 million bats in the last 4 years.
Why should you think this is important? Well, of course,
any farmer will tell you how extremely important bats are
because they eat crop pests, and if you lose all these bats, it
is going to have very damaging, probably irrevocable effect on
our agriculture. Last year it spread 450 miles in a single
winter. It is now documented in 10 States. Biologists feel it
soon will reach the largest colonies of endangered Indiana gray
and Virginia big-eared bats. It was confirmed, as I mentioned,
in a Tennessee cave just last month. These stories are
horrendous. I have photographs which I will leave for you and
your staff of just how horrible it is.
A significant investment is required to work on this. We
are going to have just a huge, probably hundreds of millions of
dollars worth of damage in crops and in human health if we do
not stop this. It is so interrelated.
Where we on this issue, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Leahy, thank you for your
leadership on the LWCF and on Vermont issues. I will want to
visit one of the wildlife refuges in Vermont here this year and
hopefully I can do it with you when you are available.
With respect to the bat issue, it is something which has
been raised to us. It is something we are very aware of. FWS
and the United States Geological Survey (USGS), along with the
NPS, are allocating in this budget $2 million to continue to do
research and to understand what is happening with the bat
issue. It has become a much more high-level issue in the last
year because we understand the statistics, including the
morbidity rates that you have been talking about. We will look
at it and try to do as much as we can.
Senator Leahy. I would urge accelerating whatever you are
doing because it is basically an epidemic. People do not think
of bats until they start realizing just how much it does in the
balance of nature. Again, agricultural areas are just going to
be devastated, but obviously you are going to find human
populations are affected because of the huge increase in flying
pests and the chance for more cases of West Nile virus.
LAKE MEMPHREMAGOG
Also, I will take a moment to talk about the opportunity
for the Department to conserve more than 400 acres of
ecologically significant lakefront property on the border
between Vermont and Quebec, Canada on Lake Memphremagog.
Nevermind the spelling. We will get that to you. This land was
bequeathed to the Federal Government at no cost--it is 400
acres--provided only the ownership transfers prior to September
of this year. Otherwise, it is going to be given to a secondary
beneficiary and likely to be subdivided and so forth.
Now, you and the Northeast Regional Director, Marvin
Moriarty, all the FWS staff have been working hard to do this.
But the clock is ticking. We have 6 months. I mean, it is free
land, one of the most beautiful areas between the United States
and Canada from a very generous donor. Will you kindly nudge
everybody to keep this moving? My office will help anyway we
can because once that deadline comes, this is gone.
Secretary Salazar. Senator Leahy, we are days away from
completing the process and days away from the decision. We will
get it done.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, thank you very much. Did we pass out this map?
Senator Feinstein. It went down this way.
Senator Leahy. Oh, good.
Senator Feinstein. I know Senator Reed is very interested
in bats and he would like to see that.
Senator Leahy. Listen, we can joke about it.
Senator Feinstein. I am not joking.
Senator Leahy. Nor am I, this thing is devastating. It is
going to destroy agriculture in some part of this country--I
mean, we are going to see our apple orchards disappear. We are
going to see a lot of our grain crops disappear. It is just
unbelievable how white nose syndrome has spread so rapidly.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much for your advocacy,
Senator.
Next is Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. There is no relationship between the bat
out of hell and your role in Batman. Was there?
Senator Leahy. No. I was a good guy.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for
your cooperation and attention to the interests of the members
of the subcommittee. We especially appreciate your visit to
Mississippi. I remember going with you to the Vicksburg
National Military Park and visiting the old courthouse there,
historic assets, resources that make our State, and I am sure
every State in the Union is proud of heritage and history, to
keep these sites accessible to visitors so they may continue to
enjoy the natural beauty, as well as historical points of
interest around our great country.
NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY
The Natchez Trace Parkway is a very important artery for
visitors coming to our State. They go from the northeast corner
down to the Natchez area on the Mississippi River. We hope we
can continue to support that, the maintenance of it, and make
sure it is a place that is attractive to the visiting public.
Your assistance in that regard continues to be appreciated.
SAM HAMILTON
I was glad you mentioned Sam Hamilton. We regret his
passing, our wonderful friend and a great contributor to our
appreciation of natural resources and protecting our ecosystems
in our State and throughout the country. His sudden death was a
great shock to us all. We are going to suggest that the North
Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge complex be named in his
honor. We hope that you can support that as well.
COASTAL RESTORATION
Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, and we have
been working and I know you have too in coastal restoration.
Thank you for your leadership, and we hope that this budget
request will contain support for that important work to
replenish barrier islands to keep a good working relationship
going between the NPS and the Corps of Engineers, which is
essential to expeditiously completing that important project.
So I look forward to your testimony. Thank you very much
for being here to help us understand your request.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran.
I think Mississippi does demonstrate how this Department
really is the Department of the Americas. When we think about
the great wildlife values and national park facilities that we
have in your State, it is something that makes us very proud.
We thank you for honoring Sam Hamilton both in life and now
and look forward to working with you in terms of how we honor a
man who understood that the matter of conservation was not a
Republican or a Democrat or any other kind of affiliation. It
was a matter of doing it right and working with local
communities in the creation of Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives. Much of what you see in this budget with respect
to Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and climate change
essentially was the brain child of Sam Hamilton.
Thank you very much, Senator Cochran.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your leadership in the
Department.
ATLANTIC WIND ENERGY POTENTIAL
I want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator
Collins about the potential for wind in the Atlantic. We are in
Rhode Island at the stage of trying to get some projects off
the ground, and you have been very, very helpful. You recently
convened all the governors to talk about how the States can
cooperate with your agency.
We, in Rhode Island, have been working with a joint
Federal/State task force to do a request for interest (RFI) for
a Federal lease, and we have had conflicting advice from MMS.
And we have been forced to revise this document twice. At the
same time, the State of Massachusetts has been promulgating
their request without coordination with Rhode Island.
I know there has been some, because of your work, better
collaboration between the States, but it does raise several
questions. One is how is MMS working to minimize these
conflicts between the States of sharing information and also of
insisting that there be thorough analysis of the topography and
the subsurface elements.
Secretary Salazar. Senator Reed, you raise a very important
question, and I agree with the inference that we could, in
fact, do much better. I would just say that it is important to
note the historical context of this, that before I became
Secretary of the Interior, there were no rules and really no
program for offshore wind. David Hayes led the effort with Jon
Wellinghoff from FERC to address the bureaucratic logjam that
essentially allowed us to move forward with the framework. The
framework is still a work in progress. It is not perfect, and
that is why we have charged MMS-- and I am personally involved
in this--to work with the States to come up with a template on
how we are going to move forward.
In the context of all the things I work on, standing up the
renewable offshore wind capacity off the Atlantic is close to
the very top of the priorities, and we will not leave any stone
unturned to make sure that we do it better. We already have the
working group with the States to try to figure out how we can
minimize those conflicts.
Senator Reed. I thank you for that, Mr. Secretary. One of
the aspects of Rhode Island that we feel gives us a good
foundation to begin this process is for the last several years,
going back 2 or more years, we have conducted a special area
management plan study. We have basically looked very closely at
the subsurface geological characteristics. We have integrated
with fishing grounds, et cetera. I think we might be as far
ahead as anyone.
I think that factor is not being considered enough by MMS
in terms of what they are doing. For example, I do not think
our sister States, Massachusetts and others, are that far ahead
yet. They still are sort of submitting their RFIs and going
ahead. So I think, again, in this process of trying to
rationalize what is being done, credit for recognition of the
scientific basis of these proposals should be much greater. And
I think you agree.
Secretary Salazar. I agree.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
ATLANTIC RENEWABLE OFFICE
Let me also say you have indicated that you are going to
create an Atlantic office for renewable energy. Do you have any
idea where that is going to be?
Secretary Salazar. It is going to be in one of the Atlantic
States.
Senator Reed. So it is from Caribou, Maine to Key West,
Florida. We have narrowed it down?
Secretary Salazar. Yes. Actually, Senator Reed, there are a
number of criteria that we are looking at. The bottom line is
the principle that will drive us in the decision to locate this
office will be how we make it the most effective office, and
that means having an office that can essentially communicate
with all of the different stakeholders along the Atlantic
States. We are close to that decision. Stay tuned for lots of
announcements we will be making with respect to offshore wind
in the months ahead.
Senator Reed. Yes. Given the interest, obviously, of not
just Senator Collins, but I think many members of the
subcommittee, I think we would all like a fair opportunity to
advance our recommendations. And I know you will make the
decision and you will make it based upon what you believe is
the best and most effective means to carry out your policy. But
there is a great deal of interest not in my home State alone
but up and down the coast in terms of getting this. I think
part of it is because of what we have talked about previously,
this sense that it is difficult to coordinate with MMS, that it
is a voice at the end of a phone that sometimes is not the same
voice, all these things.
So the location of this facility will signal but also that
I presume will be the place where we will all have to go and
coordinate. It will be sort of the direct service. Is that your
concept, sort of one-stop shopping?
Secretary Salazar. It is and it is to provide a focal point
for the coordination of these issues on the Atlantic offshore
wind, many of which you have raised as problems that we
currently are facing. We are moving forward with the hiring. We
really should not be moving forward with the hiring until you
know where the location of the office is going to be.
Senator Reed. Well, I am simply defending Senator Collins'
rights. That is all I am doing.
Secretary Salazar. We are on the case.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, last week we had a discussion about the
monuments and the Antiquities Act, and I am delighted to have
Senator Tester join with me. And I appreciate your answer to
him being the same one that you gave to me.
OIL AND GAS
I want to turn now to another issue that I am sure will not
come as a surprise, and that is oil and gas. The primary issues
that we are faced with right now in the country are jobs and
the deficit. Those are the two things I hear the most about
when I am out campaigning. Where are the jobs? What are you
doing to get us those jobs? And gee, we hate all this
Government spending. We hate the size of the deficit.
I think the two are interrelated with respect to oil and
gas. Maybe some do not understand it, but the revenues that
come from oil and natural gas, next to the income tax, are the
largest source of revenue in the Federal Government. The
program pays for itself many times over. The study I have seen
says that the onshore oil and gas program generates $46 for
every $1 spent on the program and $123 when you factor in
income and other taxes, income paid by people who are working
in the industry by the companies, et cetera. It is pretty tough
to come up with any example of a Federal program that can
produce $146 return on every $1 spent. And of course, there are
jobs.
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL FEES
Now, your budget proposes a significant increase in the
application for a permit to drill fee, a new nonproducing lease
fee, a new inspection fee, a rulemaking for onshore royalty
rate increase, and new taxes on the oil and gas industry.
Now, I am a businessman and when we have a problem with a
product, you do not raise prices on it in an effort to have it
move more. And we have something here that we want to continue,
and yet with all of these increased fees and increased prices,
I think there is going to be an impact both on the jobs and on
the amount of money that the Federal Government receives
because we have already seen in my home State with the reaction
to what has been done in the areas that we have talked to Mr.
Hayes about companies saying, well, we are just not going to
fool with dealing with the Federal Government. We are going to
take our rigs and we are going to go someplace else, and they
move from Utah to Oklahoma or Texas or some other places.
And now you are saying, well, if you do stay on Federal
lands, we are going to charge you significantly more by virtue
of this. And we have a tremendous unemployment problem and jobs
in Uintah County and Duchesne County as this industry dries up.
My question is, has there been any analysis, economic,
statistical analysis, of what will happen to revenue reductions
both in State and Federal treasuries, because the State gets a
lot of revenue from this, as a result of this increase in fees?
Secretary Salazar. I appreciate the questions you asked
last week on monuments and the question you asked today on oil
and gas. Our job, as I see it as the Secretary of the Interior,
is to make sure taxpayers are getting their fair return. When
you look at the statistics relative to the number of acreage
that has been leased on the onshore, as well as on the
offshore, in the last year, it is apace with what was done in
the previous 8 years.
When you look at the fees we are collecting, those fees I
believe are fees that are affordable by the oil and gas
industry. The economic downturn we have seen with respect to
oil and gas has been driven simply because of the lower cost of
natural gas, not because of the fees. The $6,500 permit
application, APD fee, that we charge that was in last year's
budget and it is in this year's budget again. It is a tough
budget and we are trying to make tough choices.
As we look at these things, it is important we are doing it
from a rational, economic point of view. I had the BLM and
economists in the Department of the Interior look at ways in
which we are making sure we are getting a fair return for the
taxpayers. For example, the 12.5 percent royalty that is paid
onshore by an oil and gas producer has been the same royalty
that has been in place since 1920 when the 1920 Mineral Leasing
Act was passed. It was then called the King's share. It still
could be called the King's share today. You compare that to
what is being paid to the States, whether it is Texas,
somewhere in the range of 20 percent, or South Dakota, there is
room for economic analysis to make sure we are getting it right
here, and that is what we are trying to do.
Senator Bennett. Let me just quickly, Madam Chairman, take
the Texas example. If you make an application in Texas to drill
on State land, the application is approved in about 19 or 20
days. People who have been trying to get leases done in Utah
have filed resource management plans that have taken 7 years to
come to fruition, going back to what Senator Collins had to say
about her circumstances, and then as we know, some of those
after 7 years have been turned down by you when you became and
now you have put in additional delays.
I think they would be happy to pay a 20 percent royalty if
they could get on the ground within 19 days. It is the
combination of the increased fees for which they get no
services. If you get something for what you pay, they are
willing to pay. But I do not think it is really a fair
comparison between what is happening in the States that use
their money to facilitate this, create the jobs, and get the
revenue, then Federal Government that, at least in my State
keeps delaying, delaying, and delaying, and now increases the
cost.
I would appreciate it if you would do a careful analysis of
the impact of this on jobs, as well as the overall impact on
revenue because it is one thing to say we are increasing the
percentage, but a higher percentage of nothing produces a whole
lot less revenue than a lower percentage of something that is
moving forward. And I have the fear that this is what is
happening, at least in my State with respect to oil and gas.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Salazar. If I may, Madam Chairman, just a quick
response, Senator Bennett. I very much look forward to working
with you and others on the ground to get it right. I think what
we have seen is that in the prior administration, the last
year, 49 percent of the oil and gas leases were protested, and
so when we have 7-year delays it is because of litigation that
ensues because it is not being done right.
Senator Bennett. The 7 years to produce the RMP had nothing
to do with the environmental suits.
Secretary Salazar. Going back to the principle that
Director Abbey and I are driving here is we want to get it
smart from the start, and I think by knowing where oil and gas
production is going to take place is something that we ought to
be able to do to provide more certainty to the oil and gas
producers. That is part of what we are trying to do with the
rules and the outreach that Director Abbey and Assistant
Secretary Lewis are doing, including going back to Utah and
having additional conversations with organizations like IPAMS
and others about how we can get it right.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, Secretary Salazar, it is good to see you. I
appreciate your being here today. It is always good to have you
back on the Hill among your friends, and we appreciate your
good work. Working with you in the Senate was a pleasure, and
it is becoming a pleasure working with you in your new role.
RED WILLOW CREEK DAM
I want to take just a moment to note a Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) issue. I know we do not fund the bureau in
this subcommittee, but it is an issue I want to mention briefly
while I have the chance because just yesterday I sent a letter
to the BOR Commissioner, Michael Connor, regarding in my home
area the Red Willow County dam. This is located on Red Willow
Creek, approximately 11 miles northwest of my hometown of
McCook, Nebraska.
Unfortunately, during an inspection last fall, multiple
cracks were discovered throughout the 126-foot earth fill
embankment which impounds up to 85,000 acre-feet of water to
form Hugh Butler Lake. And in response, the bureau has had to
lower the lake to levels last seen during the drought of 2002
in order to relieve stress on the dam. This means that up to
5,000 acres of cropland in the Frenchman Cambridge Irrigation
District will have no available irrigation water in either 2010
or 2011, and it will inevitably lead to financial difficulties
for area farmers and communities.
I know that you know as well as anyone the problems water
shortages cause Western State growers. I know the bureau is
doing what it can and what it has to. And I wanted to take the
opportunity and say I want to be a partner should there be a
role for Congress to play to help the bureau execute a plan to
repair this dam as quickly as possible and mitigate the need
for such low water levels behind the dam and to extend an offer
to be of any assistance that I possibly can in the process of
fixing this. I know you might have some degree of influence
there, and to the extent that you find that I can, I would
appreciate being let know. I am sure Mr. Connor will, but I
would like to have your attention to it as well.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. Let
me say I have not been to McCook, but I enjoyed our trip
together to Scottsbluff earlier this year and seeing some of
our wildlife refuges and USGS facilities in that area.
Senator Nelson. Well, if you liked Scottsbluff, you will
love McCook.
Secretary Salazar. We will come by.
Let me just say we are aware of the issue. We are
evaluating it. These are cracks in the dam, so we have public
safety issues that need to be addressed, and our hope is that
we will have the repairs underway with the right funding by
2011. There may be ways in which we can expedite that, and I
will ask the Deputy Secretary, David Hayes he and Mike Connor
are outstanding working on these issues to see whether there is
a way in which maybe it could be expedited because I recognize
that if we are looking at repairs in the year 2011, we
basically have gone by two irrigation seasons. I know how
important that is.
Senator Nelson. We lose two seasons.
Secretary Salazar. Let us see whether there is a way of
expediting it, but right now it is on schedule for studies and
then repairs for 2011.
Senator Nelson. Well, thank you. I know you will. I
appreciate it.
And as you said, last fall we had the opportunity to be in
Scottsbluff, you and Secretary Vilsack, to meet with a number
of our farmers, ranchers, community leaders, and researchers
from the University of Nebraska as part of the administration's
tour. I truly appreciated that opportunity that we all had to
discuss the vital issue of how communities, States, and the
Federal Government can work together to help strengthen rural
America.
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AND USGS COLLABORATION
Part of that visit, the university had engaged with USGS in
a workshop on water resources and challenges in the area,
especially in the Sandhills in the northern, central, and
western parts of Nebraska, which are so important to our State
and the West. And I hope that the collaboration between the
USGS and the university is progressing. If you would, perhaps
you would not be able today to do it, but if you could, please,
and if not, maybe have somebody get back to us on what are the
next steps to make certain that that relationship, that
partnership continues in the fine tradition that it has
started.
Secretary Salazar. We are going fast forward with that, and
I think that is another great example of how you can take part
of an ecosystem, as you have done there in Nebraska through the
University of Nebraska and USGS, and you look at the water
issues. You look at the land issues and you respect private
property rights. You respect water rights. At the same time,
you move forward with a coherent plan, as the University of
Nebraska and USGS are doing on the Platte. And so we are full
partners and we are fully engaged and we want to make it an
example for what happens all around the country.
Senator Nelson. Thank you.
Madam Chairman, I would have been here earlier except that
I was on the floor, but you pointed out that I arrived just in
time for my cameo appearance. I appreciate very much the
opportunity, and thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.
We have some time yet, and I have two questions I would
like to ask, but I also want you to know that Senator Alexander
suggested that we have a second hearing really just devoted to
energy. So we will be doing that, obviously, that which is in
our jurisdiction. So I want to alert you that we will be doing
that.
PERMITTING ON PRIVATE LAND
But I want to bring to your attention an issue and that is
permitting on private land. As you will recall, the conference
report of last year's bill had a statement to the effect that
``the conferees believe that renewable energy developers should
have less difficulty permitting their projects on disturbed
private lands than on pristine public lands in order to
facilitate greater species protection and stewardship of public
resources and public lands.'' That is a direct quote from the
conference report.
Now, this problem has not gone away. FWS has stated that
permitting a project on private land will take up to 9 years.
In contrast, you are pushing, as I understand it, the
permitting of public land projects down to 18 months, which is
great. It is a more reasonable time table.
Now, we are told by developers that this has gotten so
severe that developers are searching for ways to avoid FWS.
Developers tell my staff they scour a private land development
site for an isolated desert wetland just so they can have the
Army Corps of Engineers be their lead Federal agency. When
developers hope to find a wetland on their development site, I
think that is a sign that the permitting process is broken.
Now, my staff has received an update from FWS. Bottom line,
the service is making some progress, but really they are not
focused on private lands. So I have a series of questions in
this area.
To bring logic to permitting private land projects, the
Mohave needs a desert conservation plan, and California and FWS
are drafting such a plan. The goal is to get it done by 2012,
but few seem to believe that is possible. In fact, the plan is
already months behind schedule.
This subcommittee recommended the service consider creating
a cooperative agreement with California under section 6 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) to speed this process up. Can you
assure me that this option will be given serious consideration
immediately?
Secretary Salazar. The answer is yes, and I will have David
amplify on the response.
Senator Feinstein. Excellent.
Mr. Hayes. Senator, I wanted to thank you and your staff
for your leadership on this very important point in this very
important area. I think, with your help, we are prioritizing
the importance of bringing habitat conservation planning on the
ground in California so that private projects can move forward.
The key is to have a global approach to deal with the desert
tortoise habitat issues and that, of course, is what both
section 6 and section 10 of the ESA are designed to do.
I recall being with you, Senator, 8 years ago at Fort Irwin
looking at desert tortoises to help the Army expand their
facility there. We know that with smart conservation approaches
we can solve these problems and we are committed to do it.
Let me also say the legislation you have introduced has
some very good features in this regard, and we look forward to
working with you on that.
Senator Feinstein. Good. Thank you very much.
SOLAR DEVELOPMENT
I understand that BLM plans to complete a full NEPA EIS on
each zone, but that solar development proposed in the zones
will also go through a project-specific full environmental
impact report. So a project in the zones would have to complete
two full EISs while projects in less ideal locations outside
the zones would need only one EIS.
Now, we believe you could prevent this by assuring that the
first EIS is sufficient to meet the project level permitting
needs. Is this possible and can you make sure that the first
EIS is sufficient so that a second EIS is not necessary?
Secretary Salazar. The answer is we will expedite the
process. Actually it is the first EIS that will help us make
sure that it is expedited. David, the Deputy Secretary, will
amplify.
Senator Feinstein. Is that a yes?
Secretary Salazar. Yes.
Mr. Hayes. Senator, we did a midcourse correction on the
programmatic EIS that had begun before we came to office. It
was at such a high level that we thought it probably would not
help at all in terms of individual projects. What we have done
is now focused on these 24 areas. We are bringing more specific
levels of review there so that individual projects can tier off
of that programmatic EIS. We are hopeful the NEPA that will be
needed for individual projects will be far less, often
environmental assessments, because of the work that has been
done on those specific areas. That is the whole intent, is to
facilitate individual projects not having to go through the
entire process again.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I think this is really critical
because it drives people crazy and it is totally unnecessary
and it is very costly. So I really appreciate that answer, and
I thank you for making that change. I think that should be
welcome news to everybody.
Secretary Salazar. Senator, if I may just add a
supplemental footnote to that. Our efforts with respect to
renewables have been to try to streamline the processes. This
is a new world we are operating in, and I am the first to admit
we may not have it perfect but we are trying to avoid the kind
of duplication or waste of investment on the part of the
development of renewable energy. We are open to improving our
processes, but we are committed to making sure that we stand up
renewable energy on the onshore and the offshore.
SOLAR STUDIES
Senator Feinstein. Just one quick other thing. You have
proposed four solar studies in California covering more than
330,000 acres, but none of the four areas are in the West
Mohave Desert, which many biologists point to as an area of
less pristine desert than the East Mohave. So my question is,
would you consider establishing more solar study areas in the
West Mohave?
Secretary Salazar. David, go ahead.
Mr. Hayes. The issue there, Senator, is that there is not
as much public land on the west side of the Mohave.
Senator Feinstein. Which is what we want to do. I want to
protect land--see, I view the fact that the reason the Federal
Government has land is to conserve it----
Mr. Hayes. Right.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. And to protect it, and that
there is a reason why that land is public land. And now, there
is a lot--and we have all seen it--of private land that is
eminently suitable for this.
Mr. Hayes. Let me just say this fits right into your
previous question, Senator, which is will we help private
developers on private land develop their projects. The answer
is yes. In the West Mohave, there is much more private land
ownership. Just what we were talking about before, working
through section 6 and section 10 of the ESA, we will help
facilitate those projects as well. This initiative the
Secretary is talking about is we are interested in standing up
renewable energy wherever it makes sense, including on private
lands, most certainly.
Senator Feinstein. Good. I appreciate that and I thank you
both very much.
Senator Cochran. No comments?
Senator Cochran. I have nothing further, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. All right.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Nothing, thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Well, we are in time for the vote, and
let me thank both of you. For me, it really is very fine what
you are doing. You are listening. You are taking in arguments.
You are evaluating them. And I think we are beginning to make
progress in this arena. It is unprecedented. When I look back
just a year at the pile-up of projects and people just went in
and took land or wanted to submit for land in huge projects,
projects the size of which had never been done anywhere in the
world, and now we are down to things that I think are practical
and doable on land which is possible for this kind of
development. So I really want to thank you both for your
leadership, and we will continue.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
We will submit questions in writing. The record will remain
open for 2 days to do that. So thank you very, very much.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
renewable energy projects
Question. We have worked together for more than a year to make sure
we move forward with renewable energy development in a way that
protects the most pristine parts of the California desert. As part of
that effort, I have proposed the Mojave Trails National Monument, and I
have endorsed your effort to establish solar study zones and to ``fast
track'' permitting of proposed development in locations where projects
avoid opposition and delay. How many of the solar development proposals
in ``fast track permitting'' would be halted by the proposed Mojave
Trails National Monument or other provisions in California Desert
Protection Act of 2010, and how many acres of the solar study zones
overlap the proposed Monument?
Answer. There are no ``fast track'' projects or solar study zones
(Solar Energy Study Areas (SESAs)) within the boundary of the proposed
Mojave Trails National Monument.
Question. In the California Desert Protection Act of 2010, I
propose that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) require each developer
to complete (1) necessary biological field studies; (2) cultural field
studies; (3) plans for water; and (4) plans to connect to the grid. I
proposed that BLM should reject applications of developers who are not
making progress in these areas and focus resources on the proposals
that are making serious progress, so that the best sites cannot be held
as assets by speculative companies. As we discussed at the hearing,
Solar development permitting requires completion of spring biological
surveys. Will BLM require all developers proposing solar development of
public land to either complete necessary biological studies this spring
or give up their applications? Why or why not?
Answer. The BLM's existing regulations provide the authority to
deny right-of-way applications when the proposed use is inconsistent
with the BLM's existing Resource Management Plan, or when the BLM
determines the application is deficient. The BLM is requiring that
applicants submit a plan of development that includes the following
information necessary to perfect their solar energy right-of-way
applications: necessary biological field studies; cultural field
studies; plans for water use and conservation; plans to connect to the
transmission grid; and other proposed design and development
information. If applicants fail to meet these requirements, their
applications will be rejected.
Question. You have proposed SESAs across the West, including four
in California covering more than 330,000 acres. I have a few questions
about these areas.
On much of the land in California's SESAs, developers had already
submitted right of way applications to develop solar projects on the
land before BLM designated them as study areas. Do you intend to
prioritize review of these pending applications ahead of proposed solar
development on BLM lands outside the study areas? How do you intend to
offer lands within these SESAs for development? Do you intend to offer
lands within these areas through a competitive process?
Answer. Of the 330,000 acres of BLM-administered public land within
California's SESAs, approximately 154,000 acres are under application
for wind or solar development, of which nearly 87,000 acres are being
analyzed as BLM ``fast track'' projects. SESAs were identified as areas
expected to have fewer resource conflicts.
Question. If you subject these lands to competitive bidding, how do
you intend to avoid a bidding situation that increases the cost of
renewable energy for California's consumers?
Answer. As stated previously, no decisions have been made on how to
offer lands for solar energy development within SESAs, including
whether to offer the lands through a competitive process. The
Department's goal is to develop a process that is environmentally
sound, scientifically grounded, and cost effective.
Question. I understand that BLM plans to complete a full National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on
each SESA, and I greatly appreciate your assurance during the hearing
that you will do everything possible to prevent projects proposed
within the areas from having to go through a second, project-specific
full EIS. However, I do not understand how your department intends to
execute this plan without completing comprehensive spring biological
studies as part of the first, programmatic EIS (PEIS). Please explain
what steps you are taking to assure that the first EIS will be
comprehensive enough to assure that projects will be able to ``tier''
off it, completing project level Environmental Assessments (EAs) that
require less review and less delay.
Answer. The Department is committed to conducting a robust solar
PEIS. We are taking the following steps to reduce the need for
subsequent consultation and clearances for future projects: conducting
Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species effects analysis for each
of the SESAs; identifying potential conservation measures at both the
PEIS and SESA levels; and utilizing desert tortoise surveys and
population estimates provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS). Site-specific work, such as biological surveys, may still be
necessary prior to development within a solar energy zone to ensure
that only the most current data are used for decisionmaking. Our plan
is to allow the project-level environmental analysis to tier to the
PEIS to the greatest extent possible.
Question. During the hearing, you stated that BLM does not control
enough land in the West Mojave to justify a SESA. However, according to
BLM's West Mojave Plan released in 2006, the ``West Mojave Desert area
encompassing 9.3 million acres in Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, and San
Bernardino counties: 3.3 million acres of public lands administered by
BLM, 3 million acres of private lands, 102,000 acres administered by
the State of California, and the balance of military lands administered
by the Department of Defense.'' It surprises me that the Department of
the Interior does not view any of the 3.3 million BLM acres as
appropriate for analysis as a solar energy study area, even though this
area of the desert is generally considered less pristine than the East
Mojave, and Federal lands in the West Mojave are still in a checker
board pattern with private land. Will you ask BLM to analyze the 3.3
million acres it controls in the West Mojave in order to determine
whether a SESA would be appropriate in this area and report back to the
subcommittee within a reasonable time period?
Answer. Recently, the BLM began actively working with California
Department of Fish and Game and other wildlife groups to identify
suitable SESAs in the West Mojave Desert that would have minimal impact
on the mojave ground squirrel. Of the 3.3 million acres of BLM land in
the West Mojave, approximately 70 percent is committed to special uses
including wilderness, wilderness study areas, desert wildlife
management areas, the Marines' Twenty Nine Palms Expansion, off-highway
vehicle open areas, habitat management areas, and other conservation
areas. The remaining 30 percent is mostly noncontiguous BLM lands mixed
with private, State, and other ownerships which is why close
coordination and collaboration with others in the area is critical.
Question. BLM has ``fast tracked'' permitting of 10 solar projects
in California in order to help these projects qualify for the
``Treasury Grants program,'' establishing in section 1603 of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that expires at the end of
2010. Is it your understanding that many solar projects in California
will not be built unless they are able to claim the treasury grants
program? Do you agree that extending this program, as I have proposed
in the Renewable Energy Incentive Act, would allow far more solar
projects to be financially viable?
Answer. The Department defers to the Department of the Treasury
regarding these incentives.
Question. BLM is currently permitting solar and wind projects on
BLM land under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).
Under the statute, what criteria must BLM use to determine whether or
not to grant a right of way use to a private entity? On what
substantive grounds can BLM turn down an application if it has been
properly submitted? What standard of review determines whether or not
an applicant will be granted a right of way use authorization?
Answer. The BLM processes wind and solar right-of-way applications
consistent with the requirements of title V of FLPMA and its
implementing regulations (43 CFR 2800). Under FLPMA, before the BLM
approves any right-of-way, it must find the use to be consistent with
the Resource Management Plan for the area, and must comply with the
NEPA and other Federal laws. In addition, before processing a right-of-
way application, the BLM requires the applicant to provide cost
recovery funds, submit a detailed plan of development sufficient to
initiate NEPA review and analysis, and provide timely responses to any
requests for additional information. Failure to comply with any of
these requirements could be grounds for the BLM to reject an
application. Also, during the NEPA review, environmental consequences
may be identified of such significance that the application can be
denied because it is not in the public interest and would cause
unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.
Question. BLM has established very important Renewable Energy
Permitting Coordination Offices (RECO). Senator Tester and I introduced
legislation proposing these offices in 2008, and I have supported them
ever since. While these offices are improving the consistency of
permitting within each State, there is still no single solar permitting
guidance to assure that projects in all States are evaluated under the
same set of criteria. Do you believe BLM should develop a guidance or
manual that would set clear rules for permitting renewable energy
nationwide?
Answer. The BLM issued a solar energy policy in April 2007 to
provide guidance in the processing of solar energy right-of-way
applications. The BLM is currently preparing additional guidance
regarding solar energy rent, bonding, due diligence, best management
practices, and length or term of solar energy right-of-way
authorizations. Solar energy applications and authorizations also must
comply with the requirements of the BLM right-of-way regulations and
existing right-of-way policy guidance.
permitting on private land
Question. FWS has completed a draft section 4(d) rule, which would
standardize permitting requirements for desert tortoise. Will you
pledge to complete this rule within 1 year?
Answer. FWS is in the process of drafting a proposed 4(d) rule
under the ESA for desert tortoise that would streamline ESA compliance
for certain renewable energy projects on non-Federal lands in the
desert region of southern California. The FWS plans to publish the
proposed rule in February 2011 for public comment. The rule is subject
to NEPA, which requires us to write either an Environmental Assessment
or an EIS for the final rule. Public input is required under NEPA, and
FWS estimates that the final rule and NEPA decision documents could,
depending on concerns raised by the public, be completed by December
2012.
Question. FWS believes they cannot complete a template ``habitat
conservation plan'' that solar developers could use to speed up private
lands permitting until it completes the 4(d) rule. Please explain why a
simple template cannot be provided immediately.
Answer. The conservation standards that will be developed as part
of the 4(d) rule discussed above would be used for a template habitat
conservation plan for solar projects in the same region. We believe
that the 4(d) rule should be developed first, and depending on the
need, we would then decide whether a template habitat conservation plan
would provide an additional benefit to streamline ESA compliance.
Currently, we are involved in developing best management practices and
the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan that would streamline
permitting processes on both Federal and non-Federal lands. These
efforts, along with fulfilling the Department of the Interior's
obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
Secretary Salazar and the Governor of California to streamline
permitting of renewable energy on public lands, are our top priority.
Question. FWS is apparently working to complete a MOU with other
desert management agencies in order to establish a habitat mitigation
bank similar to the bank I proposed in the California Desert Protection
Act of 2010. Such a bank could speed up private project permitting,
administratively. Will you pledge to get this bank running by the end
of the year?
Answer. FWS, along with BLM, California Department of Fish and Game
and the California Energy Commission, comprise the Renewable Energy
Action Team (REAT) in California. The REAT agencies recently signed an
MOU with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) to manage a
mitigation account available for renewable energy projects in the
desert region of southern California that occur on both public and
private lands. This account is already available to project applicants.
This account is not a habitat mitigation bank. It's a streamlining
mechanism to achieve described mitigation actions for biological
resources required under Federal and California State laws. Use of the
NFWF account does not provide a section 7 nexus under the Federal
Endangered Species Act. Use of the habitat mitigation bank as described
in the proposed California Desert Protection Act of 2010 would provide
a section 7 nexus under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Question. I appreciated you and David Hayes pledging to make solar
development on private lands a Department priority. As you know, FWS
has never retracted its statement that projects on private lands could
take 9 years to permit. Are you willing to revise FWS's estimate that
these projects may take 9 years to permit? If so, how many years do you
believe it would take to obtain a permit from FWS to develop a utility-
scale solar project on private lands, if the project had endangered
species impacts comparable to projects on public lands that BLM is
currently reviewing on a ``fast track'' schedule?
Answer. The 9-year estimate for completion of Habitat Conservation
Plans (HCPs) likely originated from a 2008 presentation given to energy
developers describing the HCP process. In that presentation, the FWS
explained that in the past, some HCPs have been completed in 1-2 years,
whereas others have taken from 6-9 years. The FWS also emphasized that
it was developing streamlining mechanisms to ensure HCPs would be
processed as rapidly as possible. The length of time is dependent on
the size of the project and the complexity of all impacts considered
under the NEPA process that must take place when developing an HCP.
Question. In order to facilitate renewable energy permitting, you
have proposed to increase resources for BLM much more rapidly than you
have proposed to increase resources for FWS. Please explain whether you
believe this budget request is consistent with the pledge you made
during the hearing to make permitting projects on private lands a
priority.
Answer. The 2011 budget request reflects an increased priority on
permitting for renewable energy development on both Federal and non-
Federal land, and funding increases will benefit both.
Question. In your testimony, you announced a goal of permitting
9,000 megawatts of new solar, wind and geothermal electricity
generation on Federal land by the end of 2011. If you did that all with
solar power, it would require approximately 58,000 acres of
development. Such development would require only approximately 20
percent of the acreage placed into BLM's solar study zones in
California, and demonstrates that there is plenty of opportunity to
develop solar power while protecting the most pristine portions of
California's desert. What is your target number of megawatts that you
would like FWS to permit on disturbed private land by the end of 2011?
Answer. FWS does not establish a target for megawatts permitted,
but will continue to respond to all permit requests it receives with
respect to renewable energy. There is no threshold at which FWS will
cease responding to requests for consultation or assistance with HCP
development of renewable energy projects.
Question. Developers proposing solar development on private land
may be able to avoid massive delays in FWS permitting by applying for a
Federal loan guarantee from the Department of Energy (DOE). Under this
scenario, FWS would be the consulting agency to DOE, which would be the
lead Federal agency under NEPA. However, DOE would then have to
evaluate the full environmental impacts of the solar project, for which
BLM has built up the greatest amount of knowledge and expertise. Do
BLM's RECOs stand ready to assist the DOE and FWS in completing NEPA
review of private lands projects as expeditiously as fast track BLM
projects on public lands?
Answer. The BLM RECOs do not currently have the authority or staff
to assist DOE and the FWS in the NEPA review of solar energy
development projects on private land. Any proposed expansion of the
responsibilities of the RECOs to cover projects on private lands would
have a significant and negative impact on the ability of the BLM to
respond to renewable energy or related transmission projects on the
BLM-administered public lands.
categorical exclusions
Question. BLM has required California's renewable developers to
make large deposits of funds in a cost recovery account and prepare
extensive EAs in order to set up meteorological measurement devices.
Some companies have been waiting years for permission to study the
weather. That is both out of balance with the limited, temporary
environmental impact of meteorological measurement devices, and in
apparent conflict with national BLM policy to use categorical
exclusions in these cases.
In response to my recent letter on this matter, you stated that
``the BLM will make diligent use of CXs for applications and project
areas in accordance with applicable law, regulation, and BLM policy.''
However, you did not clarify whether BLM would begin using CXs in
California, where the backlog of proposed projects is the longest. Does
BLM plan to use categorical exclusions more frequently and whenever
appropriate in California, so that developers can rapidly determine
which proposed development sites are viable and which should be
abandoned?
Answer. The BLM will continue to use categorical exclusions where
appropriate. The BLM determines whether to use a categorical exclusion
on a project-specific basis by determining the scope of a project and
its potential impacts.
military land
Question. Many of the best lands for renewable energy development
in California lie on military bases, and in the California Desert
Protection Act of 2010, I proposed requiring the military to complete
an EIS with regard to its renewable energy development program. I also
secured funding in the fiscal year 2010 budget for a study of the
potential for renewable energy development on California military
lands. My staff arranged a series of meetings between your Department
and the Defense Department in 2009 in order to assure that conflicts
over jurisdiction between your two Departments would not serve as a
barrier to utility-scale renewable energy development on military
bases. Please provide an update on the status of your conversations
with the Department of Defense on this matter. Please explain by when
you intend to have a clear agreement or formal understanding
established between the two departments regarding all potential
conflicts that could slow renewable energy development on military
bases.
Answer. The Department believes there are benefits to the
development of renewable energy projects on military lands that do not
conflict with the military mission for those lands. In addition, the
idea of siting renewable energy projects on military bases which are
already off-limits to the public is gaining ground with many
stakeholders and the public. For military installations located on BLM-
withdrawn lands, the development of renewable energy projects must be
consistent with the terms of the withdrawal.
Renewable energy development on withdrawn military lands in the
California Desert is a significant policy issue currently being
coordinated between the Department of the Interior and the Department
of Defense. The two Departments are committed to resolving this issue
as quickly as possible so the public and the industry have a clear
articulation of Federal policy concerning renewable energy development
on withdrawn military lands.
transmission
Question. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP), if
completed, will include 250 miles of new and upgraded high-voltage
transmission lines capable of delivering 4,500 megawatts of renewable
power from wind farms and other sources in the best wind resource area
in California to the people of greater Los Angeles.
In these difficult economic times, I believe it is vitally
important that we make permitting major infrastructure projects like
this transmission line a national priority. While the State of
California has already approved this project, literally billions of
dollars of private capital investment and thousands of construction
jobs await final decisions by Federal agencies, including FWS and the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Can you assure me that FWS has provided
adequate staff to work with the Angeles National Forest on the
Endangered Species Act review? Can you explain the degree to which the
two agencies consolidate workload and facilities? Will FWS set and meet
aggressive schedules for completing their work?
Answer. Since consultation was initiated on December 21, 2009, FWS
has been actively working on the consultation for the TRTP, committing
substantial staff time from two field offices and the regional office.
The FWS is committed to completing this consultation as rapidly as
possible. The FWS works closely with the Angeles National Forest and
has co-located staff at the USFS office. The FWS evaluates
opportunities to improve collaboration and increase efficiencies with
USFS and other Federal agencies as needed.
hydro power
Question. The Kaweah Hydroelectric Project, part of which is in
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, is the subject of ongoing
negotiations between the utility owner and the Park regarding a fair
fee to the park in order to keep operating the facility.
Two years ago, I wrote to you asking that you review the park's
position, which struck me as incredibly unjust to California
ratepayers. Also, the fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill included language directing the
Department to continue negotiations to reach a cost-effective
agreement. However, I do not believe talks have occurred. I therefore
would appreciate the answers to the following questions:
--What is the park's current proposal on the annual fee to be
charged, and on what basis has the Park Service determined that
the proposed fee is fair?
--By when will the Department of the Interior complete these
negotiations?
--Will you assure me that the Park Service will demand a fee that is
fair to California ratepayers?
Answer. The Department shares your desire to reach an equitable
resolution on this issue. We continue to work on a solution and believe
we will be able to provide a response outlining the resolution to this
issue shortly.
Question. Mr. Secretary, four of my Senate colleagues and I sent
you a letter on September 15, 2009 expressing our opposition to the
taking of off-reservation lands into trust for gaming purposes. Our
letter encouraged you to use your evaluation of the Interior
Department's policies on Indian gaming to maintain key components of
the Department's January 3, 2008 guidance on taking off-reservation
lands into trust for gaming purposes and to increase scrutiny of
proposals to take off-reservation land into trust for gaming purposes.
Additionally, it is my view that initial reservations and restored
lands should be subject to a similar high level of scrutiny when
evaluating modern and historical connections to land acquisitions. This
includes meaningful opportunities for local jurisdictions to register
their views with the Department.
In my home State, voters approved a ballot initiative approving
tribal gaming with the understanding it would be done on tribal lands.
However, several questionable proposals for restored lands would bring
casinos into urban, highly populated areas and along with them, the
problems of increased traffic, noise, environmental impacts, and crime.
Question. What is the status of your evaluation of the Department's
policies on Indian gaming?
Answer. The Department continuously evaluates its Indian gaming
policies to ensure that they are consistent with the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (IGRA), its own published regulations, applicable case
law, and its continuing trust obligation to Indian tribes. We are
currently reviewing policy in this area to determine what changes, if
any, are needed.
Question. What solutions are you considering to balance the
economic development goals of Indian tribes with the impacts of casinos
on air quality, noise levels, community planning, and the environment?
Answer. The Department believes Congress struck the proper balance
between tribal and State interests when it passed the IGRA in 1988.
Within the scope of the IGRA and the Department's trust acquisition
authority, the Department has promulgated regulations to ensure the
views and concerns of local communities are properly considered.
Additionally, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the
Department's regulations at 25 CFR part 292 ensure Indian gaming
proposals are subject to rigorous environmental review. The Department
will continue to evaluate its policies to ensure they are consistent
with the IGRA, NEPA, the Department's own published regulations,
applicable case law, and our continuing trust obligation to Indian
tribes.
Question. Are current regulations and guidelines sufficient to
address the trend of off-reservation gaming proposals?
Answer. There have been numerous tribal proposals to develop off-
reservation gaming facilities since the IGRA's enactment in 1988. Out
of these proposals, only a relatively small number have been approved.
While the Department believes current regulations allow it to address
State and local concerns regarding the trend of off-reservation gaming
proposals, it will continue to evaluate its policies to adhere to both
the Federal trust obligation to tribes and the balance Congress struck
when it enacted the IGRA.
Question. Are current regulations and guidelines sufficient to
address restored lands applications for land that might be used for
gaming?
Answer. While the Department believes current regulations allow it
to address State and local concerns regarding restored lands
applications, it will continue to evaluate its policies to adhere to
both the Federal trust obligation to tribes and the balance Congress
struck when it enacted the IGRA.
Question. Is additional legislation necessary to clarify
congressional intent with regard to limits on off-reservation gaming?
Answer. As referenced above, the Department believes Congress
struck the proper balance between competing interests when it enacted
the IGRA, and that Congress carefully considered the implications of
the exceptions to the prohibition on gaming on lands acquired after
October 17, 1988. Therefore, the Department does not believe additional
legislation is necessary.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
office of surface mining reclamation and enforcement (osmre)
Question. I am deeply troubled by two spending reductions proposed
within your Department.
Within the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund for the OSMRE, the
President's budget proposes to reduce discretionary funds by $4.5
million for State emergency reclamation grants and federally managed
emergency projects. As you know, this program has cost an average of
$20 million per year for the past 10 years. This is a dangerous
reduction given that these monies are used to fund immediate actions to
protect health and safety and human life from an emergency situation
resulting from the adverse effects of coal mining. This cut is
completely contrary to the ideals of protecting the families adversely
affected by the mining in their communities.
Within the ``Regulation and Technology'' account for the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, the President's budget
proposes an $11 million reduction in funding for State grants to
regulate and enforce the permitting process for surface mining. This is
a reversal from last year, when the President sought to increase
funding for surface mining enforcement. The administration proposes to
reduce this funding pursuant to its commitment to the G-20 nations to
reduce subsidies for fossil fuels. The President's budget encourages
States to raise user fees on coal producers to offset the loss of
Federal funding for mining regulation.
In this fiscal and political environment, Appalachian States are
unlikely to be able to muster the support to raise fees on coal
producers, which will result in those States having fewer dollars to
enforce land and water protection laws.
Taken together, these are impractical and dangerous spending cuts
that will impede efforts to ensure that surface mining is conducted
within the parameters of the law and that past mining practices do not
continue to haunt the citizens of mining communities.
Question. How can the Federal Government meet its responsibility to
enforce environmental protection laws if the President's budget does
not provide adequate resources?
Answer. The proposal is consistent with the administration's
commitment to reduce Federal subsidies to fossil-fuel industries. While
other energy industries must pay user fees to reimburse the Federal
Government for regulatory costs, coal fees are very low. The budget
reduces State grants in order to encourage States to increase their
cost recovery from the coal industry.
In addition, the 2006 Surface Mining Reclamation and Control Act
amendments extended the authority for fee collection through September
30, 2021, and changed the way that State and tribal reclamation grants
are funded, beginning in fiscal year 2008. State and tribal grants are
now mandatory and are derived from current AML fee collections and the
general fund of the U.S. Treasury. The amendments dramatically
increased funding from $132 million in fiscal year 2007 to $369.1
million in fiscal year 2010. Because the States and tribes now receive
increased mandatory AML grants, they have adequate resources to address
emergency AML issues. The OSMRE will continue to work with the States
to ensure a smooth transition.
Question. How can the Federal Government ensure better enforcement
if it does not provide monies to the States to implement the Federal
mandates?
Answer. The fiscal year 2011 budget decreased State and tribal
grants by 15 percent of what was requested, or about 7.5 percent of
total State regulatory costs. The budget does not propose to shift the
burden of the cost to the States. Rather, it encourages the States to
increase fees paid by the industry that receives the benefit of the
services States provide. The OSM is willing to work with the States to
assist in fee recovery. Therefore, we believe this is an equitable
proposal.
Question. In recent years, the Charleston field office (CHFO) of
OSMRE has issued a number of oversight reports on blackwater spills;
flyrock incidents (causes of the incidents, as well as the processes
for reporting and investigation); slurry impoundments breakthrough
potential; and surface water runoff analysis (i.e., whether rain on
certain types of surface mines and valley fills exacerbates flooding).
Please describe (a) the actions taken by the relevant stakeholders
following those reports, and (b) your current assessment of the
adequacy of those actions in addressing these problems over the long
term.
Answer. Oversight studies and reports are not limited to findings
of compliance. Rather, the reports often include suggested
discretionary actions aimed at improving the program beyond what is
required. The following provides examples of oversight studies that are
used to ensure a State Regulatory Authority's compliance with its
approved surface coal mining program and create positive change.
--Blackwater Spills.--This oversight report, completed in October
2009, was a follow-up to a 2004 report on the same subject.
Despite the State's compliance with its approved program and
various programmatic improvements made after the 2004 report,
the 2009 report noted that blackwater spills were still
occurring at the same rate as the earlier 2004 study and that
these occurrences are still mostly related to human error--as
opposed to any design flaw or operational issue. Therefore, the
joint OSMRE and State team recommended increased use of
increased fines, permit suspensions, and consideration of
criminal penalties.
--Actions by Stakeholders.--Since completion of the study, the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP)
reviewed more recent spill data and reported that it is
experiencing a decrease in the number of spills over the rates
noted in the 2004 and 2009 reports.
--Assessment of Adequacy of State Actions.--The OSM finds the State
activities specific to this report on blackwater spills is
adequate, but still believes the State could be more
aggressive in the timely pursuit of patterns of violation
related to permit suspension. The OSM is continuing to
review State activities related to pattern of violations as
requested by interested citizens on other types of
violations.
--Fly Rock Incidents.--This topical study was conducted with the
assistance of the WVDEP's Office of Explosives and Blasting
(OEB) and was completed in March 2009. The study found the OEB
(created in 1999) did a thorough job in review of blasting
incidents. However, the reviewers noted the OEB was not always
notified of all flyrock incidents by inspectors from the
State's Division of Mining and Regulation. The reviewers also
expressed concern with the number of vacancies within OEB.
--Stakeholder Actions.--The WVDEP agreed the OEB should always be
involved in any flyrock violation. The WVDEP implemented
new operating procedures that increased the involvement of
OEB in flyrock investigations. The WVDEP also agreed to the
imposition of additional remedial measures following a
flyrock incident.
--Assessment of Adequacy of State Action.--The OSM found the action
taken to be adequate. The OSM is currently reviewing the
WVDEP regulatory program staffing levels as an independent
oversight evaluation.
--Slurry Impoundment Basin Breakthrough Potential.--The OSM's CHFO
conducted two studies in 2006 and 2008, reviewing 10 coal mine
waste impoundments. These studies evaluated the adequacy of the
State's review to determine the potential for impounded slurry
to breakthrough into underground mine workings. In 2009, the
CHFO initiated a broader study involving 15 impoundments.
--Stakeholder Actions.--The WVDEP resolved the site specific issues
from the previous evaluations and is fully engaged in the
ongoing oversight evaluation. Citizens have requested the
OSM investigate specific dams and impoundments and those
investigations are ongoing.
--Assessment of Adequacy of State Actions.--State actions to date
have been adequate for site specific cases but the OSM
cannot reach conclusions about the overall adequacy of
program activity until the current study is finalized.
--Surface Water Runoff Analysis.--The State regulations refer to this
assessment as a ``Storm Water Runoff Analysis'', or SWROA. The
SWROA is an analysis of the projected runoff from a permitted
area using hydrologic modeling of a rainfall event on
representative mine site conditions before and during mining
and after reclamation. The March 2009 oversight report reviewed
the effectiveness of implementing the SWROA requirements.
--Actions by Stakeholders.--Since the report, the WVDEP has
conducted staff training to address identified issues. The
WVDEP also plans to host an industry SWROA workshop to
clarify SWROA requirements. The WVDEP has also agreed to
monitor violations on a yearly basis to determine if there
is a trend in offsite impacts that are related to excessive
peak discharges. This information would be used to
determine if further regulatory changes may be warranted.
--Assessment of Adequacy of State Actions.--The OSMRE agreed with
the actions listed above and is monitoring WVDEP's progress
in developing further training parameters and hosting a
workshop for industry.
u.s. geological survey (usgs)
Question. Reports issued by the USGS and the Bureau of Mines over
the past two decades have raised serious questions about the exhaustion
of economically recoverable coal reserves in Central Appalachia. How
can the USGS more effectively use its own resources, and also partner
with other Federal and State agencies that possess the relevant
analytical capacities, in order to publish analyses of the amount of
coal that the Northern and Central Appalachian Basin coal regions could
produce under a range of assumptions about demand and production costs?
What plans does the agency have to accomplish these objectives? If it
has none, please explain why.
Answer. Estimates of that portion of the in-place coal resources
that are currently economically recoverable (the reserve base) are very
important for understanding how coal can contribute to the Nation's
energy mix and future. The USGS has recently refined its coal
assessment methodology to take advantage of improvements in computer
hardware as well as in geologic and mining model software. As a result,
the scope of USGS coal resource assessment capabilities (including
those of technically and economically recoverable resources) has grown
in size from a few small areas to whole coal fields or basins. Thus,
the current generation of USGS U.S. coal assessments is not only an
enhancement of what is calculated (in-place resources, but also
technically and economically recoverable resources), but will also
produce a systematic determination of the coal reserve base on a
regional basis in all the major coal provinces in the Nation.
The correlation of each individual coal bed of economic importance
is necessary for the determination of the economically recoverable coal
resources. Although this approach is time consuming, correlation of
individual beds is essential to build integrated, multiple-bed geologic
computer models that can then be analyzed by mining economic software
to better estimate economically recoverable coal resources. Regional
estimates of economically recoverable coal resources will provide
energy planners a much more meaningful appraisal of the amount of coal
that is currently and realistically recoverable in the foreseeable
future.
The first U.S. coal basin to be evaluated in this current
assessment program is the Powder River Basin (PRB) in Wyoming and
Montana. The PRB is the largest coal basin in the United States in
terms of mined tonnage, supplying more than 40 percent of the total
coal produced in the United States. The Gillette coal field alone
accounts for more than 90 percent of the PRB coal production.
Furthermore, there are extensive Federal lands within the PRB. USGS has
published a new coal assessment of the Gillette coal field (http://
pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1202/) calculating the in-place resources as well
as those that are technically and economically recoverable. This work
continues on the whole of the PRB. Once the PRB is completed, regional
scale coal assessments will continue on all significant coal beds in
all major U.S. coal basins.
Currently, the State geological surveys of West Virginia, Kentucky,
and Virginia are working on re-correlating their States' coal beds.
Once this work is completed, we will work with these State surveys,
using their revised data sets to determine the technically and
economically viable coal resources using the USGS methodology used in
the other States. USGS currently funds a portion of this State work
through our National Coal Resources Data System State Cooperative
Program.
This USGS methodology does not include a range of assumptions about
demand and production costs, as that is beyond the scope of USGS
purview or ability, especially from supply and demand perspectives. We
have worked with other agencies, such as BLM and the Energy Information
Administration, to share with them what we are doing, so as to make our
data and results useable for a variety of purposes, including various
scenarios or forecasting analyses.
Question. When will the USGS be releasing more detailed assessments
of the Appalachian coal-producing regions (e.g., including mapping
(GIS) and other data regarding stripping ratios, drill holes, surface
areas with previous coal mining, etc.)? Please describe the programs
through which the USGS or other Federal agencies can provide additional
money to State geological surveys, in order to enhance and expedite the
development of these studies?
Answer. Current USGS work in coal assessments is focused in the PRB
of Wyoming and Montana, as the largest coal producing basin in the
United States. Current cooperative efforts with the State geological
surveys in the Appalachian Basin focus on supporting their efforts to
re-correlate their States' coal beds to provide a foundation for
resource estimation. The USGS National Coal Resources Data System State
Cooperative Program has continuously supported State geological surveys
in coal-related work since 1975, with West Virginia being 1 of the 3
initial States funded that year. In fiscal years 2005-2009, the USGS
provided financial assistance for compiling data to assist in the
estimation of coal resources in the Appalachian Basin to Alabama,
Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Virginia.
Funds were used to encode hardcopy data to digital format, for
geologists' time to correlate the newly digitized coal information, to
support the collection of GIS information (mined areas, etc), and to
create GIS coal bed maps (e.g., coal structure, isopach). The USGS will
continue to provide funding to these States contingent upon funding
availability through the appropriation process. Data such as stripping
ratios, drill holes, footprints of available mine maps, and related
data will be made available as part of these efforts.
economic diversification
Question. In June 2009, the administration released a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) entitled ``Implementing the Interagency Action Plan
on Appalachian Surface Coal Mining.''
The MOU noted that ``Federal agencies will work . . . to help
diversify and strengthen the Appalachian regional economy and promote
the health and welfare of Appalachian communities. This interagency
effort will have a special focus on stimulating clean enterprise and
green jobs development . . .''
Question. What new programs or initiatives is the Department
proposing to advance economic diversification in Appalachia?
Answer. The Federal Government has made a commitment to move
America toward a 21st century clean energy economy based on the
recognition that a sustainable economy and environment must work hand
in hand. Under the MOU, we are working in coordination with appropriate
State, regional, and local entities, and other Federal agencies to help
diversify and strengthen the Appalachian regional economy and promote
the health and welfare of its communities. This interagency effort will
focus on stimulating clean enterprise and green jobs development,
encouraging better coordination among existing Federal efforts, and
supporting innovative new ideas.
Question. What new resources is the Department requesting to
advance economic diversification in Appalachia?
Answer. The Department is not requesting any new resources; rather,
it is applying continuing programs to support this effort. Two ongoing
programs that contribute to this initiative sponsored by OSMRE are the
Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative (ARRI) and the Office of
Surface Mining/Volunteers in Service to America (OSM/VISTA).
The ARRI is a cooperative effort between the Office of Surface
Mining and the States of the Appalachian region to encourage
restoration of high-quality eastern hardwood forests on active and
reclaimed coal mine sites. Successful re-establishment of the hardwood
forests that once dominated these lands will provide a renewable,
sustainable multi-use resource that will create economic opportunities
while restoring a healthy ecosystem. Thriving forests provide local
jobs for an existing and growing timber industry, provide habitat for
wildlife, and support a variety of recreation activities important to
local human communities.
The OSM teams with AmeriCorps' VISTA program--concerned with
poverty, and coal country watershed groups--working in more than 30
towns across the eight States of Appalachia to deal with environmental
degradation. Through this partnership the Team targets problems
associated with the legacy of pre-regulatory coal mining in Appalachian
Watersheds. The OSM/VISTA Team places, trains, and supports college-
educated OSM/VISTA volunteers who live and work throughout coal country
to promote social and environmental change at the grassroots level.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
treasured landscapes and the crown
Question. What criteria did you use to decide what would be your
Treasured Landscapes? Why are all the projects coastal/water based? Mr.
Secretary, when you visited Montana last summer, we talked about the
importance of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem; I am wondering why
you excluded it? Are there plans to include it in future Great Outdoors
America Projects or Treasured Landscape Projects?
Answer. In developing the 2011 budget request, the Department
looked across the Nation for geographic areas that faced significant
and increasing challenges to protecting and restoring natural and
cultural resource values. The Department looked for areas where
Interior bureaus were already active, but could benefit from a more
coordinated focus with other Interior bureaus, and other Federal and
non-Federal partners. And the Department looked for areas where
targeted investments could achieve real results.
The five ecosystems included as part of the Secretary's Treasured
Landscapes agenda met each of these criteria. These ecosystems will
remain priorities for restoration and renewal through coordinated and
targeted investments. The Department will continue to look for
opportunities to leverage existing Federal conservation efforts for
additional ecosystem restoration. As the Department's Climate Science
Centers and the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives become operational
they will be relied on to help prioritize and coordinate Federal and
non-Federal efforts for ecosystem restoration nationwide, including
those like the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem. The Great Outdoors
America listening sessions are collecting input for opportunities
including the Crown of the Continent.
yellowtail dam
Question. Secretary Salazar, a long-standing conflict has surround
the Bureau of Reclamation's (BOR) management of the Yellowtail Dam and
maintaining water for the boat launch at Horseshoe Bend, behind the dam
at the expense of a trout fishery below.
Last year my college, Senator Max Baucus, initiated an Inspector
General (IG) investigation as to the handling of flows of water into
this reservoir. First, I understand this IG report is not happening.
Why not?
Answer. BOR's headquarters was contacted by the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) and information was submitted. We have not
received any correspondence or requests from the OIG since that time.
Question. Will you start the investigation?
Answer. In addition to supplying the information to the OIG, BOR
formed the Bighorn River System Issues Group in March 2007, as a means
to collaboratively identify and investigate ways to optimize the
benefits provided by the Yellowtail Unit. BOR conducts monthly outreach
conference calls with interested parties to disseminate up-to-date
operations information and to provide a mechanism for stakeholder input
and feedback.
Question. Understanding this issue spans the boundary of two
States, what cooperative management plans are you undertaking to make
sure that in low water years Montana and Wyoming share the burden of
lower water, not one side disproportionally?
Answer. BOR manages the water; the National Park Service manages
the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. BOR engages stakeholders
and customers in reservoir operations-related issues through the
Bighorn River Basin Issues Group through monthly (or more frequent)
reservoir operations updates. Individuals from both Montana and Wyoming
are represented on the Issues Group.
Question. Why are the three dams in that drainage managed
independently?
Answer. The three dams are operated in a coordinated manner. Boysen
and Buffalo Bill are under the jurisdiction of the Wyoming Area Office
located in Mills, Wyoming. Yellowtail Dam is under the jurisdiction of
the Montana area office located in Billings, Montana. Both offices
operate under the guidance and purview of the Great Plains regional
office, also located in Billings, Montana.
Question. Would you consider returning them to coordinated
management to address the issues in Bighorn Drainage?
Answer. The operation and management of the dams is presently
coordinated between the Wyoming area office and the Montana area
office. These offices are responsible for operating the dams to provide
benefits consistent with congressional authorizations, water supply
contracts with customers, and State-based water law in Wyoming and
Montana.
renewable energy
Question. Over the last year you have open up renewable energy
pilot offices in Wyoming, Arizona, California, and Nevada. I championed
the work of renewable energy coordination offices (RECOs) in the 2009
energy bill and fully support the idea.
Do you plan to expand these offices beyond those four States? When
do you plan on locating an office in Montana, where we have excellent
renewable resources?
Answer. The Department has established the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) RECOs in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Wyoming to
support those States with the largest number of renewable energy
applications for public lands. Funding has been provided to other
States, including Montana, for additional renewable energy support
staff. The BLM office in Montana has received funding for five
additional renewable energy support positions. However, due to the
limited workload to date and the number of pending applications, only
two positions have been filled. The BLM will respond to any future
needs as they are identified.
Question. Mr. Secretary, you have made renewable energy and
transmission development a priority in your office, increasing funding
to $73.3 million, an increase of $14.2 million.
What are you doing in Montana to realize these goals?
Answer. The BLM has provided additional funding to Montana to
support renewable energy support staff and to respond to any renewable
energy and transmission development projects in Montana. The workload
in Montana has not materialized as anticipated; however, the BLM is
prepared to respond as needed. There are several proposed transmission
projects that are currently being reviewed and the BLM has placed a
priority on the processing of these applications. In addition, the BLM
is currently preparing guidance to implement an Interagency
Transmission Siting Memorandum of understanding (MOU) that was signed
by the Secretary in October 2009. This guidance provides procedures for
improving the coordination in permitting of electric transmission
facilities on Federal lands. Transmission projects in Montana will be
processed consistent with the provisions of the Interagency MOU and the
BLM implementation guidance.
fish and wildlife service (fws)
Question. Recently I learned the number of people working on FWS
staff in the State of Montana and region 6 is almost half of other
regions, like Oregon and Washington. To address this low level of staff
funding, it has come to my attention that FWS is considering closing
the Billings field office, which houses the wildlife biologist for
eastern Montana. Montana's expanding energy renewable frontier and
increasing investment in domestic fossil fuel production often require
environmental consolations from the FWS to swiftly complete the
planning of projects. This especially true after Friday, March 5, when
the Sage Grouse was listed as ``warranted but precluded,'' adding it as
another species whose progress must be watched.
Mr. Secretary, what is the formula for calculating how much each
State receives for staff?
Answer. Staffing for the Ecological Services (ES) offices is funded
from the habitat conservation and endangered species programs. The
allocation formula for the endangered species subactivities was
developed in fiscal year 2000. According to this method, each region
receives funding based on weighted complexity factors for candidate and
proposed species occurring in each region. For example, aquatic species
and wide-ranging species are considered more complex than terrestrial
species with smaller home ranges. As part of the end of year reporting,
Regions are asked to review the species weights and provide the
Washington office with any changes that are necessary, along with
documentation as to why the change is required.
Base funding is disbursed to the ES field offices from an
allocation methodology that is consistent across all field stations,
based on FTEs at each field station. Increases and decreases are based
on workload and priority issues.
Question. Are you planning to close the Billings office?
Answer. FWS's Billings, Montana ES field office staff has been
reduced over the years to two staff members, an administrative staff
person and a biologist. FWS is terminating the current General Services
Administration (GSA) lease for the Billings Montana ES suboffice. The
remaining biologist position will still be located in Billings in GSA
space that fits the needs of a one-person office. The administrative
assistant position will be moved to the Montana ES field office in
Helena.
Question. How do you plan to make sure that Montana has adequate
staff to assure that there are not delays in analyzing energy and
development projects?
Answer. FWS's Federal activities review and section 7 consultation
programs do their best to address all project proposals provided for
consultation, informal or formal, in a timely manner. Workload
distribution across field offices is managed by the field supervisor in
coordination with their regional office. These field supervisors will
ensure workload is managed to avoid delays.
cooperative watershed management act/wolf kill bill
Question. Mr. Secretary. I included two provisions in the last
omnibus public lands bill, which passed last January: The Cooperative
Watershed Management Act and the Livestock Loss Mitigation Act. Both of
these provisions were directed to have their rules written and funding
project within a year. But to my knowledge neither of these programs
have finished rule making and your budget this year does not fund them
in fiscal year 2011.
Can you assure me that you will prioritize finishing the rules on
these important programs as quickly as possible?
Answer. The Department is currently collecting comments from States
and will complete this phase by the end of May. As emphasized in the
Cooperative Watershed Management Act, States play an important role in
supporting watershed groups and there are as many approaches to
watershed management as there are States. These comments will help the
Department shape both the application development and program
implementation. In February 2010, I issued an order directing the
Department to implement the new WaterSMART program. The Cooperative
Watershed Management Program is an important component of this new
initiative. The act created a new tool for Interior to work at the
watershed level where restoration and management decisions need to be
made. The program framework should be in place this summer.
Question. How about prioritizing their funding next year?
Answer. I have asked bureaus to work together to identify seed
money for this program. Once the program framework is in place, we will
identify pilot areas where we can test the new program and make needed
adjustments. At that time we will be able to make a better decision on
the level of funding that would be necessary to implement the program
and consider its inclusion in future budgets.
Question. In the interim, the livestock loss mitigation program was
funded in fiscal year 2010. The goal of the program is to reduce and
compensate for predation by reintroduced wolves.
Can you assure me that the funds you distribute this year for this
program will focus on preventing and compensating predation,
specifically to States that have predation data?
Answer. Yes, the funds will be focused on prevention and
compensation of predation by wolves.
land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
Question. I'm pleased that you are a supporter of the LWCF, which
has protected important places like Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge and the Blackfoot River Watershed in Montana, among other areas
across the country important for conservation, historic preservation,
and public recreation. I was pleased to see almost $25 million proposed
for deserving projects in Montana this fiscal year, which can help
protect Montana's outstanding wildlife habitat and recreational
opportunities in places like the Rocky Mountain Front. According to a
recent Federal study, more than 291,000 anglers in Montana spend more
than $226 million annually, nearly 200,000 hunters in Montana spend
more than $310 million annually, and more than 750,000 wildlife
watchers in Montana spend more than $376 million annually. We need to
ensure these economic activities are maintained while also improving
public access and enjoyment for other Montanans.
Mr. Secretary, what can the Department do to ensure greater support
for funding the LWCF?
Answer. The Department of the Interior supports fully funding the
LWCF and is on target to reach the full annual funding level of $900
million by 2014 with the Department of Agriculture. Interior's 2011
budget request reflects our commitment with a request of $445.4
million, an increase of $135 million above the 2010 enacted funding
level. The total request for LWCF, including USDA, is $619.2 million.
In addition, Interior will receive another $740,000 in mandatory
appropriations through the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act for the
NPS State LWCF activities in 2011.
rural water
Question. In September, Commissioner Connor testified that BOR has
a backlog of more than $2 billion in authorized rural water projects.
As you know, several of us are working to authorize more projects. As
you also know, these projects don't get cheaper with time. How do plan
to address the backlog?
Answer. The first priority for funding rural water projects is the
required O&M component, which is $15.5 million [BOR-wide] for fiscal
year 2011. For the construction component, BOR allocated funding based
on objective criteria that gave priority to projects that serve on
reservation needs; and percent of project complete.
Question. How do you plan to address the projects that you will
inherit soon?
Answer. Using the criteria above, BOR will continue to budget for
construction of ongoing authorized rural water projects within budget
targets.
Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget justifications for DOI
include budget requests of $27.5 million for tribal trust accounting at
DOI's Office of Historic Trust Accounting, a portion of $13.5 million
for the DOI Office of Trust Records to index inactive records sent to
the American Indian Records Repository, and a portion of $67.9 million
at the Office of the Solicitor for its Indian Trust Litigation Office.
How much in appropriations is the Department seeking for fiscal year
2011 specifically relating to the pending tribal trust cases?
Answer. The Department's budget request includes $27.5 million in
OST's budget for tribal historical accounting and another $4 million to
be transferred from OST's Records budget to the Solicitor's Office for
litigation support. This provides $31.5 million for tribal historical
accounting and related litigation support. Funding for trust records is
not separated between IIM and tribal activities.
Question. Have you committed senior-level officials to working on
the tribal trust cases now that there has been a settlement agreement
in the Cobell case? Also, how long do the Departments foresee that
litigation of these cases will go on, and how much more appropriations
do the Departments anticipate, before we can start to see settlements
for these cases?
Answer. It is the administration's goal to resolve as many of the
tribal lawsuits as possible, and senior-level officials are committed
to resolving these cases. Direct, informal negotiations between the
parties generally are facilitated by temporary joint stays of
litigation agreed to by the courts. In some instances, settlement
negotiations are facilitated by a third-party neutral evaluator or
settlement judge. For example, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Judge(s) from the Court of Federal Claims are working with Government
and tribal representatives to reach negotiated settlements in several
cases. Of the 95 tribal trust cases currently pending at the trial
level, approximately 70 cases have been temporarily stayed so that the
parties can pursue informal settlement discussions or formal ADR
processes. Several cases are now in advanced phases of resolution where
the parties are either considering specific settlement stipulation
language and figures, or are on track to exchange settlement figures in
the near future.
Last fall, legal counsel acting on behalf of approximately 80 of
the 114 American Indian and Alaska Native tribes that are litigating
proposed a meeting to discuss possible settlement of tribal trust
accounting and mismanagement claims against the United States. In
April, senior officials from the Departments of Justice, the Interior,
and the Treasury held an initial meeting with the designated
representatives for this group to discuss the process for achieving
global resolution of the cases without protracted litigation. The
parties expect to reconvene before the end of June. Separately, senior
officials from Interior and Justice have engaged with counsel for 16
other litigating tribes seeking global resolution for that group of
cases. Notwithstanding such global settlement efforts, the Department
must continue necessary efforts to marshal information on trust funds
and trust resources for the active pending cases.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
Question. The administration's fiscal year 2010 budget includes
$569 million for the Federal portion of the LWCF, a 37 percent
increase, while the stateside grant program was increased from $40
million to $50 million. The administration has pledged to fund the LWCF
programs at the fully authorized level of $900 million by 2014.
I'm very supportive of the Federal side of LWCF, but as a former
Governor, I can't overstate how important the stateside grant program
is for recreation, habitat and open spaces. Plus, that funding is
matched dollar-for-dollar by grant recipients.
The Great Outdoors America Report, produced by the top conservation
minds and organizations in the country, called for permanent, dedicated
funding for LWCF, with a share guaranteed to the States and urban
areas.
With the stateside backlog of $27 billion, shouldn't more funds be
put into the stateside portion of the program rather than continuing
such a heavy emphasis on the Federal side where the bulk of the funds
have been going for years?
Has the Department considered additional dedicated funding sources
for LWCF, through new lease royalties or user fees?
Answer. The Department is appreciative of the benefits gained by
the States from the State grants program within the LWCF. The 2011
budget increased funding for LWCF State grants by $10 million, an
increase of 25 percent over the 2010 level. However, in these tough
economic times, several States may not be able to take advantage of
this program as it requires matching grants. In addition, several
States are struggling to operate and maintain the parks that they
already have. We will evaluate the balance of funds in the State grants
and Federal parts of the account for fiscal year 2012 formulation.
The 2011 budget includes a relatively new funding source for LWCF
State grants. The revenues authorized by the Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act will provide $740,000 for LWCF programs in 2011. There are
no additional new revenue streams for LWCF proposed for 2011.
centennial initiative for the national park service (nps)
Question. Our National Parks across the country face serious
operational and maintenance backlog issues. For the last 2 years, $100
million plus inflationary costs has been added to the parks operations
and maintenance account. This was added to address some of the
maintenance backlog issues and to hire additional rangers,
interpreters, and law enforcement personnel to enhance the visitor
experience as the NPS moves toward its 100th anniversary.
The National Parks Second Century Commission report, which was co-
chaired by Howard Baker, strongly encouraged the administration and
Congress to continue the Centennial Initiative until 2016, which would
eliminate the unfunded operations backlog of the NPS.
Why is this funding not included in the 2011 budget request?
Answer. The National Parks Second Century Commission outlines a
vision for the National Parks that can be applied to all public lands.
As custodians of our Nation's natural, cultural and historic resources,
we have a duty to protect all of the places that Americans love, and to
help all Americans connect with their land and heritage. That includes
the 392 units of the national parks system, 551 national wildlife
refuges managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the 27
million acre National Landscape Conservation System in the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM).
One of the goals of the administration is to protect these
treasured landscapes by implementing wise stewardship, science based
decisions, and forward-looking policies that help protect the Nation's
land, water, and wildlife for future generations. The Treasured
Landscapes Initiative in the 2011 budget supports operations on public
lands that enhance the visitor experience, promotes ecosystem
restoration, supports species recovery and protects habitat, and
facilitates cultural resource preservation and conservation.
The 2011 Treasured Landscape Initiative request shows our
commitment to preserving the national parks and preparing for the 100th
anniversary of the NPS in 2016. The NPS budget request includes $2.3
billion for park operations including $51 million in additional funding
requested as part of the Treasured Landscapes Initiative. The increases
will be applied to targeted operational needs at 127 parks and to
invigorate capacities in history, scientific research, and community
assistance in accord with the recommendations of the National Parks
Second Century Commission.
The Treasured Landscape Initiative also provides an additional $80
million for FWS science inventory and monitoring, $1.3 million targeted
to new wilderness areas designated by the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act of 2009, and $414,000 for high-priority operating needs
in the BLM National Monuments and National Conservation Areas.
funding for great smoky mountains national park
Question. Not funding the Centennial Initiative further sets back
our country's most visited park, the Great Smoky Mountains. I see that
its budget is only $59,000 higher than last year which won't even keep
pace with inflation and pay costs for park employees.
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which has two or three
times the visitors of some of our other popular parks, gets about half
the funding of similar parks because of circumstances of history.
How can this be changed so that the Smokies receives a fair amount?
Answer. The 2011 Treasured Landscape Initiative request shows our
commitment to preparing the parks for the 100th anniversary of the NPS
in 2016. The NPS budget request includes $2.3 billion for park
operations including $51 million in additional funding requested as
part of the Treasured Landscapes Initiative. The increases will be
applied to targeted operational needs at 127 parks and to invigorate
capacities in history, scientific research, and community assistance.
The 2011 budget includes increases for highest-priority needs based
on an evaluation of many factors. Proposals submitted by park units
throughout the Nation are evaluated on a competitive basis. The fiscal
year 2011 budget request includes an increase of $238,000 for Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. The additional funding will be used to
conduct additional back country patrols, improve the safety of
visitors, and protect resources from threats such as ginseng poaching.
In fiscal year 2010, Great Smoky Mountains National Park received a
base budget increase of $498,000.
siting of renewable projects on federal lands
Question. I'm extremely concerned with what is being called
renewable energy sprawl by at least one conservation group. We all want
clean energy, but not at the expense of our landscapes and open spaces.
I think Chairman Feinstein and I share concerns about the destruction
of our landscapes, whether by traditional oil and gas extraction,
renewable energy and transmission lines, along with the associated
infrastructure required for energy projects. We've spent billions of
dollars and over a century acquiring and protecting our public lands,
and we should give the same scrutiny to renewable energy projects as we
have to other traditional forms of energy leases in our Nation's
history. With regards to wind energy specifically, companies in the
Eastern United States want to site these wind projects on mountain
ridge tops where the wind is the strongest, but the impact to scenic
landscapes would be greatest. What we need is a national policy to
protect our landscapes--coordinated with other agencies.
I am also concerned about parity in our energy policy. Oil and gas
leases will be required to pay royalties somewhere between 12 percent
and 18 percent for energy production. I understand BLM and MMS will
charge a much lower rate for renewable projects on Federal lands and
offshore.
How would you address criticism that you are raising royalties on
oil and gas production when we have such a heavy reliance on foreign
oil, while you are charging such a lower rate for use of the public
lands for renewable energy production?
Answer. As with other BLM and MMS energy permitting activities, the
proposal to implement a rulemaking to raise onshore oil and gas royalty
rates is guided by the administration's belief that American taxpayers
should get a fair return on the development of energy resources on
their public lands. A standard approach for determining what
constitutes a fair return is to look at what other resource owners in
similar positions charge for the sale or use of these resources. A
comparison of prevailing oil and gas royalty rates in the United States
indicates that the Federal Government is currently not receiving a fair
return. The base royalty rate for oil and natural gas produced on
Federal onshore lands has been set at 12.5 percent since 1920. By
contrast the current average State royalty rate is 16.67 percent, and
the royalty rate in Texas is 22.5 percent.
Similarly, the Department intends to periodically assess the
royalties and fees that are charged for renewable energy projects on
Federal lands to ensure that they are in line with the amounts received
by other landowners who permit their lands to be used for these
projects. However, there are a number of reasons why what is considered
a fair return may be lower for renewable energy projects than for oil
and gas. One is that we are dealing with a nascent industry. Another is
that the product being sold is not the same. For oil and gas, companies
are paying a royalty (a percentage of the value of the resource) to
permanently remove that resource from the Federal estate. For renewable
resources like wind and solar energy, no Federal resource is being
removed from the land. Instead, we charge rental fees based on the
tenant's occupancy of a particular site.
Beyond this guiding principle of receiving a fair return, the Obama
administration shares your concern over the United States' heavy
reliance on foreign oil. However, the administration recognizes that
the country cannot solve this imbalance, which threatens both our
energy security and our national security, by simply increasing
domestic oil and gas production. From an energy supply standpoint, we
are not capable of meeting the country's growing demand and appetite
for energy through domestic conventional energy resources. For this
reason, the administration is aggressively pursuing a comprehensive
energy policy that promotes renewable and alternative energy
development, encourages energy conservation, and continues to support
environmentally sound development of fossil fuels in the right places.
To advance this important national goal of reducing our dependence on
imported energy, the administration and Congress have worked together
to put in place incentives to promote and support the nascent renewable
energy industry. It could be counterproductive if we were to simply
offset those incentives with unjustifiably high fees for developing
renewable energy projects on Federal lands.
I also share your concern about protecting our public lands as we
pursue renewable energy development. Under my direction, BLM is focused
on developing renewable energy in a manner that protects the signature
landscapes, wildlife habitats, and cultural resources of the public
lands. As I have stated on numerous occasions, we want to implement the
New Energy Frontier ``right from the start.'' This is being
accomplished by conducting studies and analyses in advance to identify
the most appropriate areas for siting renewable energy projects and
transmission infrastructure, areas where conflicts with other resource
values are avoided or minimized.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
Question. Europe built its first offshore wind farm in 1991. With
the current 7.5 years Minerals Management Service (MMS) permitting
process, it is unlikely that new utility-scale offshore wind projects
will be operating in the Federal waters until the end of the decade. By
that time, Europe will have hundreds of utility-scale offshore wind
farms with a production capacity of 40 to 55 gigawatts (GW), and a
total investment in excess of $150 billion. The United Kingdom alone
will be producing a quarter of its electricity from offshore wind by
2020, representing an investment of $120 billion and creating up to
70,000 jobs. Here in the United States, we can't even get demonstration
projects in the water in a timely manner to get the data needed for
eventually building utility-scale projects.
In my State of Maine, we have a 60-day permitting period for new
technology research, development, and demonstration projects where new
offshore wind turbine designs can be placed in the water for a limited
period for performance testing and environmental assessment work. Will
you consider developing such a 60-day permitting period and guidelines
for full-scale new turbine research, development, and testing projects
in Federal waters? Will you provide funding opportunities for the
required environmental monitoring efforts so that monitoring protocols
can be developed for these new technologies?
Answer. The Secretary is committed to the expeditious and
responsible development of clean renewable energy in the Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf. The MMS regulations incorporate Federal
environmental and consultation requirements (including consultation
with States), and also reflect time needed by developers to generate
site data and submit project plans. Certain timeframes are therefore
built in, such as conducting environmental reviews under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or complying with the Endangered
Species Act or the Coastal Zone Management Act.
However, the overall time the renewable energy permitting process
could take will be influenced heavily by other factors, such as whether
there is competitive interest in the area, what kind of resource
assessment the developer needs in order to secure financing, the kind
of technology the developer intends to use, and the level of
consultation required with States, tribes, and other Federal agencies.
As a general rule, the more prepared the developer is when it submits
its application and the more multiple-use and environmental review
issues that have been addressed in advance, the faster the process will
move.
The process can potentially take many years if a developer chooses
to obtain a lease before beginning site work, and then takes several
years to develop site data (the regulations allow a developer up to 5
years) before designing and submitting final construction plans. These
multiple approval steps may also necessitate additional NEPA analysis
and State and Federal consultations. However, barring any serious
multiple-use conflicts, the approval process may take as little as 3
years if a developer is able to come fully prepared with completed site
data and construction plans, and does not face competition from other
interested developers.
MMS is actively working with States and other Federal agencies to
generate critical environmental data to help expedite Federal
environmental reviews, and to address multiple use and other issues in
advance of the leasing process. We are closely examining our
regulations and the permitting process to look for ways to improve
efficiency while still meeting all legal requirements, and maintaining
robust and responsible environmental and safety standards.
While Federal statutes will not allow for us to approve research,
pilot, or demonstration projects in a 60-day timeframe, MMS provides a
separate course of action for noncommercial technology testing and data
collection leases that moves quickly. Indeed, under this procedure, the
Department has already issued four leases for data gathering in support
of future commercial offshore-wind projects. In addition, the MMS
regulations allow the Director to issue leases to a Federal agency or a
State for renewable energy research activities in areas where there is
no competitive leasing interest.
Regarding funding for environmental monitoring efforts, the MMS has
issued a solicitation that includes developing environmental monitoring
protocols for offshore renewable energy technologies. Currently,
proposals are being reviewed and we intend to have this work begin in
the near future. We appreciate your interest in expediting the
responsible, environmentally sound development of the Nation's
promising offshore wind energy.
Question. Last summer we enjoyed a wonderful visit to Acadia
National Park, a jewel of Maine's coast. Thank you for the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act money ($4.7 million) you announced last
week to help rehabilitate the Schoodic Environmental Research Center, a
former Navy base that now offers innovative educational programs that
combine natural science research with field-based education.
As you saw during your visit, Acadia is unique among National Parks
in that it still contains many privately owned land parcels within the
park's official boundaries. Looking forward at the fiscal year 2011
budget, Acadia has the opportunity to purchase a key 39-acre parcel
near Lower Hadlock Pond. The land is appraised at $3 million and your
budget request includes $1.7 million in LWCF money to help acquire it.
I understand it is a tough budget year, but I hope we can work together
to get the park the full amount it needs to acquire this piece of land.
Answer. In formulating the budget request for Federal land
acquisition within the National Park System, the National Park Service
applies criteria to rank and prioritize land acquisition at the park,
regional, and national level. To leverage projects and resources and
achieve maximum conservation benefits, projects were evaluated
Department-wide. The projects included in the fiscal year 2011 budget
request reflect the Department's and NPS's highest land acquisition
priorities. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $1,764,432 to
acquire a 22.9-acre tract at Acadia National Park. The tract, which
borders Round Pond and is in a very secluded section of Mount Desert
Island, was determined to be the highest acquisition priority at the
park. The second-highest acquisition priority at the park, and the
subject of your inquiry, is the 39-acre tract valued at $3,000,000
located at Lower Hadlock Pond. This tract will be evaluated for
potential acquisition in future budgets.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Feinstein. The hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., Wednesday, March 10, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:33 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Tester, and Alexander.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. On
behalf of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee, I welcome you to our hearing on the fiscal year
2011 budget request for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
I am pleased to welcome Tom Tidwell, the new Chief of the
USFS. Chief, this is the first time you have had the
opportunity to testify before the subcommittee, so I want to
say we are all looking forward to your testimony and to working
with you. Given all the changes in your proposed budget
request, it is clear that we have a good deal to discuss.
The President's request provides $5.38 billion for the
USFS. That is an increase of $61 million, or 1 percent. Despite
the constraints reflected on this budget, there are a number of
important programs that receive increases.
In particular, the budget request provides a total of $2.64
billion for all wildland fire activities. That is an increase
of $129 million over the enacted level. That is 5 percent.
Within that amount, hazardous fuels reduction activities are
funded at $349 million, roughly equal to this year's level.
The budget also proposes $1.59 billion to fund operations
for the Nation's forests and grasslands. That is a 2 percent
increase. And State and private forestry programs receive a 4
percent increase, for a total of $321 million. Land
acquisitions increase by 16 percent, for a total of $74
million.
Now, there are also a number of program cuts. Funding for
construction and maintenance of facilities, roads, and trails
is cut by 21 percent for a total of $438 million. Road
construction and maintenance is cut by 31 percent, for a total
of $164 million. And this cut comes despite the fact that the
service reports a $3 billion backlog in road maintenance as
part of its budget request.
And finally, funding for State and volunteer fire
assistance is cut by 29 percent, a total of $57 million.
I would like to speak for a moment about two major changes
that are part of the request. One is the proposal to combine
several of the agency's land management programs into a new
integrated resource restoration account. We spoke about this
yesterday. The other is a major restructuring of the agency's
fire preparedness and suppression accounts.
Let me begin with the wildland fire programs. The budget
requests a total of $1.5 billion for fire suppression. That is
an increase of $90 million, or 6 percent. It includes $1.2
billion as part of the fire suppression account and $333
million that has been shifted to the preparedness account.
For years now, the USFS has been charging a portion of its
preparedness costs to the fire suppression account, hiding the
true cost of the agency's readiness needs. So I am pleased to
see this shift to properly pay for those activities within the
preparedness account, which is where they belong.
All told, the budget requests $1 billion for firefighter
salaries, training, and equipment. That is a 49 percent
increase compared to 2010.
Now, I support the level provided in this budget for fire
suppression, but I am concerned that the request divides
firefighting funds into three overly complicated accounts. Now,
this is account one, $595 million for base fire suppression.
Two, $291 million for the Federal Land Assistance, Management
and Enhancement (FLAME) Fund, which was instituted by Congress
last year to cover the cost of fighting large wildfires, and
$282 million for a third account, the Wildland Fire Contingency
Reserve, which is a reserve fund that can only be accessed by
Presidential declaration. I do not understand the need to have
three separate fire suppression accounts, and I hope you will
explain that.
An even more significant change is the proposal to merge
three National Forest System programs to create a new $694
million line item called the ``Integrated Resource
Restoration'' program.
Now, the administration has proposed this initiative to
provide flexibility to fund restoration work it plans to do on
the ground. I am concerned that this budget request leaves a
lot of questions unanswered.
First, why the administration feels such a significant
restructuring of the budget is necessary to accomplish your
restoration goals. I am concerned that collapsing three
programs into one huge, new account reduces transparency and
accountability regarding how these program dollars are spent,
and I think others share that concern with me.
I would also like to discuss how the USFS proposes to
allocate funds for this initiative, particularly how the agency
plans to implement a new $50 million priority watersheds and
jobs stabilization initiative to fund large-scale restoration
and create jobs in rural communities.
And finally, I would like to discuss the impact that these
changes will have on the availability of timber supply from
national forests. Chief, I am hoping you can provide some
clarity on how much timber the USFS plans to produce in fiscal
year 2011 and how you plan to implement such a large increase
in the use of stewardship contracting.
These are important questions and they concern a number of
Senators, and I hope you and your staff will help us work
through this as we begin the process of drafting a bill.
Now I would like to turn to my ranking member, Senator
Alexander, for any comments that you may care to make.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Chief, welcome. Glad to have you here.
I am glad to see Rocky Fork included in the USFS land
acquisition fund. We are getting close to finishing that. It is
your number one-ranked project, and it is a tremendous piece of
property for the Cherokee National Forest.
You are mostly a westerner, and we have a pretty good
balance on this subcommittee. We are all interested in the
whole country, but I used to think President Reagan had asked
me to be chairman of the President's Commission on Americans
Outdoors in the mid-1980s, and after going through that for a
couple of years, I thought we probably ought to have two
different environmental and conservation policies, one for the
West and one for the East, because the issues were so different
so much of the time. For example, in the West, so much of the
land is owned by the Federal Government, but in Tennessee,
North Carolina, in our area, very little is owned by the
Federal Government. In our area, the Great Smoky Mountains and
the Cherokee National Forest, which is adjacent to it on each
end, are about it for us. So we have a completely different
attitude toward the presence of a Federal Government. Even the
conservative Republicans in the area where I live and have
grown up are big fans of managing the Great Smokies as if it
were a wilderness area and of protecting and encouraging the
Cherokee National Forest.
So we have those different attitudes, and they are
represented here. I look forward to working with you on them,
and I thank you for making the Cherokee National Forest a
priority.
Both the chairman and I have been interested in the impact
of what some conservation groups have called the ``renewable
energy sprawl'' on treasured landscapes. It makes no sense for
us to spend $40 million buying the Cherokee National Forest and
then sticking a bunch of 50-story wind turbines on top of it.
You know, we do not want to destroy the environment in the name
of saving the environment. So there are appropriate places for
large wind turbines and solar thermal plants and biomass
enterprises that use huge amounts of wood. But there are also
inappropriate places.
Several of us, including the chairman, have asked you and
Secretary Salazar to do a report on how you plan to look at
this so it does not happen in some haphazard way and so we do
not unwittingly set in motion damage to our treasured
landscapes. One example could be through history, looking at
the abandoned land mines that we are struggling with. There are
thousands of them in California and many more across the
country. With a little foresight, we might not have had so
many, and with the proper foresight, we might have our
renewable energy projects in the right places instead the wrong
places.
You are an important steward of public land. For example,
in the Eastern United States, the wind does not blow very much
and the large wind turbines only work best on ridge tops. Well,
we really do not--I do not, anyway--and I think most of us do
not want to see 50-story wind turbines along the 2,000 mile
Appalachian Trail vista, much of which is in national forest.
So I have brought a letter with some suggestions. One I
gave to Senator Salazar. One I will give to you with some
suggestions about what you might consider for your report. And
I will get back into during the question time.
The other areas in which I will be interested are biomass
harvesting, which I think is a good idea for getting dead pine
trees out of the forests, a bad idea if we cut down too many
trees; invasive species, which is very important in our area,
as it is in other areas in the country; and of course,
firefighting. That is not just a western concern, it is an
eastern concern. I am told that 85 percent of the employees in
the Cherokee National Forest spend some of their time fighting
fires. So we are all interested in that. And the chairman has
been a real leader in trying to separate the firefighting
costs, urgently important, from all the other costs so we do
not just have a national--the USFS does not become only a
national firefighting agency. I know of your distinguished
background in that area, but we want to keep it in balance.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, Madam Chairman, those are my concerns. I look forward
to the opportunity to ask questions, and I welcome the Chief.
Also, Senator Cochran couldn't make it today, but would like to
offer a statement for the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Madam Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming the Forest
Service Chief, Tom Tidwell, to the subcommittee this morning. Mr.
Tidwell, thank you for joining us today to speak about the Forest
Service's (USFS) initiatives for fiscal year 2011.
Mr. Tidwell, I would also like to thank you for your hard work
ensuring that our national forest system is maintained in a manner that
allows for proper use of our Nation's forests and provides the needed
resources to protect forest health.
I have one comment I would like to make about the Center for
Bottomland Hardwoods Research (Center) headquartered in Stoneville,
Mississippi. This unit is part of the Southern Hardwoods Research
Station. In 1996, the USFS research units in Mississippi, including the
Southern Hardwoods Lab in Stoneville, the Forest Hydrology Lab in
Oxford, and the Seed Biology Lab in Starkville merged to function as a
research center with a common mission focus.
The research that these units conduct is vitally important to both
my State and the Nation. The good work that these researchers have
undertaken has positively impacted national and State forests, as well
as privately owned forest land.
I was happy to request additional funding for this Center in
previous appropriations bills and hope that the USFS will continue to
focus its resources on the important work that Center is doing.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing, and I look
forward to the testimony.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you so much, Senator.
Chief, would you like to proceed?
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL
Mr. Tidwell. Well, thank you. Madam Chairman, members of
the subcommittee, it is a privilege to be here today to discuss
the President's budget for the USFS. I appreciate the support
this subcommittee has shown the USFS in the past, and I look
forward to working with the subcommittee to provide more of the
things that the American people need and want from the Nation's
forests and grasslands.
The President's budget request is designed to support the
administration's priorities, Secretary Vilsack's priorities,
for maintaining and increasing the resiliency of America's
forests. The USFS is taking an all-lands approach. We want to
work across boundaries and ownerships to address the critical
issues that are facing the Nation's forests.
The budget supports these priorities through five key
objectives.
The first is to restore and sustain forests and grasslands
by increasing the collaborative efforts to build support for
restoration activities that are needed to increase the
resistance and resiliency of these ecosystems. The budget
requests full funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Fund. It also proposes an integrated resource
restoration budget line item which would align our budget
structure with the restoration work that needs to be done on
the landscape. It will facilitate an integrated approach to
developing project proposals that will optimize multiple
benefits.
The second objective is to increase the emphasis on
protecting and enhancing water resources and watershed health
with a request for $50 million for a new Priority Watersheds
and Job Stabilization Initiative. This is a pilot program that
would fund large-scale projects that will focus on watershed
restoration and job creation. We would use the statewide
assessments and our own watershed assessments to look at the
jobs that could be created or maintained and the opportunity
for biomass utilization for the selection criteria.
The third objective is that we will manage landscapes to be
more resilient to the stressors of climate change by applying
the science that is developed by the USFS research and
development to increase the adaptive capacity of ecosystems. We
want to use science to determine how our management needs to
change to increase the ecosystems' resistance to the increasing
frequency of disturbance events, such as fire, insect and
disease outbreaks, invasives, flood, and drought.
The fourth objective is that the budget request provides
for full funding for wildland fire suppression, which includes
a level of preparedness to continue our success to suppress 98
percent of wildland fires during initial attack. It provides
for a realignment of preparedness and suppression funds that
more accurately displays the true costs. It provides for a
FLAME Fund to increase the accountability and transparency for
the costs of large fires and provides for a contingency reserve
fund that will significantly reduce the need to transfer funds
from other critical programs to fund fire suppression during
the very active fire season. And it also increases the emphasis
on hazardous fuel projects to reduce the threat of wildfire to
homes and communities by doing more of the work in the
wildland/urban interface.
The last objective is to create jobs and increase economic
opportunities in rural communities with the proposed Priority
Watersheds and Jobs Stabilization Initiative, doing more work
through stewardship contracting to build off the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects that encourage biomass
utilization, continuing to work with the States to use the
State and private forestry programs to address conservation
across all lands, and through our job development with our 28
Job Corps centers and our partnership with the Department of
Labor. Our goal is to increase collaborative efforts to build
support for science-based, landscape-scale conservation, taking
an all-lands approach to conservation, to build a restoration
economy, which will provide jobs and economic opportunity for
communities across our Nation.
I also want to clarify that we will continue to use timber
sale contracts when a timber sale contract is the best tool for
us to be able to get the restoration work done and the forest
health work done. It will be used whenever it is the best tool,
and the decision will not be based on the revenue that is
produced off of any individual project.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the
subcommittee, and I look forward to answering your questions.
QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
I am going to be somewhat parochial in my questions. We
discussed the Quincy Library Group (QLG) proposals, and it is
my understanding that a Federal judge has lifted the
injunction. So many of the projects are ready to go ahead. Are
you on track to meet or exceed your initial target of 20,000
acres in 2010? And what will be the number scheduled to meet
the 40,000-acre minimum target in 2011 called for in the QLG
legislation?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for
the leadership that you have provided over the years and
especially with the QLG.
We are on track this year. In fact, the region has told me
that they actually believe that they will be able to treat
maybe 25,000 acres this year. With this budget request, we will
be able to maintain the same level of funding for 2011 and a
similar target accomplishment.
Senator Feinstein. So $26 million for 2011?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. I was hoping you could go to 40,000
acres.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we will see. Based on what we are able
to get done this year and as we move forward with the program
of work for 2011, we will get back to you if the region feels
that they can actually increase that to get closer to 40,000.
TIMBER SALES AND STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
Senator Feinstein. All right. I do intend to follow that.
Now, your budget would eliminate the use of below-cost
timber sales in fiscal year 2011, and there are only a handful
of forests nationwide and only one forest in California, the
San Bernardino, that had timber programs that turn a net
profit.
So what impact would this have on your ability to get
forest management work done in my State?
What percentage of your timber sales are considered below-
cost and would be affected by this change?
And what impact would this prohibition have on the agency's
ability to get the work done on the ground?
Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chairman, thank you for the question. I
want to clarify that with the subcommittee. We will be sending
up a letter to clarify that we will not be restraining timber
sale contracts based on the revenue that is produced. We want
to look at the work that needs to be done on the landscape and
then choose whichever is the appropriate tool, whether it be a
stewardship contract or a timber sale contract. We do not even
track which timber sale contracts actually produce a positive
net revenue. We focus on doing the work, the things that need
to be done on the landscape, and using the appropriate tool. So
there will not be any restriction on using a timber sale
contract or a stewardship contract.
We do want to increase the use of the stewardship
contracting. I think in many cases it is often----
Senator Feinstein. Excuse me. I have an urgent call right
outside. I am going to turn it over to the ranking member for a
moment. You continue on and he will fill me in. I will be right
back. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Please go ahead, Chief.
Mr. Tidwell. To follow up with stewardship contracting, I
do believe that it is a better tool in many situations. But we
are going to use whatever tool is better. If a timber sale
contract is the best tool to get the work done, we will use
that, otherwise we will use a stewardship contract.
It has been my experience that by using a stewardship
contract, we can accomplish several different things. One, it
is a more efficient business operation for the USFS. Instead of
having multiple contracts to do various things on the
landscape, we can have one contract. Stewardship contracting
authority allows us to retain the receipts of any of the
merchantable material and to use that to offset the costs of
restoration.
It has also been my experience that it helps build support
for the work that we need to do across the landscape. When
folks can see that we are not only dealing with the forest
health concerns, dealing with hazardous fuel reduction
concerns, but at the same time we are addressing the needs to
improve wildlife habitat, to increase fisheries habitat, to
provide for a better road system, to replace culverts, and we
can put all this work together, it builds more support for the
restoration work that needs to be done, and I think it provides
more assurance that we are not just going to be doing the
biomass removal. So, it is one of the things we are going to
focus on in 2011, increasing the use of stewardship
contracting.
WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Chief.
I will go ahead and ask my questions now, and when the
chairman comes back, she will continue hers or we will go on to
Senator Tester's.
Not long ago, BP Alternative Energy notified the Huron-
Manistee National Forest it is planning to withdraw its
application to build up to 22 wind turbines, each 420-feet
tall, on Federal land. It would be a 75-acre parcel near the
Lake Michigan coast. It would have required the development of
5 miles of permanent new roads in the forests, the installation
of more than 40 miles of underground electrical wirings or
above ground, and several miles of above-ground transmission
lines.
To take another example--well, in that case, it has been
said to me that it would be perfectly appropriate to put wind
turbines in the middle of Lake Michigan or in the middle of
Lake Huron where the wind blows better and you cannot see them.
They do not interfere with the landscape. As I understand USFS
policy, those decisions are simply made on an ad hoc basis by
the local USFS manager based upon wind applications.
To take another example, the Appalachian Trails runs for
2,100 miles from Georgia to Maine. It runs through eight
national forests. Those ridge tops are where the wind blows
best in the East. So I guess under current USFS policy, we
would leave it to each of the USFS managers whether it was a
good idea to destroy the vista.
I remember another example a couple or 3 years ago where in
a national park, which is not your area, in order to get the
money for it, whoever was managing Old Faithful allowed a big
cell tower to be put up right next to the Old Faithful geyser,
which is sort of a brain-dead decision in my opinion.
These new renewable energy projects are massive in scale.
The chairman has talked about the solar energy plants that are
3 miles by 3 miles on the Mohave Desert, a biomass plant that
produced just 100 megawatts, which is one-tenth of a nuclear
plant--I figured out you would have to--well, to equal a
nuclear plant, you would have to continuously forest an area
the size of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park.
So what are your plans? We have asked you and Secretary
Salazar to give us your ideas about your policies for that. I
have a letter for you with some ideas. But tell me what the
USFS's attitude is, for example, toward large wind turbines on
scenic ridge tops in the Cherokee National Forest or the White
Mountain or other scenic forest ridge tops in the Eastern
United States.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, thank you, Senator. I look forward to
seeing your letter. We are in the process of finalizing our
policy regulations as far as dealing with wind energy, and that
will be the policy that will help our line officers, our forest
supervisors, address applications. We do have a responsibility
to do what we can for renewable energy, to address the Nation's
needs. On the other hand, we also have a responsibility to
address the environmental effects of any type of energy
development, whether it is renewable or not.
So, when it comes to wind turbines, one of the things that,
when we have an application, we will look at and factor in, are
the environmental effects to see if this is actually a good use
or the right use for the national forests and grasslands. One
of the things that we always do look at is if there are other
lands that are available for this type of use.
So far we have not received very many applications. I do
think that there may be certain places in the country that this
may be an appropriate use, but so far we have just received a
few applications.
Senator Alexander. Let me ask this. In the case of oil and
gas exploration, do you not have certain zones where you say it
is permissible and certain other zones where it is not?
Mr. Tidwell. We do go through a leasing analysis with oil
and gas, and then----
Senator Alexander. But you do not just allow an oil or gas
company to come in and apply to drill anywhere you might want
to in the national forest. Do you?
Mr. Tidwell. If it is an area that is available for
leasing, yes. And it is one of the things we need to look at as
far as with wind turbine----
RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEMS LANDS
Senator Alexander. Or solar plants. Would it not be wiser
to establish zones or areas and say these are appropriate
places, rather than just let entrepreneurs who might be
attracted by a 3 cent per kilowatt hour Federal subsidy to come
in and build a big turbine and then sell the tax credit off to
some banker in New York or Chicago who then subdivides it like
a real estate loan and sells it around the world? That is what
actually happens with this stuff.
I mean, four Democratic Senators just held a press
conference and talked about $2 billion in the stimulus package
that went for wind turbines, and 80 percent of the jobs were in
China and Spain.
So I am not even so concerned about wind versus nuclear,
wind versus solar, or the stimulus package. I am more concerned
about a rational policy for protecting treasured landscapes as
we move in appropriate ways to take advantage of renewable
energy so that we do it on the front end, not on the back end,
and so that we do not find ourselves 20 years from now with an
abandoned land mines situation where we have got a lot of mines
that looked like a good idea when they were started, but years
later they have become not just an eyesore but an expensive
problem that needs to be cleaned up.
My time is up. I will look forward to talking with you more
about this, and I imagine the chairman would like to finish her
questions.
LAKE TAHOE BASIN--FIRE HAZARD FROM SLASH PILES
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator. I
appreciate that.
We also spoke about the Tahoe Basin, which has been a big
priority for me. So I want to ask a question that specifically
relates to the Lake Tahoe management unit. On February 9,
Malcom North of the USFS's Pacific Southwest Research Station
reported to researchers at a conference that he found high
rates of tree mortality after the Angora fire because hand-
thinning treatments were piled and left unburned, which is a
real problem in the area. He stated that if you have unburned
piles throughout a treated area, it is almost like you did not
do the treatment at all.
My question is how will the Lake Tahoe Basin management
unit reduce the number of unburned piles after treatment?
Now, I walk a trail every year and see the piles, and I
have commented on them and some have gotten burned and some
have not gotten burned. But what I have always been told is,
well, it depends on the burn days. And so it is a burn day and
nothing is happening anywhere. So I ask why, and the question
is answered, well, we cannot get the contractors. And then I
find out that a lot of the work is done by prison inmates and
you have to bring them all the way up to the lake, which takes
3 hours, back which takes 3 hours, and the limited workday.
So the question comes, how do you develop the contracting
units that are on the spot and working 8 hours a day on these
piles and creating the piles and then a year later burning the
piles? What I have noticed is that the State park there has
done a much better job, at least on the west side of the lake,
than our people have done, and I wonder why.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you for the
question.
I do not know why, in this case, the State has been more
effective than we have. I do know that we will finish up the
last piles that need to be burned just as soon as we can get in
there this spring and early summer.
When we talk about the Lake Tahoe Basin, the long-term
solution has to be something besides just piling this material
and burning it. The number of days that we have where we have a
clearing index so that the smoke will disperse and we also have
conditions where we feel confident we can burn piles is very
small. We then have to leave piles that are adjacent to trees,
and if we get a wildfire like you referenced, then we will
suffer mortality in those trees.
The better solution is to find a way to make use of this
material, to be able to use this residual material that needs
to be removed and find some way to convert it to another use.
Currently, we are struggling because I think the closest
facility is about 75 miles away. Economically that does not
work out. We have to find a way to develop additional
infrastructure. I think the infrastructure needs to be closer
to the areas where we have the fuel, and we need to make sure
the material is the right size so that we can have a facility
that we can haul this material to so we are not so dependent on
the weather and only having certain days to burn.
I can assure you that when we do have those days and we
have the clearing limits we can burn. You have been up there in
the basin on those beautiful summer days and people see a bunch
of smoke. They often comment about it. That is not what they
are usually coming to the basin for.
So we will continue to have to do some burning, but I want
us to be able to move forward and hopefully develop some
additional infrastructure.
LAKE TAHOE BASIN--BIOMASS INFRASTRUCTURE
Senator Feinstein. I think that is right. I think you hit
the nail on the head actually. And I do think there are places
where you can locate a biomass facility such as in the South
Lake Tahoe area right off of Highway 50 there. There is space.
It does provide jobs for people. I think the question is a
system that makes some sense economically that can be set up
and perhaps you could do that. I mean, I think that would be a
great contribution to getting some of the dead, dying, and
downed stuff out that is going to really fuel another forest
fire of major proportions.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes. That is one of the things I know that the
basin is working on with one of the counties to see if there is
interest in maybe building a new facility that is scaled
appropriately for the amount of material that we need to
remove, not only in the basin but maybe from one or two of the
adjacent national forests too.
Senator Feinstein. The thing is that you do not have to
take the stuff over the mountains, which you do when you leave
the lake proper area. It is all surrounded. So you have got to
go up and then down with it to Placerville or someplace like
that, and that is a distance and it is a hard pull. So you
really need to do something, I think, in the basin itself.
Anyway, that is my view. It is, I think, of significant
importance. We have just submitted the second Lake Tahoe
restoration plan, and it is really the crown jewel because it
is one of two clear lakes in the world remaining. And a major
forest fire just will desecrate it. So it is an important thing
to do.
Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chairman, I want to also thank you for
your support over the years for the Lake Tahoe Basin. We are
making a difference there not only reducing the sediment that
in the past has gone into the lake, but also making a
difference in reducing the threat of large fires. Even with the
Angora fire, we had situations there when that fire did burn
into treated areas, that the suppression crews were able to get
in there----
Senator Feinstein. No question. You are absolutely right.
Mr. Tidwell [continuing]. And they were effective.
Senator Feinstein. No question. So it did work. I mean, we
know that forest management works if we do it. The question is
to do enough of it. So I thank you very much for that and
appreciate it.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Chairman Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Montana comes to life.
Senator Tester. Ah, yes.
Senator Feinstein. Not that we are going to be parochial,
but we will in my case.
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION LINE ITEM--ACCOUNTABILITY
Senator Tester. Thank you for being here, Tom. I really
appreciate the work you have done in Region 1 previous to this
job, and I appreciate your vision here in the position you
have.
Secretary Vilsack has a new vision for the USFS. In Montana
just a few days ago, the Secretary talked about how a bill that
I happen to have, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, provides
the tools the USFS needs to achieve that goal. He and I both
believe, as I think the chairwoman does, that timber production
and restoration are tools to create and save jobs in our rural
communities and ultimately save those rural communities. I can
see this vision in this budget.
Unfortunately, what I do not see in the budget is the
accountability to manage the money. For example, in my bill
there is a mandate to make sure that the work on the ground is
completed and that it is done at a time certain.
What is the USFS doing to make sure that the funds are
accounted for and spent wisely and restoration, timber harvest,
and watershed management are all still completed in this new
budget?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, thank you for the question, and
also I want to thank you for your leadership and your support
for us to be able to do more restoration work on the landscape,
to provide more jobs, and also with your legislation, to add
additional areas to the wilderness preservation system. I want
to thank you for that leadership.
Also, thank you for that question. With our budget
justification, we do plan to provide additional information to
the subcommittee that will not only show the number of acres
that will be restored with this budget request and the number
of watersheds that will be improved, but also we will provide
you with a list of all the other outputs that will be
accomplished through this work. That will include in excess of
2.4 billion board feet of timber sold, the number of acres of
wildlife habitat that will be improved, the number of miles of
fishery streams improved, and the number of acres of noxious
weeds treated. We want to be able to show you that by restoring
the number of acres that we are proposing with this budget
request, that it equals this set of accomplishments. We want to
be able to show you that there is a direct connection so that
we can be held accountable for not only improving the overall
watershed conditions, but also to be accountable for this set
of outputs. That is very important that we are able to provide
those.
So, I look forward to being able to bring that up and sit
down with you and the staff and work with the subcommittee to
address your concerns. I recognize that is missing in our
budget request, and we need to get that up to you so you can
see that.
Senator Tester. I appreciate that.
I guess the next question would be, to follow up, is how
often do you plan on giving the subcommittee the kind of
analysis that you just spoke of?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we will continue to work with the
subcommittee to address your concerns. Throughout the year, we
are more than glad to come up at any time to be able to show
the progress that we have been making on accomplishments. I
would like to reference what we were able to do in 2009. If you
look at 2009, it was probably the toughest market that we have
had with the timber and integrated wood products industries.
However, we were still able to accomplish close to 97 percent
of our timber target in 2009. We also exceeded our wildlife
improvement targets and our hazardous fuel improvement targets.
Senator Tester. We appreciate that work. And quite
honestly, I appreciate your openness about getting the
information to us so that we know as appropriators that the
money is being spent wisely and efficiently.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
In November 2008, the Government Accountability Office
produced a report about the use of stewardship contracting in
the agency. That report recommended three things: better plans
for long-term stewardship contracting, better collection of
data about stewardship contracts, and improved accounting for
services received for products sold.
What is the agency doing about addressing those management
goals?
Mr. Tidwell. First, we have changed our accounting system
so we are now able to track the outputs for stewardship
contracts and also the revenues and the cost of that work. We
will now be able to include that in our automated timber sale
statement of accounting. Each year we will be able to produce
that report that will show all the accomplishments.
We have also provided a stewardship agreement template that
we can use across the country so that every region and every
forest is using a consistent stewardship agreement.
We are also in the process of completing a new stewardship
contract that I refer to as a blended contract. In the past, we
have had two contracts, one was an integrated timber sale
contract and one was a service contract, and we had to chose at
the start of the project which way to go with that. This new
contract combines them so that we are able to use the same
contract and not have to be worried so much about the market
conditions. I believe that will help facilitate the work. It
will make it easier not only for our employees, but definitely
for our purchasers. I believe that will be a significant
improvement and will help us to move forward and use this
authority more.
Senator Tester. Okay. Well, thank you, Chief Tidwell.
Madam Chair, I have got to slip out for a bit. If the
hearing is still going on, I will come back, but if it is not,
we will submit the questions in writing.
SUNRISE POWERLINK
Senator Feinstein. Good. Thank you very much, Senator.
I wanted to ask questions, if I may, regarding the Sunrise
Powerlink in California. This is really a very big deal. San
Diego Gas and Electric has sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack.
They are cautiously optimistic the forest supervisor will not
require further environmental review of and beyond the multi-
year review by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
California Public Utilities Commission.
The governor has called Secretary Vilsack twice and the
White House once in order to try to get the USFS to act on the
project. The Imperial County Board of Supervisors has written a
letter, which is here, to Secretary Vilsack requesting issuance
of the record of decision stressing that the county has 27
percent unemployment and this is a big employment facility. The
Imperial Valley Economic Development Corporation is hosting a
renewable energy summit, and there is expected to be
considerable frustration that Federal permitting stands in the
way of economic recovery.
The record of decision would enable construction of a $1.7
billion power line that would put 400 to 500 people to work.
I can give you all the correspondence on this, if you would
like.
But here there are two infrastructure projects which await
USFS decisions. One is the Tehachapi transmission line from the
Tehachapi wind resource area into Los Angeles County, and the
second is the Sunrise Powerlink from Imperial County to San
Diego. Both have their State permits and have had the other
Federal permits for more than a year. After all these years of
permitting, both await only the USFS.
So here is the question. Would you give priority to the
permitting needs? Now, this is a privately funded
infrastructure project to essentially help us obtain the job
goals.
And the second is, by what date can you assure me that the
USFS will complete its review of both the Tehachapi and Sunrise
transmission lines, which are in an area identified by the
Department of Energy (DOE) as national interest electric
transmission corridor lines?
It is a big deal in southern California, and the only thing
awaiting its go-ahead is actually you. So you have a chance to
really break this gridlock and move these two projects along.
How do you feel?
Senator Feinstein. That is meant to be heat.
Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chairman, I can assure you that both of
these projects are a priority for us. We recognize how
important it is for us to get our part of the analysis done.
On the Tehachapi, it is my understanding that the company
is moving forward and that they realize it is going to take a
little more time for us to finish our analysis and our section
7 consultation. It is my understanding that they are okay if it
takes a little more time for us to finish that analysis.
On the Sunrise, I understand that is a more urgent need for
us to complete our analysis. We are looking at the analysis
that was completed by the BLM for this project and we are
evaluating that to see if it does cover all the issues that
have been raised about having a line placed on the Cleveland
National Forest. Based on that analysis, we will let you know
if we feel we can go forward and use the existing analysis or
if we need to supplement that.
As far as a date, I will need to get back to you and
provide you a specific date when we will have this
accomplished.
Senator Feinstein. Yes. If you would give me a specific
date, I would appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
As of April 15, 2010, the Forest Service is finalizing review of
existing environmental analysis documentation on Sunrise Powerlink, and
anticipates making a determination within a couple of weeks on next
steps.
SUNRISE POWERLINK
Senator Feinstein. Let me just read one part of the letter
from the chief operating officer of San Diego Gas and Electric.
``The delays associated with the unprecedented level of
review of Sunrise jeopardize the timely completion of a crucial
energy infrastructure project for southern California in an
area that has been identified by the Federal Government as
having critical and persistent electricity congestion.
``Sunrise is located within a designated transmission
corridor on BLM and USFS lands pursuant to the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. Its location will not only help modernize the grid
in this congested region and increase reliable electric service
to consumers, it will also do so while facilitating the
development of renewable energy at a lower cost to consumers.
``Additionally, at a time when spurring economic
development has become critically important, Sunrise would
directly inject nearly $2 billion into the economy and create
over 400 green jobs with potentially thousands more that would
be employed in constructing the wind, solar, and geothermal
energy facilities that will benefit from this new line.''
So as you can see, this is really a mega-project for us in
that it then produces what is necessary for the wind and solar
energy to transmit. So the longer you guys hold it up, the less
renewables we have in an area that is a heavy consumer of
electricity.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Madam Chairman, I will follow up with
the region later this week in fact. I am going to be down in
southern California, and I will follow up. Based on that letter
you have just shared, that is some different information than
what I have been shared.
Senator Feinstein. Can I give you this?
Mr. Tidwell. I would appreciate that.
Senator Feinstein. It has, I think, all the notes. It has
got the San Diego letter. It has got the Board of Supervisors.
I think it has what you need to understand the alacrity with
which people are looking at this. And as far as I know, there
is no opposition, which is unusual.
Mr. Tidwell. That is also encouraging. Based on my inbox, I
have received quite a few emails from folks that actually are
concerned about the project, which is often the case.
Senator Feinstein. Well, could you tell me the nature of
the concern? You know, in California, you get a suit over
almost anything.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
[The information follows:]
The comments received in the Chief's e-mail inbox in relation to
the Sunrise Powerlink have been almost unanimously against the project.
As of March 30, 2010, the Chief has received only one comment in favor
of the project. In addition to these e-mails, public meetings on the
project have generated attendance in the hundreds, with overwhelming
opposition being voiced. Many of the concerns expressed in the e-mails
are centered around health issues, viewscapes, and impacts to wildlife.
There are also concerns about the fire danger the Powerlink may pose.
There is concern about the fact that there is only one road in and out
of the El Monte Valley, which would lead to difficulty fighting fires
that might result from the Powerlink. Additionally, some people believe
there are better and safer ways for power to be generated in the area,
or that this is really not a renewable energy project at all, and that
it will, in fact, be linked to unregulated fossil-fuel energy from
Mexico, causing enhanced pollution in southern California. There have
been concerns expressed about the ``greed'' of Sempra, and that the
company should not be allowed to market itself as ``green'' when it
really is not. This is based on Sempra's refusal to abide by a written
agreement guaranteeing it would carry only renewable energy. Hang
gliding and paragliding enthusiasts oppose the project because of the
danger the lines pose to people who enjoy their sport. Additional
concerns pertain to increased vehicle traffic and removal of live oak
trees that some people believe will be cut down for the project.
Senator Feinstein. But we have to find out what is the
public good and move with the public good. And renewable power
because I do not think there are any flora or fauna or real
environmental problems that I know of, and my staff, I think,
has looked at this rather carefully. So I think it is unlike
other areas where you do it in the middle of desert tortoise
habitat or bighorn sheep or something like that.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we will review the analysis, and if it
is adequate to address the concerns, we will be able to move
forward. If we do need to do a supplemental analysis, we will
let you know.
The last thing that I would want us to do is----
Senator Feinstein. Could I just say one other thing? My
staff handed me this note, just so you know. There is local
opposition by NIMBY groups fully considered and dismissed by
BLM and the California Public Utilities Commission. So I mean,
you have to bear that in mind.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. If we are going to get this done, we
need to do it.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. You were going to say something?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, the last thing we would want to do is go
forward with a decision that lacked adequate analysis and thus
we find ourselves in court. I would much rather make sure we
have the adequate level of analysis so that we can implement
the project. That is one of the things we will be looking at.
We will take a very careful look at it, and either way we will
do everything we can to expedite this.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Senator Alexander.
ENERGY CORRIDOR SITING
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I wanted to move to ask about invasive species, but I
enjoyed listening to Senator Feinstein. The problem with
renewable energy for this country is the one of scale. For
example, if we were to have 20 percent of our electricity from
wind, we would have to build 19,000 miles of transmission
lines, and where will those transmission lines go? Well, the
easiest place to put them is not through somebody's suburban
backyard, but through the national forests or some conservation
easement land that we worked for 50 or 60 years to protect.
So I know that, on the one hand, the need for energy is
going to cause the DOE to say, well, here is a national
transportation corridor we want Congress to approve. But I
think at the same time we need to have the countervailing
policy from the USFS and the national parks to say, but wait a
minute, we have got some treasured landscapes that we want to
protect and we do not want to just override that for a little
bit of intermittent wind power or even intermittent solar power
for an area as large as southern California.
I know nothing about this project and have no comment on
it, but it illustrates the need for a good, rational policy for
what is basically a new phenomenon in our country. We did not
really have these issues to consider 20 years ago.
Senator Feinstein. Would you yield for 1 second?
Senator Alexander. Oh, I will yield for more than 1 second.
Senator Feinstein. How dare you to see a more difficult
permit process than the State of California has anywhere. It
goes on and on and on. And I guess my point is it has made its
way through every permit process, every evaluation. That is
pretty good because it does not happen many times.
Senator Alexander. No. But it is possible today--let me
just move it to the East--for someone to come build a--get a
bunch of Federal subsidies and build a big wind park right
outside the Cherokee National Forest in east Tennessee and then
say, okay, we want to run the transmission lines through the
national forest to get to Knoxville when it is a puny amount of
power that only works one-third of the time and we would not
want our vistas destroyed. We would not have thought of that
before.
So I do not have any comment on the southern California
issue. I am just saying that the chairman and I both would like
to introduce into the discussion the larger issue of how we
deal with renewable energy sprawl as it deals with deserts,
national forests, national parks.
INVASIVE SPECIES
But if I may, I would like for you to say something about
invasive species and what you are doing about that. That is a
big problem for us. The Great Smoky Mountains, for example, and
the Cherokee National Forest have more species of trees, for
example, than Europe, but we are about to lose all of the
hemlock trees. The gypsy moths have penetrated our whole
region. Our University of Tennessee is trying to do some
research work in the area, and we have some on-the-ground ways.
I have been there myself to see if you put beetles to try to
deal with the woolly adelgids that are destroying that are
destroying the hemlock trees. Your budget is cut for on-the-
ground treatments and research, I am told.
So what is your attitude about priority for invasive
species and research to try to find better ways to deal with
that?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, thank you for the question.
When it comes to invasives, we approach it both through our
research and also through management. We continue to need to be
able to do the research. As you mentioned, with this predator
beetle on the hemlock woolly adelgid, it does show promise as
potentially a control for the adelgid, and it is one of the
things that our research scientists have been working on. We
also want to continue to look for other ways to suppress the
adelgid, and it is essential that we are able to continue our
research.
But, at the same time, it is also essential for us to then
have management to see if there are some things that we can do
out on the landscape that will help slow down this spread and
increase the resistance of the hemlocks to this adelgid. So
that is how our research and management work together.
We also work very closely with universities with our
research and then also the States. Our State foresters are a
key partner as we address invasives. It is a perfect example of
this all-lands approach; invasives do not care. They do not pay
attention to the boundary on the map or the property ownership.
They are going to go wherever the host is. It is essential that
we work together with the private landowners and also with the
national forests as we take on these issues, so we can find a
solution across the entire landscape.
Senator Alexander. I would simply like to encourage you to,
wherever appropriate, work in partnership with universities in
States like the University of Tennessee or the State of
Tennessee or other States and universities to maximize our
bucks on this. You know, 40 years ago, the chestnut was our
major hardwood tree in the forests of the Eastern United
States. It is gone. The hemlocks appear to be going unless the
predator beetle or something else makes a difference.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Feinstein. I thank you very much.
Mr. Tidwell, let me just say that I think this subcommittee
is very interested. You are a new Chief. That is always an
exciting time. I mean, we look forward to your innovations,
your initiative. We all know that there is a place for that and
good management, and hopefully the USFS is going to thrive
under your management and we would like to be as much help to
you as we can. So please feel very welcome, despite our
questions, which were actually very mild questions.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
integrated resource restoration
Question. Your budget contains significant restructuring and policy
changes to the National Forest System (NFS) account, including a
proposal to merge three existing programs into this new ``Integrated
Resource Restoration'' program. Why is such a major budget
restructuring is necessary? Why do you think your current budget
structure does not allow you to meet your restoration objectives?
Answer. The Forest Service's (USFS) focus on forest landscape
restoration is the basis for the proposal to establish the Integrated
Resource Restoration program by combining the NFS--wildlife and
fisheries habitat management, forest products, and the vegetation and
watershed management budget line items (BLIs). In addition, the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund (CFLRF) previously
funded under the Wildland Fire Management appropriation is included
within this BLI because it shares a similar primary purpose to restore
forest landscapes. The NFS programs and the CFLRF all share similar and
complementary objectives to sustain and restore aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. Restoration and maintenance of sustainable landscapes and
watersheds requires a holistic approach and our ability to sustain
healthy watersheds will be facilitated by having a single BLI.
Combining the NFS budget line items is clearly a logical grouping that
enhances the USFS's ability to focus on integration.
timber supply
Question. I have received a letter from 14 Senators, including a
number of Senators who serve on this subcommittee, expressing serious
concern that this budget request creates uncertainty about the
availability of timber from public lands at a time when communities
that depend on the forest product industry for jobs can least afford
it. An adequate and predictable timber supply is critical to maintain
our existing forest products infrastructure. I am hoping you can
provide some clarity on exactly how much timber you plan to produce.
How many board feet of timber do you plan to produce in fiscal year
2011 with the funding level proposed by your budget?
Answer. The USFS proposes to sell 2.4 billion board feet of timber
with the proposed budget in fiscal year 2011.
Question. If we provide the USFS flexibility to spend your funding
on multiple restoration objectives, how can we be certain you will
actually produce that amount?
Answer. As identified in the budget justification, given the budget
proposed, the USFS intends our resource management and restoration
activities to generate a sale volume of 2.4 billion board feet. The
USFS will continue to track and report on our volume accomplishments.
Stewardship contracts and agreements will be USFS's primary means of
managing natural resources; this includes a focus on existing, new, and
emerging markets for wood removal and utilization. These tools provide
the USFS with the ability to exchange the value of the timber (goods)
for the cost of services, such as the nontimber harvest activities.
They also allow the USFS to supplement the value of the timber with
appropriated funding or retained receipts as necessary to accomplish
the specified nontimber harvest work.
stewardship contracting
Question. The success of your proposed restoration initiative
relies heavily on the use of stewardship contracting authorities.
However, even though stewardship contracting authorities have existed
for more than a decade, the USFS has not made widespread use of them.
You treated 88,000 acres in 2009 using these contracts, and I
understand that you plan to treat 121,000 acres this year. Yet your
fiscal year 2011 budget sets a target of restoring 600,000 acres using
stewardship contracts--a five-fold increase. How can we be confident
that you will be able to meet this aggressive target? What specific
steps do you plan to take to implement such a large increase in the use
of these contracts?
Answer. The USFS already has 10 years of experience in successfully
implementing stewardship end-results contracts. During this 10-year
period, our partners, cooperators, and employees have gained
considerable experience and have overcome numerous obstacles. To expand
the use of stewardship end-results contracting, we are finalizing the
development of a simplified single contract instrument. This contract
will focus on achieving the end results identified through the
collaborative process, facilitate best-value contracting, and protect
the interests of our stakeholders and the Government. Utilizing this
contract of choice, as another tool to implement stewardship end-
results contracting, the USFS will have an increased capacity to
accomplish more good work for national forests.
integrated resource restoration
Question. Within your new Integrated Resource Restoration program,
you propose $50 million for a ``Priority Watersheds and Job
Stabilization'' initiative to fund a number of long-term stewardship
contracts to improve watershed health and create jobs. How do you plan
to select projects under this initiative, and how many projects do you
expect to fund in 2011?
Answer. Selection criteria will be based, in part, on needs and
opportunities associated with restoration, partnerships, public use,
and ecological significance. Watersheds will be funded in a variety of
areas across the country but the number of projects will not be known
until proposals are evaluated and project selection is made. Priorities
will be informed by identification in the State forest assessments,
watershed condition, costs, and input from local communities.
The watersheds identified as most important to the public will be
brought forward for a more comprehensive evaluation. Proposed projects
will be evaluated through a national prioritization process with final
selections by the Chief of the USFS. Selection of biomass projects will
favor proposals that are coordinated with other Federal and State land
management agencies, as well as tribes; accomplish management
objectives with regard to forest function and health; create jobs or
contribute to job stability; and create or maintain traditional forest
products or biomass/renewable energy development. Nontimber, forest
jobs will be prioritized using the proportion of non-Federal matching
funds and the number of jobs for youth that will be generated. Creating
job opportunities for youth in rural areas will be an important
component of this initiative.
biomass utilization
Question. Your budget request states that you will conduct an USFS-
wide biomass assessment to help prioritize and support the development
of biomass utilization facilities. I've been very concerned about the
lack of biomass infrastructure in areas like the Lake Tahoe basin,
where the cost of transporting biomass can be prohibitive and the USFS
is still forced to depend on piling and burning to dispose of much of
its forest waste. How will your budget proposal specifically increase
biomass utilization?
Answer. One of the underlying concerns in the development of a
woody biomass utilization facility is assuring a reliable and
predictable supply of biomass. Any investment in infrastructure will
require a long-term supply of raw material (excess woody biomass).
Instead of piling and burning of this excess biomass, the USFS-wide
biomass assessment identified in the fiscal year 2011 budget
justification will help to prioritize and support the development of
bio-energy facilities and other biomass utilization facilities.
One example includes the Kings Beach area of North Lake Tahoe,
California, where the USFS is currently working with Placer County to
establish a 3-megawatt combined heat and power facility. Woody biomass
comes from forest health restoration projects on the Lake Tahoe Basin
Management Unit. The project used one of the biomass assessment tools,
the coordinated resource offering protocol (CROP) study, to assess the
availability of woody biomass in the next 5 years. The project is
moving forward at this time.
The USFS is integrating biomass utilization efforts with partners
(Departments of the Interior, Energy, Defense, and Commerce, as well as
USDA and EPA), including implementing new fiscal year 2008 farm bill
authorities such as the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, and
coordinating with communities, State foresters, and tribes. The EPA is
working directly with the Department of Energy on 49 new bioenergy
facilities to pilot and demonstrate wood-to-energy technologies.
In fiscal year 2011, $20 million is targeted to farm bill programs
that encourage market development for biomass materials removed from
the wildland-urban interface (WUI). The Forest Biomass for Energy
Program (section 9012), administered by USFS research and development,
is funded at $15 million, and the Community Wood Energy Program
(section 9013) is funded at $5 million. Since 2005, the USFS awarded a
total of $24.5 million (98 grants) to help improve NFS hazardous fuel
reduction activities.
In addition, the USFShas identified 20 CROP study areas capable of
providing a sustainable woody biomass resource. The USFS will continue
to expand on the number of CROP study areas, and to provide available
biomass information for these study areas to potential investors.
collaborative forest landscape restoration act
Question. The subcommittee provided $10 million to begin funding
Restoration Act projects this year and asked you as part of the fiscal
year 2010 Interior Appropriations Act to provide a list of projects you
plant to fund by March 1. Unfortunately, we have not yet received that
list from you. When do you expect to have this year's projects
selected? What criteria will be used to choose the final recipients?
Answer. The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 requires
proposals to be reviewed and recommendation for selection made by an
advisory panel. The advisory panel is subject to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA). The FACA process is fairly lengthy, but the
notice of intent to establish the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration (CFLR) Advisory Committee and call for nominations was
published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2010. Committee
member selection is anticipated no later than April 30, 2010. Upon
selection of prospective committee members, a background check for each
will require approximately 3 weeks to complete. The USFS anticipates
that the CFLR Advisory Committee will be in place by June 2010 and is
currently soliciting CFLR proposals from the field.
The request for proposals, sent to the regional foresters on
February 24, provides guidance to ensure that the proposals are
responsive to CFLR requirements and are organized to allow efficient
evaluation by the CFLR Advisory Committee. Proposals are due May 14,
2010 and projects will be selected in July 2010. The following
criteria, as required in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009
will be used in the selection: the strength of the proposal and
strategy; the strength of the ecological rationale; the strength of the
collaborative process; the ability to reduce long-term wildfire
management costs; the ability to reduce costs through the use of woody
biomass; and, the ability to leverage non-Federal investments. The CFLR
Advisory Committee may add additional criteria.
quincy library group (qlg)
Question. I understand that there has been some confusion regarding
how much the USFS plans to spend to implement QLG activities in fiscal
year 2010. Could you please confirm for me exactly how much you plan to
spend this year on QLG projects?
Answer. The USFS has allocated $26.2 million for QLG activities in
fiscal year 2010.
Question. How much is in your budget for QLG projects for fiscal
year 2011? Can you assure me that the funding for QLG is not going to
get cut, given the proposed changes to your restoration budget?
Answer. The USFS does not propose any reductions for QLG. The
fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $26.2 million for QLG
projects, the same level as fiscal year 2010.
Question. I have been very concerned that the USFS continues to be
unable to meet the 40,000-to-60,000-acre annual treatment target set by
the legislation authorizing QLG. Last year at this hearing I discussed
these targets with Chief Kimbell. She testified that the USFS planned
to treat approximately 18,000 acres in 2009 and 20,000 acres in 2010.
Did the USFS meet your 2009 acreage target?
Answer. No, the USFS treated 14,370 acres in fiscal year 2009.
Appeals and litigation have greatly reduced the ability to implement
the pilot project, which, along with the economy, has resulted in the
project area losing forest product industries. The Sierra Pacific
recently closed their QLG small log sawmill. The USFS plans to treat
25,476 acres in fiscal year 2010.
Question. How many acres do you plan to treat in the QLG area in
2011?
Answer. The USFS plans to treat more than 21,000 acres in fiscal
year 2011.
federal land assistance, management and enhancement (flame) act
Question. Last year the subcommittee enacted the FLAME Act of 2009,
which required a number of firefighting budget and accountability
reforms. As you know, one of the major changes under this new law was
the creation of a $413 million appropriations account, the FLAME Fund,
to fund large wildfire incidents this year. I understand the USFS has
been working your Department to set up this new account. How will the
USFS ensure that the FLAME Fund is up and running so that funding will
be seamlessly available to the field for firefighting needs this year?
Answer. The USFS is confident that implementation of the FLAME Fund
will be seamless and not affect the availability of funds for
firefighting needs. All fire expenditures will be made out of the
wildfire suppression account, which current has sufficient funds to
carry the USFS through most of the existing fiscal year due to
carryover funding from last year and depending on the severity of this
year's fire season. We are finalizing our procedures for implementation
of the FLAME Fund.
The FLAME Act funds will be available to the Secretary of
Agriculture to be transferred into the suppression account when the
suppression account is nearly exhausted and/or certain objective
criteria are met.
The fund will help address the challenges of budgeting for fire
suppression and enable the USFS to respond effectively during highly
variable fire seasons.
Question. I'm pleased that you've provided $1.2 billion for fire
suppression appropriations, including $595 million for base fire
suppression programs and $291 million to continue the FLAME Fund in
2011. However, I'm concerned you've also created additional bureaucracy
by adding on a third fund, the Presidential Wildland Fire Contingency
Reserve Fund, on top of your two other firefighting appropriations. Why
do you need three separate firefighting appropriations? Why is it
necessary to create this Contingent Reserve Fund?
Answer. The Presidential Wildland Fire Contingency Reserve Fund
will help address the challenges of annual budgeting for changeable
fire suppression needs and enable the USFS to respond effectively
during highly variable fire seasons. Upon forecast of FLAME fund
depletion, a Presidential declaration can authorize transfer of funds
from the Presidential Contingency Fund. A Presidential declaration for
use of these funds is to be based on an analysis of risk decisions made
for type 1 and 2 fires. An approved Presidential declaration, in
effect, indicates that the USFS is worthy of accessing this fund due to
effective and accountable operations.
This special contingency account will provide a backstop for the
unpredictability of fire seasons and ensure that other key USFS
programs are not disrupted if fire transfer would otherwise have to be
employed to meet firefighting funding needs in years of above average
fire activity/costs.
hazardous fuels
Question. Your budget proposes $349 million for hazardous fuels
reduction, roughly equal to the level provided by Congress for this
fiscal year. Within that amount, you propose a number of changes to
your program of work, including an increased emphasis on treating acres
in the WUI and $20 million to fund two new biomass utilization grant
programs. How many acres do you plan to treat in 2011, and how you will
select those acres?
Answer. The USFS proposes treating 1.6 million acres in fiscal year
2011. The USFS will focus on treating the more expensive high-priority
wildland urban interface treatment acres and areas that have completed
a Community Wildfire Protection Plan or an equivalent plan.
biomass utilization
Question. How these new biomass utilization grants would be used?
Why do you think funding for these grants is a better investment than
funding additional fuels reduction work on the ground?
Answer. As part of title IX of the 2008 farm bill, 2 new biomass
grant programs were established. The Community Wood Energy Program
(section 9013, Public Law 110-246) creates a new program to support
State, Tribal, and local governments in developing community wood
energy plans and to acquire or upgrade wood energy systems for public
facilities. Eligible public facilities are those owned or operated by
State or local governments which use woody biomass as the primary fuel
which have or could install single facility central heating, district
heating, combined heat and energy systems, and other related biomass
energy systems.
To ensure wood energy systems match the available fuel supply a
community wood energy plan will be required before program funds are
used to acquire equipment. Support will be for systems that are smaller
than 5 million Btu per hour heating and/or 2 megawatts for electric
power production as directed by statute. The plans will be required to
address potential air quality impacts of the proposed systems and
compliance with applicable air quality rules and performance standards.
State foresters and many other groups interested in forest health,
hazardous fuels reduction, and renewable energy have expressed interest
in supporting and participating in this new program.
The Forest Biomass for Energy Program (section 9012, Public Law
110-246) will be a research and development program to encourage use of
forest biomass for energy. The grant program priorities are fully in
line with the bioenergy and bio-based products research and development
program. The creation of a sustainable bioindustry producing biofuels
and bioproducts on a significant scale is critically dependent on
having a large, sustainable supply of biomass with appropriate
characteristics at a reasonable cost; cost-effective and efficient
processes for converting wood to biofuels, chemicals, and other high-
value products; and useful tools for decision-making and policy
analysis. If the program is funded, Forest Service Research &
Development will administer grants.
Energy security, development of renewable energy, combating global
climate change, and wildfire risk reduction are national priorities,
and the utilization of woody biomass plays a role in each, as well as
in the management of long-term forest health. Energy from biomass has
the potential to contribute significantly to meeting the Nation's goals
for domestic energy production and reducing carbon emissions. There is
a national desire to ensure that expansion of wood-based bioenergy does
not result in negative consequences like forest degradation and loss of
ecosystem services. USFS has also raised significant concerns and
challenge regarding the air quality impacts of small wood fired boilers
and heaters. Issues of sustainability include overall quantities of
biomass that can be produced without negative impacts, effects at both
the landscape scale (e.g., overall land use change) and site scale
(local impacts from harvest or facility development).
The new biomass programs can help the USFS and partners address
issues of scale, environmental impacts, social acceptance, public lands
management, and rural economic development. The new grants, as well as
the continuation of the Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program, will
continue to link benefits to NFS forest health, watershed, and habitat
objectives as well as achieve sustainable, biomass utilization to the
States and local communities.
airtankers
Question. At this hearing last year I expressed serious concern
about the declining number of firefighting air tankers available to the
USFS. Since 2002, you have lost almost 60 percent of your fleet to
safety and maintenance issues. Your own Inspector General confirmed in
a July 2009 report that your remaining 19 aircraft will start reaching
the end of their service life in 2012. This subcommittee asked the USFS
to present an aviation strategy that lays out a plan to address your
air tanker shortage as part of our 2010 Interior bill. Nearly 5 months
have passed since we asked for this plan and we have still not heard
how the USFS intends to respond. When will the USFS share its
recommendations with the subcommittee for upgrading its air tanker
fleet?
Answer. The USFS recognizes the need for an overall airtanker
strategy to plan for a future airtanker fleet and will work closely
with the subcommittee to develop an acceptable strategy to deal with
the rapidly aging airtanker fleet. The USFS and our interagency
partners are also working on the cohesive strategy, as directed by the
Congress, which will provide strategic insights for balancing wildland
fire response, fire-adapted human communities, and landscape
restoration.
station fire
Question. Last August, the Station Fire destroyed 160,000 acres in
the biggest fire event in the history of Los Angeles. At the time there
were many questions raised about the appropriateness of the USFS's
response. Some still believe that these questions have not been
answered. Did the USFS's incident commanders call for firefighting
airplanes on initial attack? And were they fully utilized?
Answer. Yes, the USFSdid order and use a full complement of
aircraft for initial attack on the Station Fire. Air resources
mobilized on the first day of the fire included two air tankers, seven
helicopters, one lead plane and two air attack planes. The lead and air
attack planes are used to manage air traffic over the fire and
coordinate with firefighters on the ground.
Air resources on the second day of the Station Fire included six
air tankers, seven helicopters, two lead planes, and three air attack
planes. Aircraft were provided through USFS contracts, and Los Angeles
County and Los Angeles City cooperating agreements. These aircraft were
part of an aggressive initial response to the Station Fire which also
included 13 fire engines, 9, 20-person hand crews, 3 water tenders, and
2 patrol units.
After the Station Fire, USFS Chief Thomas Tidwell commissioned a
review of the initial suppression actions (first 48 hours). A panel
consisting of members from the USFS, the Los Angeles County Fire
Department and the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE released a report on November 13, 2009 concluding
that incident managers from the Angeles National Forest acted in
accordance with accepted wildland firefighting practices. It determined
that fire mangers had clear intent from their leader and that they
deployed fire suppression resources only in those conditions where they
would be safe and effective.
Question. In the wake of the Station Fire, State and local
officials have expressed concern that USFS firefighting policy is not
as aggressive as it could be. This sentiment is best expressed in a
letter I received from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors,
that notes ``U.S. Forest Service fire suppression policies limit . . .
the use of State and local government personnel, equipment and aircraft
for early attack and suppression of fires within the Angeles National
Forest.'' Local officials believe that current USFS policy is allowing
fires to burn from Federal lands onto their jurisdictions, and they
believe that these policies must be changed. Can you please tell us how
the USFS plans to work with State and local fire departments to ensure
that all available resources are utilized in the most aggressive manner
possible to keep fires from burning into heavily populated areas?
Answer. The Pacific Southwest Region has a strong track record of
working with cooperators on aggressive Initial Attack and often
establishes joint or unified command on fires.
The USFS did not hold back any firefighting resources in fighting
the Station Fire. In fact, resources not immediately being used on the
nearby Morris Fire were rerouted to assist in suppression efforts on
the Station Fire.
In October 2009, Chief Tidwell commissioned a review of the initial
suppression actions (first 48 hours) on the Station Fire. The resulting
report in question 17 was released on November 13, 2009 and is
available on the USFS homepage at www.fs.fed.us.
This report includes assessments of several key factors such as
topography, weather, vegetative (``fuel'') conditions, and threats to
both communities and natural resources. It does, in fact, also discuss
decisions made on the ground by fire commanders and what the impacts of
those decisions were in suppressing the Station Fire. There have been
no changes in operating protocol as a result of the findings of the
Station Fire Initial Attack Review.
night-time flying
Question. Night-time aerial firefighting operations have the
potential to double the amount of time that full-fledged fire
suppression activities can take place. Several jurisdictions in
California, including Los Angeles County and the city of San Diego,
have authorized, equipped and trained their fire aviation fleets to
operate at night and other low visibility conditions. While I
understand that the USFS is reviewing the feasibility of flying at
night, the USFS's official position is that this activity still that is
too unsafe to authorize. What is the status of your internal review on
night flying, and when do you expect it to be completed? Will you
provide the subcommittee with an update once the review has been
completed?
Answer. The review of night-time helicopter operations is underway
and the evaluation is being led by staff at the San Dimas Technology
Center in California, with support from contractors and NASA. Efforts
have been focused to understand the mission more completely; review the
history of the programs, review current programs employed by counties,
Federal agencies, and the military, reviewing current and emerging
commercial technology, studying risk associated with night operations,
integration issues with our existing aviation and ground operations
program and benefit/cost analysis. The USFS anticipates completing this
review in fall of 2010 and will provide the subcommittee copies of the
final report as soon as they are available.
Question. If you determine that night-time aerial firefighting can
be done safely, will you provide this subcommittee with an assessment
of expected costs and potential benefits?
Answer. Yes.
firefighter retention
Question. I have been concerned about firefighter vacancies on
national forests in California, as well as reports that the USFS has
had difficulty retaining experienced firefighters because of pay
disparities and morale issues. As you may know, I supported $28 million
in prior-year funding to develop and implement retention strategies to
keep firefighters in Federal service. I understand that the USFS used
this money to provide a 10 percent retention bonus to certain
firefighters and used the rest of the money to convert seasonal
employees to full-time, year-round staff. Have there been improvements
in firefighter retention in my State since these incentives were
implemented?
Answer. Yes, the USFS has seen improvements in firefighter
retention since the incentives were implemented. The graph ``Permanent
Firefighter Resignations in Region 5'' displays those improvements.
The overall attrition rate for calendar year 2009 is below 8
percent from a high of 13 percent in 2007. The resignation rate dropped
from a high of more than 7 percent in 2007 to 3 percent in 2009. The
graph, ``Permanent Firefighter Resignations by Grade in Region 5,''
below, demonstrates declines in resignation rates across all grades,
suggesting that incentives have helped to improve retention rates.
Question. If so, what percentage of these improvements can be
attributed to the retention strategies and what percent can be
attributed other factors, such as State and local hiring freezes?
Answer. It is difficult to quantitatively determine what portion of
the employees did not leave as a result of the implementation of the
retention strategies or because of hiring freezes by State or local
fire departments. The below table displays the percentage and number of
the resignation rates attributed to employees leaving to California
State, county, and local fire departments, pre- and post-retention
incentives. This information shows a significant decrease in these
resignations since the retention incentives were implemented.
RESIGNATION OF REGION 5 FIREFIGHTERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Percentage of
employees resignations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-retention 3/1/08 thru 2/28/09: CA 44 33
State, county, and local fire
departments............................
Pre-retention 3/1/09 thru 2/28/10: CA 8 19
State, county, and local fire
departments............................
-------------------------------
Change............................ -36 -15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How many firefighters will your agency field in
California this year?
Answer. The graph ``Permanent Fire Employees in Region 5'' displays
the history of fire employee populations along with the attrition rate
for those time periods. The USFS in California has more than 2,100
permanent fire employees. In April, Region 5 is conducting another
round of hiring for key permanent firefighting positions GS 06-10. At
this time the USFS is planning for almost 4,300 permanent, apprentice
and temporary employees, plus 52 Organized AD and Contract Hand crews
made up of an additional 1,040 call-when-needed firefighters.
Question. Can you assure me that the USFS will employ an adequate
number of experienced firefighters in my State for fire season?
Answer. Yes. As the previous questions indicate we are doing a
better job of retaining experienced fire personnel.
energy
Question. I do not support a first-come, first-serve approach to
permitting renewable energy development on Federal lands.
Unfortunately, it appears that the USFS is taking such an approach. I
believe that the Federal Government should plan the development in a
manner that is in the best interest of the public. That is why I have
proposed in the California Desert Protection Act of 2010 that the USFS
conduct a development planning process, known as a programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), for wind, solar and biomass
energy. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is doing such an EIS to
bring order to the solar permitting process, after it took development
applications for years on a first-come, first-serve basis without
regard to where development belonged. Does the USFS intend to initiate
a planning process, mirroring that now going on at BLM, to assure that
renewable energy development on USFS land is consistent, considers the
public interest, and is focused on the land best suited for this use?
Answer. Renewable energy production and transmission is an
important consideration in the comprehensive management of the 193
million acres NFS land. Early coordination among all interests is a key
element in properly locating energy production and transmission. Each
energy resource has unique characteristics guiding its proper location
within the NFS.
The USFS and the BLM recently prepared a comprehensive evaluation
of geothermal energy within BLM and NFS lands. The results of the study
are used to guide the location of future geothermal energy production.
The USFS and the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) completed a 2005 study, Assessing the Potential for
Renewable Energy on National Forest System Lands, to assess the overall
potential for such development on NFS land. This report will assist
forest planners and resource managers in identifying NFS lands that
have the highest potential for industrial development of wind and solar
energy.
To date, requests for the use of NFS land for wind and solar energy
production have been rather modest, fewer than 15 inquiries in total.
No solar facilities have been requested and only one wind energy
facility is under study for authorization. These studies and the
relatively low interest in wind and solar production on NFS land
indicate that additional evaluations of these energy sources are not
appropriate at this time. Should a competitive interest occur, the USFS
will issue a prospectus, ensuring that the public's best interests are
addressed (36 CFR 251.58(c)(3)(ii)).
______
Question Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
land acquisition
Question. I understand that the Forest Service (USFS) has recently
modified its ranking criteria for land acquisition projects. Could you
tell me a little about that ranking process?
Please include in your response some specifics on how a project
might be a top priority one year and not be ranked at all the
subsequent year. This was the case for a project in my State. Land
acquisition in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest ranked high in
the President's fiscal year 2010 budget and received Federal funding
that year, but didn't make it on the regional priorities list for
fiscal year 2011, even though it was only partially funded and needs
additional monies to be completed.
It is my understanding that projects which received prior-year
funding, and are not yet completed are usually considered a Department
priority. Is that no longer the case?
Answer. The USFS land acquisition list is a national listing of the
administration's proposed priority acquisitions. The criteria used to
evaluate and rank projects were based on resource attributes, achieving
administration conservation objectives, and advancing the goals of the
USFS's strategic plan. The nine criteria used to evaluate and rank
projects were: healthy watersheds; wetlands and riparian habitat;
diverse habitats for threatened and endangered species; adaptation to
the effects of climate change; conserving forests for landscape
restoration; recreational uses and improved public access; cultural and
heritage resources; projects situated within congressionally designated
areas (e.g., wilderness, wild, and scenic river); and increased
management efficiency.
Each region applies the above criteria to projects submitted by
individual national forests to evaluate and rank projects for
consideration by a national review panel composed of several
individuals representing different parts of the USFS. The panel
considers the regions' ranking, along with other factors, such as a
region's capacity to complete the acquisition, the level of local
support for the acquisition, and achieving a national distribution of
projects across regions and landscapes. The new criteria includes
consideration of a project's prior-year funding, but past funding is
not a guarantee that a project would rank sufficiently high to be
included in the President's budget submission.
The USFS is reviewing its project ranking and selection process to
consider revisions for fiscal year 2012 and is aware of the additional
funding needs for projects where remaining parcels are to be acquired.
Should the Eastern Region submit a land acquisition project on the
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest for fiscal year 2012, the national
panel will carefully evaluate it for consideration of funds.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
black hills national forest
Question. The total planned volume sold in the fiscal year 2011
President's budget request is 2.716 billion board feet (bbf), down from
2.909 bbf in the fiscal year 2010 budget request. What effect will a
reduction in the national program have on the Black Hills National
Forest? How much additional funding would be required to raise the
national volume to 3 bbf annually?
Answer. There is some confusion in the budget justification tables
that show the sold volume proposed for accomplishment in fiscal year
2011. The total sold volume for fiscal year 2011, 2,400 million board
feet (MMBF) shown under the forest products program, is a unified
accomplishment level. This total is made up of 2,000 MMBF of green
timber, 250 MMBF of salvage volume, and 150 MMBF in the K-V authority.
The salvage and K-V volumes are included in the total and thus are not
additive. Thus, to produce 3,000 MMBF of timber volume sold,
appropriated funding for an additional 600 MMBF would be needed. It is
estimated that an additional $92 million would be required to produce
this volume. The production of this volume is dependent on finalizing
the National Environmental Protection Act decision on the project and
the timber market at the time of proposed sale.
Nationally, in fiscal year 2009, the Forest Service (USFS) sold
2,508 MMBF and has targeted the sale of approximately 2,546 MMBF in
fiscal year 2010. The USFS anticipates that the fiscal year 2011
projected program will result in a reduction on the Black Hills
National Forest.
Question. In the fiscal year 2010 budget allocation, Region 2
received an additional $40 million to address bark beetle epidemics,
Montana received $20 million to address a bark beetle epidemic, and
Idaho received $14 million to address a bark beetle epidemic. Those
funds, while tremendously important and appreciated, are far short of
what is necessary. The fiscal year 2011 budget is silent on how, or
whether, to pay for the enormous costs associated with addressing the
bark beetle epidemics. Does the President's budget request include
sufficient funding to address the bark beetle epidemics for fiscal year
2011? If not, what is your strategy for identifying and requesting
those funds?
Answer. Addressing the spread and effects of the bark beetle
epidemic will require a multi-faceted and multi-year approach, and the
USFS's fiscal year 2011 budget request reflects this approach and need.
Specific funding and programs addressing the bark beetle epidemic are
described below.
The USFS will continue to fund management action to reduce forest
susceptibility to beetle outbreaks and protect high-value trees. In
coordination with partners and stakeholders, the USFS will direct funds
to the areas that have been experiencing tree mortality as a result of
beetle infestations both to ensure public safety and to reduce the
impact on forested ecosystems.
National Forest System management will prioritize treatments to
restore health and resilience of forested ecosystems to facilitate
adaptation to the stresses created by climate change through landscape
restoration projects. This includes implementing projects to treat
forested landscapes that are highly vulnerable to bark beetle
infestations. The expanded use of stewardship contracting will increase
opportunity to leverage commercial thinning opportunities to accomplish
additional treatments to enhance forest resiliency by exchanging the
value of forest products generated for additional restoration
treatments.
The forest health management request includes funding to meet the
highest-priority prevention and suppression needs on forests managed by
the USFS, other Federal agencies, tribal lands and non-Federal lands.
Forest health management programs provide for detection, monitoring,
evaluation, prevention and suppression of bark beetles on the Nations'
forested lands.
The Eastern Forest and Western Wildland Environmental Threat
Assessment Centers--in partnership with Government agencies,
universities, and nongovernmental organizations--provide national
leadership in developing knowledge and tools to respond to emerging
issues and threats associated with new and potential bark beetle
infestations.
USFS research scientists will continue to evaluate potential future
effects of climate change in order to identify natural resource
vulnerabilities and prioritize management actions to enhance resilience
of natural systems. This includes development of a cohesive, coherent
model to help land manager predict the interacting behavior of fire and
bark beetles under selected climate change scenarios.
Question. Virtually the entire Black Hills National Forest timber
sale program is geared to reducing fire hazard or mountain pine beetle
risk. Further, most of the recent NEPA decisions have included new road
construction. How will eliminating all funding for road construction/
reconstruction affect implementation of the Black Hills National Forest
forest plan, reducing fire risks, thinning the forest, and addressing
the pine beetle epidemic?
Answer. Fuels management and vegetative treatments needed for
control of the pine beetle epidemic will focus primarily on areas where
new road construction and upgrades to existing roads are not required.
The elimination of the road improvement activity will have little
impact on the Black Hills National Forest timber sale program. Any new
road construction will continue to be included as a purchaser
requirement within the timber sale offering and will therefore be
funded by the sale product value and not appropriated road funding.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
collaboration
Question. Anecdotal and collected data show that up-front
collaboration is breaking the gridlock in our forests and help to get
work accomplished on the ground. Your agency is encouraging this in the
budget through new programs like the Forest Landscape Restoration Act
and the Jobs and Watershed Stabilization Fund, but what are you doing
to train your district rangers and line officers to facilitate
collaboration and build local support for projects?
Answer. The Forest Service (USFS) offers multiple opportunities for
dynamic learning using both internal and university and partner
resources. The USFS enables line officers flexibility in their approach
and allows the individual and situation to dictate what is most
important in a given situation.
The USFS is employing a range of methods to train line officers in
facilitating collaboration. First, the USFS has made available several
training modules related to collaboration, through the USDA portal for
e-learning. By completing training courses on this portal, USFS
employees can earn credits towards development goals.
Complementing this online resource, line officers will soon be able
to also use the USFS's Partnership Resource Center, our online vehicle
for advancing collaboration and partnerships. As part of this effort,
the USFS is launching a new e-Collaboration feature which will create a
Web environment for exchanges and networking. The site, scheduled to
relaunch in May or June 2010, will also offer new resources and tools,
both internally and externally built and tested.
The USFS is also actively engaged in various cross-sector,
capacity-building exercises alongside our partners, the audience with
whom we implement projects and ideas. One example includes
participating in a recent capacity-building session in Skamania,
Washington, with grantees as well as the National Forest Foundation
(NFF) (recent capacity-building session in Skamania, Washington, with
grantees).
The USFS offers line officers a range of peer-learning
opportunities. Line officers have participated in peer-learning
sessions, sponsored by the NFF, to exchange knowledge and best
practices and build relationships, to facilitate stewardship
contracting and agreements. Working across agencies, line officers have
also participated in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sponsored
distance learning course, Managing by Network. This course uses WebEx
conferencing to join participants with their colleagues and a
management coach to discuss and learn how to manage their work through
networks of partnerships, contracts, volunteers, and alliances, and how
to apply best management practices to their current partnerships and
community collaboration responsibilities.
fire
Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget finally addresses
firefighting in a separate budget with the Federal Land Assistance,
Management and Enhancement (FLAME) Fund and the President's
discretionary fund. Yet you cut the investment in local and State
firefighting funds. Why? How do you plant to help assist States? Also
why is it necessary to have two contingency funds? Why is the
secretarial discretion not sufficient? If it was so important for
Congress and this subcommittee to pass the authorization for the FLAME
Act, why was it not necessary for the subcommittee to pass the same
authorizing authority for the Presidential discretionary fund?
Answer. The President's budget proposal of $50,104,000 for State
Fire Assistance (SFA) funding, while down from the fiscal year 2010
enacted level, is consistent with prior funding requests for this
account. These program funds complement the SFA program that is funded
through the State and private forestry appropriation.
As in prior years, the USFS will continue to provide SFA funding to
State foresters to address important and unique needs relating to
hazardous fuel treatment, wildland fire prevention, hazard mitigation,
and wildland fire suppression response. The SFA funding will continue
to be used to maintain and enhance coordination and communication with
Federal agencies as well as for critical preparedness needs including
firefighter safety, enhanced initial attack capability, and training.
State foresters make determinations about how to target funding to the
highest-priority needs identified in their State.
The proposed budget also contains a discretionary Presidential
contingency reserve account for firefighting which would be used if the
Suppression and FLAME Act accounts are exhausted and specific criteria
are adequately addressed.
This special contingency account will provide a backstop for the
unpredictability of fire seasons and ensure that other key EPA programs
are not disrupted if fire transfer would otherwise have to be employed
to meet firefighting funding needs in years of above average fire
activity/costs.
The Secretary's discretion covers the funding needed to cover the
10-year average costs for suppressing wildfire. The President's
Contingency Reserve Fund provides funding over and above the 10-year
average cost for suppression of fires. It will make available an
additional $282 million if the fire season is extreme and suppression
and FLAME Act funds are depleted.
road budget
Question. Your budget drastically reduces the road maintenance
budget and clearly outlines the USFS's desire to reduce the number of
roads the USFS maintains by 6,000 miles. To properly remove roads and
restore watershed takes money. How does defunding this budget properly
address the goal reducing the USFS's duplicative road infrastructure?
Wouldn't it be wiser to increase funding to assure roads are properly
converted to trails, decommissioned and re-contoured?
In the ``Right Sizing'' of the road system, what steps does the
USFS consider to be a reclaimed road? Is this fully re-contouring? What
is the impact on leaving these road beds on water quality and fish
habitat?
Answer. The USFS is managing multiple priorities within a
constrained budget. The reduction reflects a curtailment in the
construction of new roads and upgrading existing roads while keeping
the maintenance funding relatively level (a decrease of 1.5 percent)
with the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The USFS will focus on
maintaining the existing transportation system. Other appropriated
programs such as legacy roads and trails and deferred maintenance and
infrastructure Improvement complement the roads program. Road work
accomplished under these programs, including decommissioning, support
the USFS's priorities to repair and maintain roads and trails that
affect water resources and ecosystem function, and to reduce the
deferred maintenance backlog. Nonurgent work will be deferred.
Road decommissioning decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and
consider many factors such as topography, climate, geology, and risks
to threatened and endangered species. Some roads may require
recontouring to ensure that decommissioning is effective and to
mitigate resource damage; some roads will be decommissioned with
limited effort. Those sections that do not require full recontouring
are considered to be low risk, and have minimal impact on water quality
and fish habitat.
planning rule
Question. As you well know the current planning rule was issues in
1986 and is scientifically and socially outdated. On December 18 you
announced an effort to write a new planning rule under the National
Forest Management Act. What is the progress on this effort?
Do you really think a new rule will solve our problems?
Answer. The USFS is analyzing public comments received in response
to the notice of intent issued December 18, 2009. The USFS will host a
National Science Forum and a series of public meetings through mid-May
2010 to provide opportunities for public input and dialogue on the
development of a new planning rule. Further information on these
meetings is available at on the planning rule Web site, http://
www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule. Through collaboration on the planning
rule, the USFS will be able to better address current and future needs
of the National Forest System (NFS) such as restoration, protecting
watersheds, addressing climate change, sustaining local economies,
improving collaboration, and working across landscapes. The USFS
expects to publish the draft environmental impact statement in December
2010 and the final environmental impact statement in October 2011.
energy planning
Question. Chief Tidwell, the Mountain States Transmission Intertie
(MSTI) line is working to cite and build a 500kv line in Montana. Some
of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) alternatives for this line
cross FS land. How are you working with the stakeholders, Interior and
State Departments to find reasonable solutions to citing this and
future transmission lines?
Answer. The USFS is a cooperating EPA in the MSTI project and works
closely with the joint lead agencies--the BLM and Montana Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Under BLM and MDEQ project management, we
have collaborated with several other agencies, starting in 2008 with
the Montana Major Facility Act process. We have also participated in
numerous interagency meetings and public meetings to identify issues
and alternatives. As alternative routes are proposed in response to
specific issues, many of those proposals would cross NFS lands outside
of designated corridors. In those situations, the EPA identifies
resource concerns and land management plan implications, then
collaborates to refine the routing in a manner that reduces unnecessary
conflicts, such as crossing inventoried roadless areas. As a result,
the USFS has identified a reasonable range of feasible alternatives,
including some that do cross NFS lands outside of designated corridors.
Those alternatives will be studied in detail in the draft EIS which is
scheduled for public release in June 2010.
Question. What are you doing to work with Interior and the State of
Montana and plan energy transmission corridors?
Answer. During forest plan revision, the USFS has been consulting
with other Federal and State agencies on a variety of topics, including
utility corridor designation. Recently, the USFS participated with many
other Federal agencies in the West-wide Energy Corridors process
mandated by Environmental Protection Act of 2005, section 368. The
State of Montana has made many valuable comments relative to NFS lands
on the draft Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), which
many have been adopted in the final PEIS. As specific major
transmission projects are proposed, we cooperate with the State first
in the Montana Major Facility Siting Act process, followed by
cooperation in the Montana Environmental Protection Act and processes.
The Forest Service also works closely with BLM and other Federal
agencies, as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding
Coordination in Federal Agency Review of Electric Transmission
Facilities on Federal Land (dated October 28, 2009). As individual
project siting is completed, new or revised energy corridors may be
designated through land management plan amendment, as provided for in
subsection 368(c). Prior to issuing the record of decision for the
section 368 corridors, the Montana Governor's office reviewed the
corridors as required by the BLM's governors consistency review
process. Based on that review, Montana offered no revisions for the 368
corridors on NFS lands.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
travel management
Question. Recently the Forest Service (USFS) completed a revision
of the Travel Management Plan in Mississippi. This plan has created
much consternation among users of the National Forests in Mississippi.
For many years, forests in Mississippi were open for use for all-
terrain vehicle (ATV) enthusiasts and hunters. Currently, many of the
trails and roads that were utilized by these users are closed and
prohibitions on the use of ATVs within the forest also exist. It is my
hope that the USFS can address the needs of all users.
Mr. Tidwell, can you tell me what resources the USFS will need to
ensure that all users of forests will be able to fully access and
utilize the forests?
Answer. Very few places exist on the National Forests and
grasslands that are closed to access by all users. However, the method
of access and/or time of year may be restricted. The travel management
rule, promulgated on November 9, 2005, requires that all administrative
units designate those National Forest System (NFS) roads, NFS trails,
and areas on NFS lands that are open to motor vehicle use. When making
designations, specific criteria must be considered including the
effects on natural and cultural resources, public safety, recreational
opportunities, etc. Decisions on which NFS routes and areas to
designate are left up to the local line officers--district rangers and
forest supervisors--since they are most familiar with the local
situation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
airtankers
Question. Page 137 of the House Report 111-316, accompanying the
fiscal year 2010 Interior Appropriations Act, states that: ``The
Conferees reiterate the House and Senate direction concerning readiness
required for public safety and the requirement that the Forest Service
provide a copy of its report on Federal air tanker needs, including an
estimate of replacement costs, within 30 days of enactment of this
Act.'' (emphasis added)
Apparently, this report has not yet been submitted. What is the
status of that report currently, and when can members expect to see it?
Answer. The Forest Service (USFS) recognizes the need for an
overall airtanker strategy to plan for a future airtanker fleet and
will work closely with the subcommittee to develop an acceptable
strategy to deal with the rapidly aging airtanker fleet. The USFS and
our interagency partners are also working on the cohesive strategy, as
directed by the Congress, which will provide strategic insights for
balancing wildland fire response, fire adapted human communities and
landscape restoration.
Question. I am told that, last summer, the Department's Office of
Inspector General stated that due to the rapidly aging large air
tankers, individual aircraft will need to be retired for reasons of
safety in the near future. Do you agree with this prognosis? If not,
why?
Answer. The USDA Office of Inspector General's Audit Report No.
08601-53-SF USFS's Replacement Plan for Firefighting Resources states
that ``FS estimates that by 2012 the remaining 19 airtankers will begin
to be either too expensive to maintain or no longer airworthy.'' The
USFS agrees with the Inspector General's assessment and would add that
this estimate does not take into account the possibility of additional
loses from accidents, further reducing fleet size.
Question. Can you supply relevant data regarding the remaining
operational service life of the large air tankers that are today in the
fleet?
Answer. The estimated remaining time for the aircraft based on
cycles is as follows:
--P-3: Attrition begins in 2014 and ends in 2026, half of the
attrition occurs by 2016
--P2V: Attrition begins in 2013 and ends in 2032, half of the
attrition occurs by 2017
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Feinstein. So thank you for coming and we look
forward to working with you.
And the subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., Wednesday, March 17, the
hearings were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
----------
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
The 1854 Treaty Authority is an inter-Tribal natural resource
organization which implements the off-reservation hunting, fishing and
gathering rights of the Grand Portage and Bois Forte Bands of the Lake
Superior Chippewa in the area ceded to the United States in the Treaty
of 1854. Our program is funded by a Public Law 93-638 contract with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which is appropriated directly through
the BIA's ``Trust/Natural Resource Management--Rights Protection
Implementation.'' The 1854 Treaty Authority respectfully requests that
the Senate fund this appropriation in fiscal year 2011 at the same
level it was funded in fiscal year 2010 ($30,451,000) in order to meet
the increased cost of fulfilling our court-ordered responsibilities.
For background purposes, the Grand Portage, Bois Forte and Fond du
Lac Bands are signatories to the Treaty of September 30, 1854, 10 Stat.
1109. In that Treaty the Bands ceded approximately 5,000,000 acres in
northeastern Minnesota, reserving the right to hunt, fish and gather in
that territory. For most of the 20th century, those off-reservation
rights lay dormant and unrecognized and Tribal subsistence activities
were relegated to lands within reservation boundaries. In 1985 the
Bands went to Federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that the
1854 Treaty did indeed reserve these off-reservation rights and that
the State of Minnesota had no authority to regulate tribal hunting,
fishing and gathering in the ceded territory. In the course of that
litigation, the Bands and the State entered into negotiations
concerning the exercise of treaty rights in the ceded territory. The
negotiations resulted in an agreement which was approved by both the
Minnesota Legislature and the Tribal governments. The agreement was
then entered as a consent decree in the Federal litigation such that
the obligations of the parties are enforceable in court.
One of the Bands' obligations under the agreement and court order
was to create a means by which the Bands could effectively regulate
Band member activities. After the Fond du Lac Band exercised its right
to opt out with notice, the two remaining Bands formed the 1854 Treaty
Authority. To this day, the 1854 Treaty Authority is the entity
responsible for management of the Bands off-reservation hunting,
fishing and gathering rights.
The 1854 Treaty Authority employs 10 full-time employees,
consisting of an Administrative Division (three), a Resource Management
Division (four) and an Enforcement Division (three). Two of the
Resource Management positions are grant (temporary) funded. The
organization is overseen by a Board of Directors comprised of the
elected Tribal Councils of the Grand Portage and Bois Forte Bands. The
1854 Treaty Authority also has a Judicial Services Division which
retains a judge to hear matters arising under the Tribal code.
The 1854 Treaty Authority is a shining example of cooperation as we
gather and share biological information with State, Federal, local, and
other tribal governmental units. The 1854 Treaty Authority is
authorized through a Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota
to enforce State natural resource laws over non-Tribal users and State
Officers are authorized to enforce tribal law applicable to tribal
users. The 1854 Treaty Authority has also conducted many natural
resource improvement and research projects with the above-mentioned
government entities, as well as organizations from the private sector.
However, the 1854 Treaty Authority has struggled to maintain its
full-time staff. Up until fiscal year 2010, we had not had an increase
in base funding for our programs of any significance in many years, and
in fact the base funding had decreased the previous seven funding
cycles. Simultaneously, cost of living expenses have increased at a
regular rate, and some expenses have increased at an alarming rate
(e.g., health and vehicle insurance, fuel, etc). Staff pay costs (wages
plus benefits) combined with a decrease in base funding compelled the
Treaty Authority to absorb all the cost increases internally at the
expense of other programs and services. In 2007 we were unable to
continue doing so and two vacated positions (one biologist and one
enforcement) remain unfilled due to lack of funding. Of particular
concern is the fact that our current enforcement staffing level (3
officers) is woefully inadequate to cover the 5 million acres of ceded
territory.
I understand that this is not a unique situation, but at the same
time the Federal Government has a trust responsibility to protect and
preserve treaty rights. Those rights will be jeopardized if the 1854
Treaty Authority cannot fulfill its obligations as an effective manager
of treaty resources. We strongly believe that we can continue to be an
integral and positive component of natural resource management in
northeastern Minnesota. As history shows in the short 22 years of our
existence we have been able to establish the Bands rightful place among
all stakeholders and provide services that stretch beyond tribal
benefit. In short, the work we do benefits all users and citizens of
this region.
We are very thankful for the increase in fiscal year 2010 funding
which enabled us to make up some of the shortfall which has plagued us
in recent years. If we can continue to maintain funding at its current
level, we can begin to look at ways to refill the two vacant positions
that are sorely needed to provide adequate services to the tribes.
Finally, I would like to close with a sincere thank you for the
years of funding which have enabled the tribes success in this area,
and especially the increase in 2010, and respectfully reiterate the
request for the Senate to fund this appropriation in fiscal year 2011
at the same level it was funded in fiscal year 2010 ($30,451,000.00) in
order to meet the increased cost of fulfilling our court-ordered
responsibilities.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Senator Alexander: On
behalf of our members and supporters across the country, and tens of
millions of children whose health, learning and behavior are daily
impacted by dank, dark, dirty, and polluted conditions of our PreK-12
public schools, we urge you to fund the EPA's ``Clean Green Healthy
Schools Initiative'' at $8.2 million, $2 million above the President's
$6.2 million request in the fiscal year 2011 EPA request.
The national SICK SCHOOLS 2009 collaborative report assembled by
more than 30 contributing public interest nonprofits, analyzed Federal
data from EPA, Education, and CDC, as well as peer reviewed published
sciences in healthy school environments. Result: at least 60 percent of
all 55 million school children endure lower test scores and poor
attendance due solely to the environmental conditions of their schools.
See www.healthyschools.org/sickschools.
The President's fiscal year 2011 EPA budget supports EPA's critical
Office of Children's Health Protection and the agency's voluntary
schools-focused programs that help local schools and districts to
create healthier school environments for all children. EPA will co-lead
a Federal interagency effort to integrate existing voluntary schools
programs across the agencies, including asthma, indoor air quality,
chemical clean outs, green practices (highly cost-effective as New York
State has learned) and enhanced use of integrated pest management;
promote safe handling and management of PCB-containing caulk in schools
and build regional technical support and outreach; assesses the impacts
of noncompliance with existing environmental laws on health risks in
schools; and increase technical assistance on voluntary EPA guidelines
under the Energy Independence Security Act (EISA of 2007) regarding
school siting and other school environmental concerns.
We also urge you to support increases for EPA's Healthier Indoor
Air and for school and community air toxics monitoring, and for
expanding EPA's asthma programs and pesticide-use reductions with
schools. Children are 100 percent of our future and promoting healthy
learning environments is a task that EPA is uniquely poised to tackle,
in collaboration with Education and CDC.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
To the chair and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for this
opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the American Association
of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) about the importance of the geological
programs conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
AAPG is the world's largest scientific and professional geological
association. The purpose of the association is to advance the science
of geology, foster scientific research, and promote technology. AAPG
has nearly 34,000 members around the world, with roughly two-thirds
living and working in the United States. These are the professional
geoscientists in industry, Government, and academia who practice,
regulate, and teach the science and process of finding and producing
energy resources from the Earth.
AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial role that
the geosciences, and particularly petroleum geology, play in our
society. The USGS is crucial to meeting these societal needs, and
several of its programs deserve special attention by the subcommittee.
geologic resource assessments
Energy Resources Program
The USGS Energy Resources Program (ERP) conducts both basic and
applied geoscience research focused on geologic energy resources (both
domestic and international), including oil, natural gas, coal, coalbed
methane, gas hydrates, geothermal, oil shale, and bitumen and heavy
oil. In the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request, he also
included funding for ERP to participate in the New Energy Frontier
(wind) initiative. ERP also conducts research on the environmental,
economic, and human health impacts of the production and use of these
resources. This research provides both the public and private sectors
with vital information.
An urgent problem addressed through the ERP is the preservation of
geological and geophysical data. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT
2005, Public Law 109-58) includes section 351 Preservation of
Geological and Geophysical Data. This program is designed to preserve
geological, geophysical data, and engineering data, maps, well logs,
and samples. It includes development of a national catalog of this
archival material, and providing technical and financial assistance
related to the samples and materials. As the Act stipulated, the USGS
created the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation
Program (NGGDPP). Since the beginning of this program, however, it has
received insufficient funding to accomplish all of the objectives set
out in the authorizing language.
Why is preservation important? Responsible management and efficient
development of natural resources requires access to the best available
scientific information. Over many years industry, such as petroleum and
mining companies, has invested billions of dollars to acquire
geological and geophysical data. Because of changing company focus and
economic conditions this data may no longer have value to the company
that acquired it, and is in jeopardy of being discarded.
But this data still has value to society. The data is valuable for
further natural resources exploration and development, and can be
applied to basic and applied earth systems research, environmental
remediation, and natural-hazard mitigation. It is the type of data that
will enable future generations of scientists and policy makers to
address the Nation's energy, environmental, and natural hazard
challenges of the 21st century.
The NGGDPP was authorized at $30 million annually in EPACT 2005.
Historical allocations for this program have ranged from $750,000 to
$1,000,000 per year. These funding levels are inadequate to achieve the
program's objectives.
AAPG supports President Obama's fiscal year 2011 request to fund
the Energy Resources Program activities at $30.8 million, and asks the
Subcommittee to additionally appropriate $30 million in fiscal year
2011 for the preservation of geological and geophysical data, bringing
the total Energy Resource Program budget to $60.8 million.
Mineral Resources Program
The United States is the world's largest consumer of mineral
commodities. They form the building blocks of our economy.
It is therefore essential to this Nation's economic and national
security that the Federal Government understands both the domestic and
international supply and demand for minerals and mineral materials.
This data is used throughout government (Departments of Commerce, the
Interior, Defense, and State; the Central Intelligence Agency; the
Federal Reserve) and the private sector.
The USGS Mineral Resources Program (MRP) is the only Federal and
publicly available source for comprehensive information and analysis of
mineral commodities and mineral materials.
AAPG supports President Obama's fiscal year 2011 request for the
Mineral Resources Program at $52.5 million, and urges the Subcommittee
to appropriate at that level.
geologic landscape and coastal assessments
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program
AAPG supports the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program
(NCGMP). This unique partnership between the Federal and State
governments and the university community further demonstrates the
importance of geoscience to society. The geologic maps produced by this
program are used for natural resource management, natural hazard
mitigation, water resource management, environmental conservation and
remediation, and land-use planning.
NCGMP deserves special commendation for its EDMAP initiative. This
university partnership enables students, working in a close mentoring
relationship with faculty, to produce maps while learning essential
mapping skills. As such, the program delivers an immediate return on
the Federal investment in terms of beneficial maps, as well as a future
return in the form of a trained and competent next generation
workforce.
AAPG applauds President Obama's support for the National
Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program. However, the funding request of
$28.3 million is essentially the amount authorized for fiscal year
1999. Authorizing legislation envisaged annual increases up to $64
million in appropriated funds. AAPG urges the Subcommittee to fund
NCGMP at this level in fiscal year 2011.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee. And thank you for your leadership and support for the
geosciences. As you deliberate appropriate funding levels for these
USGS programs, please consider the important public policy implications
these choices entail.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of American Universities
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: On behalf of
the Association of American Universities (AAU), an organization of 60
leading U.S. public and private research universities, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today on the fiscal year 2011 budget
of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). We believe that our
country's ability to meet the complex changes of today and tomorrow
requires a renewed commitment to the humanities. AAU supports $204
million in program funds for the NEH in fiscal year 2011, including
$144 million for national programs (an increase of $44.4 million above
fiscal year 2010) and $60 million for the Federal/State partnership (an
increase of $19.6 million above fiscal year 2010). We strongly oppose
the $7.2 million in cuts the administration has proposed for NEH
programs in fiscal year 2011.
The Endowment is the single most important source of Federal
support for humanities research and humanities public education. We
believe that the Nation would benefit from a significant funding
increase for the NEH, in part as a complement to the Federal investment
in science and engineering research. It is through the humanities that
we can better understand and address the social, economic, and
political changes associated with technological development and
globalization. We also believe that as teachers and supporters of the
humanities, we have an obligation and an opportunity to support through
history, literature, and language a culture of tolerance and civility,
which is greatly needed today. NEH strengthens and benefits the nation
by promoting excellence in the humanities and conveying the lessons of
history to all Americans.
The History of AAU and the Humanities
AAU universities are devoted to maintaining a system of high-
quality academic research and education in a wide range of fields at
the undergraduate, graduate, and professional levels. Our member
universities perform about 60 percent of Federal funded university-
based scientific and engineering research. But our schools also are
leaders in humanities through their support of academic departments,
public performance and lecture facilities, museums, and centers. For
our institutions, the humanities are both subjects of research and a
critical element of undergraduate and graduate education. AAU
institutions use NEH grants for research and scholarship that help
preserve the Nation's diverse heritage, educate the next generation of
Americans, and bring the humanities to the wider public.
Indeed, AAU institutions are engaged in a wide range of activities
that focus attention on the benefits of a humanities education. AAU's
2004 report, Reinvigorating the Humanities: Enhancing Research and
Education on Campus and Beyond, not only called for university
presidents and chancellors to give increased attention to the
humanities but also provided an inventory of exciting campus projects
and programs around the country.
Restoration of NEH Funds to Support Competitive Programs
The President's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget would cut the
Endowment's resources at a time when the agency is operating at only
about one-third of the capacity it had in 1979, which in inflation-
adjusted dollars would amount to $429.2 million today. In the 1980s,
the agency sustained some of the most severe funding reductions of any
Federal agency. In 1994, the NEH budget was cut by 41.5 percent from
the previous year. Over time, the combined impact of budget cuts and
inflation has reduced the number, diversity, and buying power of grants
provided by the NEH. It is worth noting that the NEH received no
funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The President's fiscal year 2011 request would cut funds for
national programs by $5.3 million (5.7 percent) below fiscal year 2010.
The relatively small amount of money saved by the proposed cuts would
contribute little to overall budget savings but would have a serious
impact on the Endowment's ability to support humanities research and
education. NEH application rates already demonstrate significant unmet
need. In fiscal year 2009, the NEH received 4,366 competitive grant
applications representing more than $402 million in requested funds.
But the Endowment was able to fund less than 17 percent of these peer-
reviewed project proposals.
While universities have tried to close some of this funding gap
with their own funds, it is increasingly difficult for them to do so.
Public and private colleges and universities across the country
continue to feel the effects of the recent economic recession,
including budget cuts, hiring freezes, staff layoffs, course reductions
and more. Institutions are struggling to maintain continued access to
high-quality programs, which is particularly evident in the humanities
disciplines. As recently reported by the National Governors'
Association, States face an $18.8 billion budget gap in fiscal year
2010 which many States will address, in part, by making further
reductions in higher education. Beyond significant declines in State
funding, colleges and universities are in the midst of a perfect storm
of decreased endowment values, tightened credit, declining private
contributions from individuals and corporations, increased student
financial need, and reduced tuition revenue. Despite the loss of
revenue, colleges and universities have worked to increase their aid to
students in order to preserve student access. AAU members alone
provided almost $5 billion in student aid last year. We cannot assume
that higher education can continue to compensate for a lack of growth
in Federal funds for the humanities.
In addition, foundation support for the humanities has slipped
during the past decade. Foundation assets are down about 22 percent,
with giving down about 10 percent. This is a larger dip than in
previous recessions. The humanities community is concerned that not
only is overall foundation support going down, but that the share of
foundation support for the humanities also is dropping. Moreover, there
has been a long-term shift among foundations away from funding for
scholarship and core disciplines toward funding for public programming.
These funding trends are of particular concern to AAU institutions
because unmet need is forcing humanities students (particularly
graduate students) to assume growing debt.
AAU Funding Priorities for the NEH
The humanities community's fiscal year 2011 request of $204 million
in program funds for NEH represents an important step in restoring the
Endowment to its historic funding levels. This request would support an
increase of $144 million for national programs, including $36.9 million
to increase the award rate for seriously underfunded grant competitions
and $7.5 million for a new, competitively awarded graduate student-
faculty program. National programs are our first priority, representing
the pool of funds that support peer-reviewed, competitive grant
opportunities for a wide range of educational institutions, nonprofit
organizations, and individual scholars around the country. They
encompass NEH core programs, divisions, and special initiatives. These
areas include research, education, preservation & access, challenge
grants, public programs, the Office of Digital Humanities, We the
People, and Bridging Cultures.
Within the education division, AAU is particularly supportive of
the Summer Seminars and Institutes, which fund national faculty
development programs that provide a critical forum for leading scholars
and faculty to deepen their knowledge of current scholarship.
Similarly, Faculty Humanities Workshops support local and regional
professional development programs that allow faculty and scholars to
engage in collaborative study. Within the research division, several
programs, including Summer Stipends and Fellowships, support
individuals or teams of two or more scholars (not including graduate
students) pursuing advanced research that will contribute to scholarly
knowledge or to the public's understanding of the humanities.
One of the problems that humanities researchers and scholars face
is that the reinterpretation of history and other scholarly work that
often define the work of humanists do not fit the traditional concept
of ``research,'' as we think of it in the science and engineering
disciplines. AAU is working with others in the humanities community to
find ways to better communicate how research in the humanities differs
from research in the sciences, but is still essential to addressing
many of today's challenges.
The second priority for AAU is a new competitively awarded graduate
student-faculty program. We have engaged in extensive discussions
during the past 2 years with the White House, the Office of Management
and Budget, the NEH, and Congress (particularly the House Humanities
Caucus Co-Chairs) and believe that we have support, particularly with
the leadership of the Endowment, for such a program. It would
simultaneously expand scholarship in key areas of inquiry, support the
education of graduate students in the conduct of research, and bring
faculty and graduate students together in collaborative arrangements
that have long characterized the sciences. In the sciences, such
collaborations foster creativity by combining the knowledge and
experience of faculty with the energy and creativity of graduate
students. The benefits of faculty mentorship, early and in-depth
engagement of graduate students in research, and the enrichment of
scholarly endeavors by the close interaction of faculty and graduate
students have been all too lacking in the humanities.
While we are flexible as to how the program should be structured,
our initial proposal is a national competitive program in which
proposals from universities would be judged on the scholarly inquiry to
be conducted; the manner in which the proposed research topic would be
enhanced by faculty-supervised graduate student research; the
intellectual, social, or cultural significance of the research; the
contribution of the research to interdisciplinary research; and the
plans to communicate the research within and beyond the academic
community. We believe that the first step should be internal
competitions within institutions, with each university selecting which
proposals should be submitted to the NEH national competition. The
institutional proposals might involve a team of one faculty member and
one graduate student, or two or more faculty members working with
several graduate students on an interdisciplinary topic.
This new program would build on the Endowment's decision to allow
graduate students to participate in the NEH summer seminars, as the
humanities community requested. Still, the NEH does not currently
support graduate research in the humanities. While the National
Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Departments
of Defense and Energy, and the National Aeronautics and Science
Administration, have graduate education components to complement their
university-based research, the NEH stands as one of the few Federal
agencies that does not support or train the next generation of
researchers or support collaboration between students and faculty. The
Endowment once funded a small dissertation fellowship program, but the
program was de-funded when the agency sustained significant budget cuts
in the mid-1990s.
Many details of the proposed program remain to be worked out, but
we believe that NEH is uniquely positioned to promote collaboration
between faculty and graduate students in a manner that both enriches
humanities scholarship and helps to supply our Nation with the talented
and knowledgeable individuals who will contribute to a culturally
competent workforce. This is a two for one in a single program. We
believe it is a vital element in sustaining the pipeline of young
humanities researchers and scholars.
The third priority for AAU is improved humanities data collection.
AAU supports the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget language
citing the NEH's intentions to ``enter into a partnership with the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences . . . to sustain and extend
AAAS's developmental work on the Humanities Indicators Project.'' The
project, which is responsive to NEH's legislative mandate to develop a
system of national information and data collection, is making a wide
range of humanities data available to researchers, educators, and the
general public. These data will equip policymakers and institutional
administrators with statistical tools to help inform decisionmaking
about K-12, higher education, the humanities workforce, and other areas
of concern to the humanities community.
AAU encourages you to consider the importance of the humanities in
our society today. NEH helps colleges and universities around the
country ensure that the humanities remain central to their missions and
to the cultural life of the Nation. In its role as the largest Federal
supporter of the humanities, the NEH broadens public awareness of and
participation in the humanities through teaching, scholarship, and
research.
AAU, as part of the larger humanities advocacy community, supports
a significant increase in the Endowment's budget to enable the agency
to more broadly support the research and education programs our Nation
needs to better understand an increasingly complex world. In addition,
we believe that Congress has a unique opportunity to support a new
program to facilitate more interaction between students and faculty in
the humanities. We look forward to discussing the details of such a
program as you develop the fiscal year 2011 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I welcome
any questions.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Bird Conservancy
American Bird Conservancy's testimony focuses on the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's (FWS) Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act
(NMBCA) grants program and the Joint Ventures (JV) program. American
Bird Conservancy requests NMBCA be funded at $6.5 million ($1.5 million
above fiscal year 2010's level) and JVs be funded at $18 million ($4
million above fiscal year 2010's level). An increase in funding for
these programs would benefit the songbirds that are soon to arrive back
from their wintering grounds and to the backyards and birdfeeders of
millions of anxiously awaiting Americans. We further request $5 million
for reforestation in Appalachia, and a spending limitation on the
logging of mature forests and trees on Federal lands.
American Bird Conservancy leads a coalition of conservation
organization that includes National Audubon Society, Defenders of
Wildlife, Point-Reyes Bird Observatory, and The Wildlife Society--who,
together, advocate for Federal programs crucial for bird conservation.
These programs are the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation grants
program, JVs, the FWS's Office of Migratory Bird Management, the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act, State Wildlife Grants, the USGS
Breeding Bird Survey, Wildlife Without Borders, and the International
Programs within the USDA Forest Service.
As members of this subcommittee know well, America is blessed with
a spectacular abundance and rich diversity of birds, with more than 800
species inhabiting the mainland, Hawaii, and surrounding oceans. So
it's easy to understand why 75 million Americans engage in bird
watching--and how this activity generates more than $45 billion to our
economy every year.
Unfortunately, we found out in last year's FWS's groundbreaking
State of the Birds Report that many of our bird species are in decline
and some are threatened with extinction. For example, Eastern
Meadowlarks, historically found in great abundance in our prairies,
have dropped 70 percent over the past 30 years. The Northern Bobwhite
quail has similarly lost 70 percent of its population in just 45 years.
Rusty Blackbirds have declined by a staggering 99 percent. On Hawaii,
the Akikiki and Akekee have undergone severe population declines
leading to their recent listing under the Endangered Species Act.
The 2010 State of the Birds Report on Climate Change finds that
most U.S. bird species will be imperiled by climate change, including
common birds that are currently not of conservation concern. All 67
species of U.S. seabirds are rated as vulnerable, and islands also top
the list of habitats where birds will be at greatest risk, indicating
the efforts to conserve Hawaiian bird species need to be intensified.
Furthermore, American Bird Conservancy's report, Saving Migratory
Birds for Future Generations: The Success of the Neotropical Migratory
Bird Conservation Act, found that of our 341 species that are
neotropical migrants--meaning birds that breed in the United States and
Canada and winter in Latin America and the Caribbean--127 are in
decline. Sixty of those species, including 29 songbirds, are in severe
decline having lost 45 percent or more of their population in the past
40 years. If these trends continue, future generations of Americans may
never be able to see a bright blue Cerulean Warbler, Bell's Vireo, or
Black-chinned Sparrow.
This trend can be seen all throughout the country. Here in
Washington, DC for example an annual census of birds in Rock Creek Park
that started in the 1940s, found that the number of migratory songbirds
breeding there has dropped by 70 percent over the past half-century.
Three species of warbler (Black-and-white, Hooded, and Kentucky) no
longer breed there at all.
The main reasons for these precipitous declines are well
established and reported in the 2009 State of the Birds Report: The
largest source of bird mortality is due to habitat loss through
conversion for human uses. Resource extraction and a growing human
population have resulted in more development and land conversion for
suburban sprawl so there are simply fewer and fewer large blocks of
unbroken habitat for our native birds.
The second major impact is from habitat degradation from
ecologically harmful land uses, such as unsustainable forestry or
destruction of grasslands to create farm land. Deforestation,
especially in Latin America, is accelerating at an alarming rate,
driven by the needs of the rapidly expanding human population, which
has tripled from 1950-2000. Estimates of the percentage of remaining
forests that are lost each year in the Neotropics are between 1-2
percent.
NMBCA
To address these two problems--habitat loss and degradation, both
of which are rapidly increasing south of our border--ABC respectfully
suggests that Congress act to help mitigate their impact by improving
the appropriations level for the NMBCA grants program. As the
subcommittee knows, the NMBCA supports partnership programs in the
United States, Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean to conserve
migratory birds, especially on their wintering grounds where birds of
nearly 350 species, including some of the most endangered birds in
North America, spend their winters. Projects include activities that
benefit bird populations such as habitat restoration, research and
monitoring, law enforcement, and outreach and education.
Saving Migratory Birds for Future Generations also found the grant
program has a proven track record of reversing habitat loss and
advancing conservation strategies for the broad range of Neotropical
birds that populate America and the Western Hemisphere. The public-
private partnerships along with the international collaboration they
provide are proving themselves to be integral to preserving vulnerable
bird populations.
From 2002-2008, grant money has gone out to 44 U.S. States and 34
countries, funding 260 projects, impacting almost 3 million acres of
critical bird habitat. More than $25 million in federally appropriated
dollars have leveraged more than $116 million in partner contributions.
However, demand for funding of high-quality conservation projects far
outstrips current appropriations, and in 2008, 63 projects requesting
nearly $10,000,000 were not funded. From these numbers, it is clear
that conservation that would benefit our migrant songbirds is not able
to take place due to a lack of funding for this program.
We respectfully request that NMBCA be funded at $6.5 million ($1.5
million above fiscal year 2010's level).
JVs
JVs also exemplify a highly successful, cost-effective approach to
conservation and are now being looked to as model for the Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives. By applying science and bringing diverse
constituents together, JVs across the United States have created a
model for solving wildlife management problems and restoring habitats
critical to conserving declining species. Nationally, JVs have
protected, restored, or enhanced more than 13 million acres of
important habitat for migratory bird species. There are currently 21
JVs in the United States that provide coordination for conservation
planning and implementation of projects that benefit all migratory bird
populations and other species.
JVs have a long history of success in implementing bird
conservation initiatives mandated by Congress and by international
treaties. Projects are developed at the local level and implemented
through diverse public/private partnerships. These projects reflect
local values and needs, while addressing regional and national
conservation priorities. The projects benefit not only birds, but many
wildlife species, and have a positive impact on the health of
watersheds and local economies.
Every dollar invested in JVs leverages more than $44 in non-Federal
partner funds (1999-2004) for on-the-ground habitat conservation and
restoration projects, biological planning, and outreach. ABC believes
JVs should be funded at $18,000,000 in fiscal year 2011 to allow them
to meet their increased responsibilities. This increase in funding
would help strengthen the public/private partnerships that leverage
increasingly scarce public funds for on-the-ground habitat restoration
and acquisition projects; continue to incorporate recent scientific
advances in the development of landscape-conservation plans; and build
capacity within the newer Joint Ventures, while maintaining expertise
within established ones.
ABC strongly believes increased funding for NMBCA and JVs is
essential to achieving conservation goals critical to our environment
and economy. Just as importantly, these Federal programs are good
values for taxpayers, leveraging more than $4 and $44, respectively, in
partner contributions for each one that the taxpayers spend.
We respectfully request that JVs be funded at $18 million ($4
million above fiscal year 2010's level).
Conserving Forest Carbon and Restoring Wildlife Habitat
Lastly, we believe land management activities that are ecologically
unsustainable, or that are contrary to the recommendations of the 2010
State of the Birds report should be discontinued. Of particular concern
is the continued logging of mature forests on Federal lands. While the
cutting of large fire-resistant trees and older forests has been
greatly reduced, it still continues on Federal lands, engendering
strong public opposition, needless controversy, environmental harm, and
a significant waste of scarce agency resources.
We respectfully request the subcommittee include in the bill a
funding limitation for projects that would log mature and old-growth
forests or individual trees 100 years or older on all Federal forest
lands. These forests and trees should be held in trust to both help
mitigate the impacts of climate change by keeping these immense volumes
of carbon from being released into the atmosphere, and to help wildlife
adapt to changing conditions.
There are also opportunities to reforest abandoned minelands in
Appalachia that would greatly enhance carbon storage above current
levels, as well as provide much needed wildlife habitat in forest areas
that have been heavily fragmented. Of particular concern is the
Cerulean Warbler whose population has declined 70 percent since surveys
began 40 years ago. The species needs large-blocks of unfragmented
habitat, which is currently in short supply in the eastern forests.
The Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative developed by
Federal and State government scientists, State wildlife agencies, and
conservation organizations proposes to create 2,000 jobs over the next
5 years restoring these lands and returning them back into productive
forests. We respectfully request the subcommittee approve $5 million to
begin this Appalachian reforestation initiative.
In conclusion, Madam Chairman, let me just say that America faces a
serious challenge to reverse the decline of many of our bird species,
but we can do it. Since birds are sensitive indicators of how we are
protecting our environment as a whole, this decline signals a crisis
that Congress must act now to reverse it. If the State of the Birds
reports tell us anything, it is that when we apply ourselves by
investing in conservation, we can save imperiled wildlife, protect
habitats, and solve the multiple threats at the root of this problem.
______
Prepared Statement of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
My name is John L. Nau, III, and I am pleased to submit my
testimony to the subcommittee. I serve as Chairman of Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Let me note at the outset ACHP's
appreciation for the subcommittee's continued support and interest in
the Nation's historical and cultural resources. ACHP is dedicated to
the preservation of our Nation's historic and cultural resources. I
support maintaining fiscal year 2010 funding levels for the historic
preservation programs within the Department of the Interior, including
Preserve America and Save America's Treasures Grants in the fiscal year
2011 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Both programs are important to economic vitality in communities
throughout America, providing jobs in the construction and tourism
industries while concurrently enabling the preservation of historic
properties and artifacts for the benefit of current and future
generations.
In 2007, Senators Hillary Clinton and Pete Domenici and
Representatives Brad Miller and Mike Turner introduced legislation to
authorize the Preserve America and Save America's Treasures programs. I
was delighted when this important legislation was overwhelmingly passed
and then signed into law as part of the Omnibus Public Land Management
Act of 2009.
Preserve America serves as a driver of economic activity and a
powerful tool for preserving significant historic and cultural
resources throughout the country. The program enables local communities
to create viable strategies to use their historic assets to meet
contemporary needs. In doing so, it helps to inform our citizens about
the past while also fulfilling our shared commitment to ensuring that
future generations can benefit from historic preservation as we have.
Since the program was launched in 2006, Preserve America has
awarded nearly $20 million for 259 projects in 49 States with an
additional group of grant awards pending. More than 700 projects
proposals have been received by the National Park Service requesting
over $60 million. A recent assessment of the program concluded that
Preserve America Grants:
--Address a broad range of heritage tourism and historic preservation
needs that are unmet by other Federal assistance programs;
--Stimulate the creation and development of innovative programs and
projects of all types;
--Are helping to support economic development by stimulating local
economic activity;
--Provide scarce seed money to leverage investment and in-kind
support for heritage tourism; and
--Encourage education initiatives that foster appreciation for
history among young people.
In addition, Preserve America serves as a valuable complement to
other important historic preservation programs, in particular the Save
America's Treasures program. Save America's Treasures is the Nation's
only bricks-and-mortar preservation grant program. Established by
Executive Order in 1998, it is a public-private partnership that
includes the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National
Park Service, the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities, and
the Federal cultural agencies.
Over the past 10 years, SAT has been a driver of economic
development and the Federal Government's most successful tool to
preserve the important places that tell our Nation's story. Since its
creation, Save America's Treasures has designated more than 1,100
projects in all 50 States, created an estimated 16,000 jobs, and
awarded approximately $300 million in grants to preservation efforts
across the country. The projects range from such iconic objects as the
Star-Spangled Banner to historically and architecturally significant
structures like the Acoma Pueblo and the Conservatory of Flowers.
In order to build upon these successes, it will be necessary to
ensure that more cities and communities can benefit from Preserve
America in the future. Level funding in fiscal year 2011 will provide
the momentum needed for this program to remain viable going forward.
Absent this continuity in funding resources, I fear the demise of this
widely supported bipartisan program.
Since 2004, a total of 814 municipalities, counties, Indian tribes,
and urban neighborhoods have applied for and received designation as
Preserve America Communities. All of these designated communities are
eligible to apply for competitive 50/50 matching Preserve America
Grants from the National Park Service, along with State Historic
Preservation Offices, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and
Certified Local Governments that are in the process of applying for
Preserve America Community designation. The grants are given for
projects that help preserve, promote, and use historic resources for
cultural heritage tourism and related economic development and
educational purposes. Grants are given in five categories: Research and
Documentation; Planning; Interpretation and Education; Promotion; and
Training.
Preserve America Grants totaling $783,754 for eight projects in
California have been awarded since 2006 to five different cities, one
group of urban neighborhoods, and one Indian tribe. While much of the
multi-year grant work has not yet been completed, below are summaries
of two of these grant projects.
One such award went to Monterey, California for $100,000.
The grant focused on a coordinated interactive way-finding and
signage program to promote the many significant historic and cultural
resources in Monterey. A high proportion of the local economy is geared
to tourism, and downtown Monterey is a National Historic Landmark
historic district. There are many remnants of the Spanish and Mexican
colonial periods prior to 1846, structures from the later territorial
and statehood period, and the Cannery Row area made famous by John
Steinbeck. Work under the grant has included three principal
components:
Develop signage for public and privately-owned historic assets in
the downtown Monterey business area, including ``virtual''
interpretation via Internet-based and cell phone technology in order to
guide and orient visitors as well as residents to heritage attractions.
Produce an inclusive print and web-based brochure to highlight
Monterey's story, a timeline of Monterey's history, and a citywide
walking map with different historic trails delineated.
Create an interactive, downloadable Internet-based resource map of
historic assets and working tour information encompassing the entire
City of Monterey, to complement the onsite and distance way-finding
program.
According to the City's 2009 project assessment, ``The funding
received by the City of Monterey has had a stimulating effect on the
promotion of Monterey's multiple levels of heritage, [and] the Preserve
America designation and receipt of the grant has proven a catalyst for
new programs and projects throughout all of Monterey County . . . We
could not have developed these programs without the Preserve America
grant. We continue to refine our signage program, which included a
local designer who was paid from the grant funds. The prototype signs
designed as part of the grant have proven to be popular and will, at
some time, replace 49 more signs throughout the city. That is economic
redevelopment based on heritage tourism. We are now increasing our use
of electronic way-finding and cell phone tours that we could not
accomplish without the grant funding. That expansion of way-finding
will lead to a contract with a cell phone tour company, and possibly a
position for a Web page administrator within the next year. For the
City of Monterey, the grant received in 2006 was an early stimulus
package . . . The success of the grant has made it clear that this type
of funding, so difficult to justify in a city budget, is vital to the
promotion of heritage tourism.''
Another award in California went to an ``Indian Island
Interpretation and Education Project'' for the Wiyot Tribe, in Loleta,
California.
The project will help promote and manage public access to a
National Historic Landmark Native American village site with the
development of educational materials, the design and installation of
interpretive kiosks and signage, and establishment of special events,
tours and field trips to an important site in Humboldt Bay. In
conjunction with environmental clean-up and restoration work, the
Indian Island Cultural and Environmental Restoration Project is a
collaborative partnership between the Wiyot Tribe and the City of
Eureka, with assistance and support from the Humboldt Bay Maritime
Museum, the Humboldt County Visitors and Convention Bureau, and other
local partners. The location that will be interpreted is the important
archaeological site of Tuluwat Village on Indian Island, portions of
which date to A.D. 900. Tuluwat Village is the ``center of the
universe'' for the Wiyot people, and the site is the historic as well
as the more recent location of a week-long World Renewal ceremony each
February where a massacre of more than 200 native inhabitants took
place in 1860. In addition to the economic potential related to area
tourism, a significant feature of the project is the development of
curriculum materials for school and other youth groups.
By way of further example, in Tennessee, eight communities are
designated as Preserve America communities, and six more have
applications pending. In addition, three grants totaling $267,000 have
been awarded for Preserve America projects in Franklin, Jonesborough
and Oak Ridge.
I support funding Preserve America at the fiscal year 2010 amount,
and I welcome an opportunity to meet with you or your staff to provide
any additional information and to discuss this with you further.
Thank you for your consideration of this written testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of Amigos de la Sevilleta
Madam Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of
acquiring land at Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico. An
appropriation of $1.5 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund in order for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to acquire the 250-acre first phase of the 1,250-acre
Indian Hill Farms property.
Covering an area of approximately 360 square miles and located just
40 miles south of Albuquerque, the largest city in the State, the
Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge serves as a vast protected landscape
in the heart of New Mexico. The refuge supports four major ecological
habitats, encompassing two mountain ranges and containing approximately
4 miles of the Rio Grande River. Much of the refuge is managed to
enhance riparian habitat and compensate for marsh loss along the Rio
Grande basin. The refuge provides important habitat for a large variety
of birds, insects, reptiles, and mammals such as beaver, coyote,
bobcat, fox, jackrabbit, and elk. Parts of the refuge are flooded from
November to February in order to provide habitat for migrating
shorebirds and waterfowl including herons, ducks, geese, and sandhill
cranes. The refuge is also managed to combat nonnative species such as
the extremely invasive salt cedar. This nuisance species is being
cleared and replaced with native willow and cottonwood to restore the
natural bosque/riparian habitat native to the area.
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2011 is the first 250-acre
phase of the 1,250-acre Indian Hill Farms property, which lies adjacent
to 3 miles of the Rio Grande as well as current refuge lands. Indian
Hill Farms comprises more than 600 acres of prime irrigated farmland
and a very significant quantity of senior water rights which will
provide the refuge with excellent opportunities for the creation of
wildlife habitat, including moist soils, wetlands, and restored river
bosque. The Sevilleta NWR is home to the second largest population of
the endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher along the Rio Grande
River. If Indian Hill Farms is added to refuge ownership, there are
plans to restore a portion of the property to provide additional prime
flycatcher habitat. Because the farm is the first to take water rights
off the important San Acacia Dam, located just off the edge of the
farm, control of the water rights by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
should also provide additional protection and benefit to the endangered
silvery minnow, found within portions of the Rio Grande that run
through the refuge. Given the water rights associated with the property
and its location along the Rio Grande, acquisition of the Indian Hill
Farms property could provide the refuge system a tremendous opportunity
for habitat manipulation for a number of different wildlife uses,
including endangered species habitat, wintering waterbird habitat,
migratory landbird use, as well as raptor and resident big game
habitat. Its location between two major wintering waterfowl areas, Ladd
S. Gordon Complex to the north and Bosque del Apache NWR to the south,
makes this a key acquisition to enhance waterfowl populations in the
Middle Rio Grande area.
Currently, Sevilleta NWR offers limited public access as much of
its acreage has been designated to ongoing research projects. Sevilleta
NWR is the host to the University of New Mexico's (UNM) Long-Term
Ecological Research program initiated in 1988 and funded through the
National Science Foundation. This program examines the responses of
different ecological communities to climate change and UNM has
expressed great interest in research projects that would be associated
with the planned conversion of farmland to wildlife habitat should
Indian Hill Farms be acquired by the refuge.
An appropriation of $1.5 million in fiscal year 2011 will be
combined with an appropriation of $500,000 provided in fiscal year 2010
to ensure that the first phase of the Indian Hill Farms property is
protected in perpetuity. The USFWS is pursuing the administrative steps
necessary to include the entire Indian Hill Farms property within
refuge boundaries, and an appraisal is also underway to determine the
property's value.
The addition of this priority parcel to the Sevilleta NWR will
allow for the creation and restoration of important wildlife habitat
types along the Rio Grande River, increase public access to refuge
lands, and increase unique research opportunities for local scientists.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation's premier
Federal program to acquire and protect lands at national parks,
forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and
recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the
public with substantial social and economic benefits including
promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking
water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting the
adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these
reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to the program
in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration's
commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing
the many demands this committee faces, I also want to thank the
subcommittee for its recent effort to restore much-needed funding to
this depleted program. This wise investment in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund is one that will permanently pay dividends to the
American people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in New Mexico, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of Americans for the Arts
Americans for the Arts is pleased to submit written testimony to
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies supporting fiscal year 2011 funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a level of $180 million.
April 13, 2010 was Arts Advocacy Day on Capitol Hill, an annual
grassroots gathering hosted by Americans for the Arts and cosponsored
by 86 national organizations representing dance, theater, music,
literature, and the visual and media arts-the full landscape of
American culture. Collectively these national groups represent tens of
thousands of nonprofit and governmental cultural organizations at the
State and local levels across the country.
At the annual hearing on arts funding held by the House Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee Americans for the Arts witnesses
represented a broad cross-section of stakeholders who partner with the
Federal Government to promote, support, and deliver the highest quality
arts to the farthest-reaching parts of America, ranging from rural
communities like Chelsea, Michigan and Minot, North Dakota to large
urban centers such as Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The subcommittee
heard unique perspectives of how the arts in America play out as an
important diplomatic and strategic instrument within the global
community, how corporate investment in the arts is working hand in hand
with government support to enrich the cultural life and opportunities
within communities. The subcommittee also heard about how investments
in nonprofit arts groups in small and large towns across the country
have created the foundation for today's artists to ignite their talent,
perfect their craft, pursue their dreams.
The nonprofit arts industry is a $166.2 billion economic sector
that supports 5.7 million full time equivalent jobs and pumps $29.6
billion in tax revenue back into local, State, and Federal treasuries.
Quite simply put, the arts equal jobs. More importantly, these are jobs
that are part of the new and growing information and innovation
economy. These are not the kind of jobs that can be outsourced abroad.
They are home-grown, made in America jobs.
The National Endowment for the Arts did a superb job of quickly and
effectively distributing $50 million of economic recovery funds,
included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, across the
country to save jobs in the arts. Within a few short months, the NEA
had developed an application process, reviewed thousands of requests,
and administered hundreds of grants both directly to individual arts
institutions and through a re-granting process by regional, State, and
local arts agencies in order to broaden the reach of these funds. I'd
like to share a few examples of how these NEA recovery funds were used:
--In Los Angeles, California, the NEA awarded $420,084 to the Los
Angeles County Arts Commission and the city of Los Angeles'
Department of Cultural Affairs. The two organizations
distributed the money to 16 local arts organizations to help
pay the salaries of 21 administrative staffers whose jobs were
to be eliminated. These organizations included the H.E. Art
Project, Hollywood Entertainment Museum, Jazz Bakery
Performance Space, Ryman/Carroll Foundation, Contra-Tiempo,
East Los Angeles Classic Theater, Friends of Chinese American
Museum, Greenways Arts Alliance, L.A. Stage Alliance, Latino
Theater Company, Pan African Film and Arts Festival and the
Unusual Suspects Theater Company.
--In Tennessee, the Allied Arts of Greater Chattanooga received
$100,000 in stimulus funds to preserve jobs within local arts
agencies. The local groups receiving these funds were Ballet
Tennessee, Chattanooga Boys Choir, Chattanooga Girls Choir,
Chattanooga Symphony & Opera, Chattanooga Theatre Centre,
Choral Arts of Chattanooga, Creative Discovery Museum and
Shaking Ray Levi Society.
--In Idaho, the Idaho Shakespeare used recovery funds to guarantee a
fourth show will be produced for its 2010 season. This in
effect secured jobs for nine Equity actors, five directors/
designers, a stage manager, and a production assistant for a
Shakespearean production. Opera Idaho hired a marketing
director, a position it lost in 2007. The Cabin, a literary
program, sustained its 12 staff writers for its Writers in the
Schools program and for its summer camps, which reaches kids
from Cambridge to Fort Hall, and Boise to Pocatello.
--In Virginia, direct NEA grants to nonprofit arts organizations
supported the preservation of jobs at such places as Signature
Theater in Arlington and the venerable Wolf Trap Foundation for
the Performing Arts. The Virginia Arts Commission received
$331,000 in critical funding that was used for the retention or
reinstatement of critical staff positions that have been
jeopardized by the current economy. The Piedmont Arts
Association in Martinsville received $10,300 to be used for the
preservation of the part time Education Coordinator position.
--Seattle's Office of Arts & Cultural Affairs received a $250,000
local arts agency recovery grant from the NEA to specifically
re-grant to local Seattle arts organizations. Funds helped to
preserve 16 arts administrator positions, eight educational
staff, 40 artists, and 15 production personnel positions at 22
arts organizations.
--The Oklahoma Arts Council disbursed $306,800 in Federal recovery
funds to 16 nonprofit organizations across the State. Funds
specifically helped to restore a costume designer's position
from part-time back to full-time at the Lawton Community
Theatre, save a music director's position at Cimarron Circuit
Opera in Norman, and kept the arts education coordinator
position at the Arts and Humanities Council of Tulsa. At
Oklahoma Children's Theatre in Oklahoma City, a $15,000
recovery grant was used to prevent the executive director's
position to go from full-time to part-time.
--Through another $250,000 local arts agency economic recovery re-
grant from the NEA, the Broward County, Florida Cultural
Division provided salary support at several local arts
organizations. The salaries they supported were for positions
that would have otherwise been laid off during the recession,
including nine local jazz musicians at the Gold Coast Jazz
Society, the director of education at the Coral Spring Museum
of Arts, and a part-time education coordinator at the Art and
Culture Center of Hollywood.
--In Ohio, recovery grants supported many positions, including two
community cultural project managers as well as the school
residency supervisor at the Great Lakes Theatre Festival.
Real People. Real Jobs.--The $50 million investment that this
subcommittee made in the nonprofit arts sector reached all 50 States.
$16.8 million was regranted through the State arts agencies, $4.8
million was re-granted through the local arts agencies, and
approximately $28 million was awarded directly to cultural institutions
through the NEA. According to the Federal Government's Recovery.org Web
site, 1,408 jobs have been funded through the NEA's economic recovery
direct grants as of March 2010. This has been a lifeline to the arts
community and we are truly grateful that artists and arts
administrators were recognized as an important economic sector to the
Nation's recovery.
But, unfortunately, it's still not enough to offset the major
declines in public and private support of the arts that have occurred.
Last year, State government arts appropriations dropped 10 percent,
local government support fell 8 percent, and private giving to the arts
fell 6.5 percent. If you total up these losses, it's approximately less
than $1 billion going into the arts in just 1 year.
According to the Americans for the Arts National Arts Index, while
there are signs of economic recovery for the country as a whole, we
know from our trend data that the creative sector lags a full year
behind business trends. While all indications point to another
difficult year for arts organizations for 2010-2011, we have seen
wonderful and creative signs of perseverance. Many arts groups have re-
doubled marketing efforts as a means of increasing earned income
potential, resulting in great ticket sale seasons and bringing in new
audiences.
The NEA plays an important role in helping these arts organizations
leverage both contributed income as well as earned income. During this
economic downturn, I encourage this subcommittee to increase funding
for the NEA in order for it to carry out its important mission of
leveraging more funds for the arts.
Leveraging Other Federal Agency Support
The NEA plays a very important role in developing partnerships with
other Federal agencies--such as the Departments of Housing and Urban
Development, Education, and Transportation--in order to open new
channels for arts organizations to work with all aspects of government.
For example, CDBG funds can be used for restoring cultural facilities,
transportation funds can be used for public art, and education funds to
deliver quality arts education programs to kids in- and after-school.
Leveraging State and Local Government Support
The NEA helps to leverage State and local governments to fund the
arts as well. Forty plus years ago, something as simple as requiring
States to match funds that it receives from the NEA helped create State
arts councils in every State that now appropriate $297 million of state
funds to support the arts.
At the local level, the NEA's original local arts agency program
created an even higher 2 to 1 match that was welcomed by local
governments. Since 1984, the NEA's Local Arts Agency program has
supported more than 800 grants totaling $47 million. This program
spurred unprecedented growth in local government support for the arts
in large part due to higher matching requirements, sensitivity to local
standards and tastes, and their proven track record of being
trustworthy stewards of public funds. Today, local governments invest
$765 million of their own funds to support artists and community-based
nonprofit arts organizations, ranging from traditional symphonies and
operas to ethnically specific cultural programs and arts education
initiatives.
With this record of accomplishment in mind, I want to encourage
this subcommittee to enhance the formal re-granting partnership program
for local arts agencies to help the NEA better serve arts organization
of all sizes in communities across the country.
Leveraging Private Contributed and Earned Income Support
An NEA grant embodies a reputation of a national seal because of
its rigorous review standards and the high level of competition. As a
result, when the NEA awards direct grants to arts organizations across
the country, the strong leveraging effect of attracting additional
contributed dollars is unparalleled. The NEA has also served an
important role of leveraging an arts organization's earned income
potential by supporting marketing initiatives ranging from investments
in centralized ticketing offices, online community-wide cultural
calendars to market research studies of audience trends and habits.
In conclusion, I want to again express the nonprofit art
community's gratitude for your efforts thus far. I respectfully ask the
subcommittee to continue its commitment to the creative sector by
supporting an increase in the NEA fiscal year 2011 budget to $180
million to save jobs, educate our children, and maintain America's
cultural dynamism.
______
Letter From by the American Forest Foundation; California Forest Pest
Council; City of Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation, Bureau
of Forestry; Davey Institute; International Maple Syrup Institute;
Mulch & Soil Council; National Association of State Foresters; National
Plant Board; The Nature Conservancy; New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation; North American Maple Syrup Council, Inc.;
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture; Purdue University, Department
of Entomology; Society of American Florists; and Union of Concerned
Scientists;
March 19, 2010.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
RE: Fiscal year 2011 Appropriation for the USDA Forest Service
Dear Chairperson Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: We urge
the Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to
appropriate adequate funding for the USDA Forest Service (USFS) to
manage non-native insects and plant diseases that threaten America's
forests. We recommend an fiscal year 2011 appropriation of $145 million
for the USFS Forest Health Management Program. This level is about $7
million above the current level of funding.
In addition, we ask that you provide an increase of $3 million
above the fiscal year 2010 appropriations level for the ``Invasives
R&D'' line item within the USFS Research program. This increase
reflects the significant gaps in knowledge about monitoring techniques
and tools, as well as in how populations of non-native pests will
develop, expand and impact our U.S. forested systems. We ask the
Congress to support further research to be better able to develop and
implement appropriate management programs for these non-native pests.
We thank the subcommittee for substantially increasing funding for
the Forest Health Management Program in fiscal year 2010. The increase
resulted in substantial new resources being devoted to improving
detection and control methods for the emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly
adelgid, and sudden oak death (SOD; also called the phytophthora leaf
and stem blight pathogen); and maintenance of programs targeting the
gypsy moth and other non-native forest pests and diseases. The added
funding also allows the USFS to address new pests threatening forests
across the country, including thousand canker disease (which threatens
black walnuts nationwide); gold-spotted oak borer (which is killing oak
trees in southern California); and laurel wilt disease (which is
killing redbay, sassafras, and other trees and shrubs in coastal
regions of the Southeast). Funding at our recommended level supports
continued expansion of these important programs, which benefit both
rural and urban communities.
The Forest Health program provides vital expertise in forest pests'
biology and detection and management methodology that is crucial to the
success of pest eradication and containment programs implemented by the
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). As these
forest pests are detected in new areas, the importance of the USFS's
contribution rises. The USFS has the lead responsibility for detecting
and responding to any outbreaks of SOD in the forest. The USFS has
provided most of the funds utilized by Oregon in its SOD containment
program; this program has succeeded in containing spread of the disease
through vulnerable forests in the southwest corner of the State.
Detection programs managed under the Forest Health Monitoring Program
have surveyed 320 watersheds across the country. Watersheds have been
found with evidence of the SOD pathogen--outside the infested areas in
California and Oregon. These include streams in four Southeastern
States with substantial vulnerable oak forests--Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, and Mississippi. Both programs must continue in order to
protect vulnerable forests.
The emerald ash borer has now been detected in 13 States. The
USFS's Forest Health Protection program provides expertise in detecting
this elusive insect, in developing more effective tools to curtail its
spread, and in advising landowners on how to respond to the threat. For
example, the USFS helps to fund a website maintained by the Continental
Forest Dialogue (www.dontmovefirewood.org) in order to educate the
public not to transport potentially infested wood that can spread
pests. The USFS, involved cooperatively with APHIS, is evaluating
mitigation tools and strategies to be utilized by newly infested
regions to slow or curtail the spread of this devastating pest. It is
vitally important that the USFS effort targeting this insect not be
reduced. The USFS is working with State forestry departments through
the Great Plains Initiative to help those States prepare for the
widespread tree mortality that the emerald ash borer will cause.
Finally, the Forest Health Management Program needs adequate
funding to expand its Early Detection project. This program has been
responsible for detecting more than a dozen introduced insects,
including two which threaten the economically important pine forests of
the Southeast: the sirex woodwasp and the Mediterranean pine beetle.
The detection program now covers all States on a 3-year rotation. It
now must develop and deploy methodologies to detect the highly damaging
wood-boring beetles.
As the majority of southern forests are in private ownership, a
landowner assistance program for early detection and rapid response for
these pine pests should be considered.
The agency bearing the principal responsibility for eradicating
newly introduced forest pests is not the USFS, but rather APHIS, an
agency under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Appropriations
subcommittee. The USFS plays a critical support role by providing both
management expertise and critical research--in close coordination with
APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine and through cooperative funding
agreements with State forestry, State departments of agriculture, and
State land grant universities.
Nevertheless, the subcommittee cannot achieve its goal of
protecting the health of the nation's forests as long as funding
shortfalls undermine USDA APHIS eradication programs. We encourage the
subcommittee to work with the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee
to find ways to increase funding for forest pest line items in the USDA
APHIS Emerging Plant Pest account.
Sincerely,
Tom Martin,
President and CEO,
American Forest Foundation.
Bob Rynearson,
Chairman,
California Forest Pest Council.
Joseph J. McCarthy,
Senior City Forester,
City of Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation, Bureau of
Forestry.
Anand B. Persad, Ph.D., B.C.E.,
Regional Technical Advisor,
Davey Institute.
Gary Gaudette,
President,
International Maple Syrup Institute.
Robert C. LaGasse,
Executive Director,
Mulch & Soil Council.
Jay Farrell,
Executive Director,
National Association of State Foresters.
Carl P. Schulze, Jr.,
President,
National Plant Board.
Robert L. Bendick,
Director--Government Relations,
The Nature Conservancy.
Robert K. Davies,
Director of Lands and Forests,
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Rick Marsh,
President,
North American Maple Syrup Council, Inc.
Russell C. Redding,
Secretary,
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
Clifford S. Sadof,
Professor--Department of Entomology,
Purdue University.
Lin Schmale,
Senior Director--Government Relations,
Society of American Florists.
Phyllis N. Windle, Ph.D.,
Senior Scientist and Director--Invasive Species,
Union of Concerned Scientists.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association
Introduction
The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) is the national
trade association of the forest products industry, representing forest
landowners and pulp, paper, packaging, and wood products manufacturers.
AF&PA companies make products essential for everyday life from
renewable and recyclable resources.
The U.S. forest products industry accounts for approximately 6
percent of total domestic manufacturing GDP (putting it on par with the
automotive and plastics industries). Forest industry companies produce
$200 billion in products annually, employ 1 million people, and provide
$54 billion in annual payroll. The industry is among the top 10
manufacturing sector employers in 48 States. Lumber, panel, pulp, and
paper mills are frequently the economic hub of local communities,
making the industry's health critical to the economic vitality of
hundreds of rural areas across the country.
Declining Federal timber harvests have adversely affected many
rural communities, resulting in thousands of jobs lost. Many actions
are needed to help preserve the industry's remaining jobs and
contribute to the broader revitalization of the economy. Congress and
the administration must continue to improve credit markets, stimulate
demand for housing, and craft policies that recognize the significant
contributions made by the wood and paper industries towards renewable
energy and climate goals. Within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee,
we urge you to direct the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to do everything
it can to help preserve the competitiveness of the forest products
industry and the vital jobs it supports. Specific suggestions follow.
National Forest System, Forest Products--Increase Funding to Create New
Jobs
The President's budget request for the National Forest System (NFS)
proposes to create a new ``Integrated Resource Restoration'' account
incorporating NFS programs previously funded under the Wildlife and
Fish Habitat Management, Forest Products, and Vegetative and Watershed
Management accounts and including a new activity, ``Landscape and
Watershed Restoration.''
AF&PA understands the administration's desire to ``accelerate the
refocusing of national forest management to forest ecosystem
restoration project work, including global climate change adaptation
and mitigation.'' However, we have numerous unanswered questions that
preclude us from endorsing this initiative at this time. These are our
primary concerns:
--Uncertain funding allocation among activities.--The three programs
referenced above received a total of $668 million in fiscal
year 2010 funding. The President's budget request proposes $694
million for the consolidated ``Integrated Resource
Restoration'' account, but States that $90 million is to be
used for ``Landscape and Watershed Restoration.'' Thus, it
appears that one or more of the existing programmatic
activities (Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management, Forest
Products, and/or Vegetative and Watershed Management) will
receive reductions of at least $64 million. How are those
reductions to be allocated?
--Restoration, as a concept, is undefined.--As evidenced by our
signature on the joint February 16 letter to former Chairman
Norm Dicks (copy attached), AF&PA has begun a dialogue with the
Administration about how best to restore the health and
vitality of the national forests, increase active management of
more NFS acres, and revitalize the U.S. forest products
industry. Given that this discussion is in its nascent stage,
we have more questions than answers, including these:
--How will a national emphasis on ``restoration'' affect timber
sale programs on national forests that are not in need of
restoration?
--How will a national emphasis on restoration dovetail with the
forest plans, which focus on the statutory direction for
multiple use and sustained yield without necessarily
singling out ``restoration'' as a goal or objective?
--If the subcommittee were to adopt the administration's
recommendation, how would the Integrated Resource
Restoration funds and outputs be allocated to the various
Regions and Forests?
--Absence of resource-specific targets.--AF&PA and numerous other
conservation and natural resource organizations believe that
USFS managers must be accountable to the citizens of the United
States who are--collectively--the owners of the national
forests. And, while it is true that some forest metrics are
difficult to quantify (e.g., forest ecosystem resiliency), we
rely upon quantifiable measures (e.g., wood removals) to judge
how well the stewards of our collective patrimony are doing on
a year-to-year basis. The President's budget request predicts
timber outputs of 2.4 billion board feet, but does not contain
an explicit timber sales target. We urge the Committee to
maintain its past practice of including a statutory timber sale
target. Without a specific target, how will the USFS be held
accountable for meeting or exceeding its ``predicted'' volume?
--To create forest industry jobs, more Federal timber should be made
available for sale.--At a time when most Americans are
concerned about jobs and our economy, studies indicate that the
USFS timber sale program could produce more than 6,000 jobs
with an additional annual investment of $57 million, and even
more jobs could be produced with higher investments. Without a
specific NFS timber volume target and by eliminating the forest
products account, how will new jobs be created?
AF&PA supports the concept of ``restoration'' as applied to the
national forests. Well managed forests are critical to the United
States, providing recreation, clean air and water, and fish and
wildlife habitat. They also support jobs, rural communities, local
education, and the paper and building materials vital to economic
recovery. We intend to work with the Administration to help rebuild
support for proactive national forest management and, where necessary,
``restoration.'' However, while this discussion is ongoing, we urge
this subcommittee to continue to provide funding for a separate forest
products account, increase fiscal year 2011 funding to $393.722
million, and set a national timber sales target of 3 billion board
feet. We also urge you to provide funds for road construction/
reconstruction necessary to implement projects and to reduce the $10
billion road maintenance backlog that exists primarily on level 3, 4,
and 5 roads.
National Forest System, Hazardous Fuels Reduction--Increase Funding and
Integration
As we have testified in previous years, hazardous fuels reduction
is essential to the Federal forest health restoration effort and AF&PA
supports a modest ($10 million) increase over the fiscal year 2010
enacted level for this vital program. We also urge the subcommittee to
instruct the USFS to implement these projects in forested stands, using
mechanical treatments that produce merchantable wood fiber for
utilization by local mills. Prescribed burns and debris removal will
not solve the hazardous fuel overload by themselves. The forest
products industry can and does play a key role in reducing hazardous
fuels from Federal lands as evidenced by the fact that mechanical
hazardous fuel reduction costs are frequently significantly lower in
regions with a substantial forest industry presence. The agency must
take advantage of these synergies.
We also continue to believe the agency must move away from using
``acres treated'' as the sole metric of accomplishment in the hazardous
fuels reduction program. Exclusive focus on this measure incentivizes
the agency to treat low-priority acres repeatedly and discourages the
treatment of higher-priority forested acres in condition class 3. More
aggressive pursuit of mechanical treatments, including more frequent
use of Healthy Forest Restoration Act authorities, will result in
treatments that produce usable wood fiber and--more importantly--
longer-lasting and more meaningful positive impacts on the long-term
fire problem.
National Forest System, Forest Health Management--Increase Bark Beetle
Control Funding
This subcommittee has recognized the urgent need to increase
funding to fight bark beetle epidemics and following the final fiscal
year 2010 allocation, region 2 received an additional $40 million,
Montana received $20 million, and Idaho received $14 million to address
this urgent problem. Those funds, while tremendously important and
appreciated, are far short of what is necessary. Unfortunately, the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget request is silent on how, or
whether, to pay for remaining work associated with the bark beetle
epidemics. AF&PA urges this subcommittee to provide full funding to
fight this insidious forest pest. Failure to act now will not only
increase NFS firefighting costs in future years, but will cost the
Treasury millions in revenue from lost timber sale receipts.
Firefighting--Fund the FLAME Program
AF&PA applauds the leadership by this subcommittee in including the
Federal Land Assistance Management and Enhancement (FLAME) Act of 2009
within the fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. We urge you to continue this leadership by
ensuring sufficient FLAME funding to cover the cost of emergency fires
and eliminate the need to transfer funds from nonfire programs. In the
past, ``fire borrowing'' has been disruptive to the management of
affected Federal agencies and led to inefficient resource management.
We also urge you to provide direction to USFS and Bureau of Land
Management officials to use the most current and best-informed means of
estimating annual suppression instead of the traditional 10-year
average.
Forest and Rangeland Research--Increase USFS R&D Funding Moderately
Targeted research and data collection is needed to support forest
productivity, forest health, and economic utilization of fiber.
Increased funding for the Research and Development budget area is
needed in order to allow the agency to focus on several critical
priorities. The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is the
backbone of our knowledge about the Nation's forests, and is a critical
tool that allows us to assess their sustainability and health. We
request $76 million for the FIA program, which represents full funding.
This level is needed to allow the USFS to cover 100 percent of U.S.
forest lands and expedite data availability and analysis, and to
support our growing data needs in the areas of bioenergy and climate
mitigation.
We also recommend increased funding within the USFS R&D program in
support of the Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance. Working in partnership
with universities and the private sector, Forest Service funding for
the Agenda 2020 program supports research to develop and deploy wood
production systems that are ecologically sustainable, socially
acceptable, and economically viable, in order to enhance forest
conservation and the global competitiveness of forest product
manufacturing and biorefinery operations in the United States. In
particular, we encourage greater support for research on forest
productivity and utilization at the Forest Products Lab and Research
Stations. Innovative wood and fiber utilization research, including
nanotechnology research, contributes to conservation and productivity
of the forest resource. The development of new forest products and
important research on the efficient use of wood fiber directly address
the forest health problem through exploration of small diameter wood
use and bioenergy production.
Finally, AF&PA recommends $15 million to implement section 9012 of
the 2008 farm bill, which authorized a competitive R&D program to
encourage the use of forest biomass for energy. This funding is needed
to unlock the bioenergy potential from our Nation's forests while
simultaneously benefitting communities that rely on current forest
resources. More renewable energy, more sustainable wood-based products,
more carbon sequestration, and healthier forest-based communities are
all possible with additional support for forest tree research.
State and Private Forestry--Maintain Fiscal Year 2010 Funding Levels
for Key Programs
AF&PA applauds the subcommittee's sustained support for USFS State
and Private Forestry programs and we are especially appreciative of
last year's $42.2 million increase. With ongoing droughts, invasive
species infestations, and significant forest health problems, private
forest resources remain vulnerable to damage from threats that do not
respect public/private boundary lines.
As you know, private forests provide the bulk of the Nation's wood
fiber supply, while also sequestering huge amounts of carbon from the
atmosphere, providing millions of acres of wildlife habitat, and
supplying clean drinking water for millions of Americans. USFS State
and private forestry programs protect these resources from threats that
are beyond the capability of small landowners to effectively combat.
Therefore, we urge you to provide funding at no less than their fiscal
year 2010 enacted levels for the cooperative forest health, cooperative
fire assistance, forest legacy roads, forest stewardship, and forest
legacy programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates
the opportunity to submit testimony in support of increased
appropriations for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal year 2011. AIBS
requests that Congress provide the USGS with $1.3 billion in fiscal
year 2011, with at least $240 million for the biological resources
discipline (BRD). We further request that Congress provide the EPA's
Office of Research and Development with at least $646.5 million, with
at least $273 million for human health and ecosystem research.
USGS
As a broker of unbiased, independent research, data, and
assessments, the USGS provides needed information to public and private
sector decisionmakers. Data generated by the USGS save taxpayers money
by reducing economic losses from natural disasters, allowing more
effective management of water and natural resources, assisting the
necessary preparation for climate impacts, and providing essential
geospatial data that are needed for commercial activity and resource
management. Much of these data are collected only by the USGS. Our
Nation cannot afford to sacrifice this information; rather, we should
increase our investments in this work. Increased funding for the USGS
is a wise investment that will bear real returns and benefits for the
country.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request for the USGS is inadequate to
sustain the agency's critical work. The budget request appears to
provide a 1.9 percent increase. However, when $13.5 million in fixed
costs and $11.7 million in Interior-wide cuts are accounted for, the
proposed budget would only increase funding for the USGS by 0.7 percent
from fiscal year 2010 enacted. Given the agency's critical activities
for the environmental and economic health of the Nation, more support
is justified.
The proposed budget would cut funding for the BRD within the USGS.
Interior-wide cuts and absorption of fixed costs will result in a net
decline of $6.2 million from fiscal year 2010 enacted. This erosion of
funding will undercut BRD's ability to fulfill its valuable
programmatic missions. BRD's science programs inform natural resource
managers and reduce economic losses from invasive species and
pathogens. The BRD provides scientific data that help us understand how
ecosystems are influenced by climate change, and that help us address
these changes. Research conducted by the BRD addresses the risks of
environmental contaminants to our citizens and living resources. The
BRD also provides the science necessary to understand and manage
endangered fish, wildlife, and plants. All told, these services
contribute significantly to the health of our Nation's environment and
economy.
Federal investment in the BRD is further leveraged through
partnerships with other Federal, State, local, tribal, and private
organizations. Through efforts such as the Cooperative Research Units
(CRUs), the USGS and their partners address pressing issues facing
natural resource managers, such as invasive species, wildlife diseases,
and endangered species recovery. In addition to providing research
expertise, these partnerships at 40 universities in 38 States serve as
important training centers for America's next generation of scientists
and resource managers. Yet although these joint ventures between USGS
scientists and university researchers are effective investments of
proven worth, funding for the CRUs would decline by $170,000 under the
administration's budget request.
Also of note within the BRD is the biological research and
monitoring budget line, which develops new research methods,
inventories populations of plants and animals, and monitors changes in
these species and their habitats over time. This information is used by
Federal and State natural resource managers to maintain healthy and
diverse ecosystems while balancing the needs of public use. The science
conducted by the biological research and monitoring program is also
vital for informing management actions by other Interior bureaus. The
President's budget would provide an additional $4 million for USGS
science support to the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Bureau of Land Management. We strongly support this
increase and encourage Congress to further increase funding for these
initiatives.
The National Streamflow Information Program within the water
resources discipline of the USGS also provides needed information for
resource managers. Its national network of stream-gages records changes
in streamflow due to alterations in land use, water use, rainfall,
drought, and climate change. This information is vital to resource
managers who make decisions about water use, for scientists charged
with protecting and restoring aquatic species and habitats, and
ultimately for farmers making decisions about crop management.
Additionally, we ask Congress to fully fund fixed costs at the
USGS. The President's budget request does not fully fund these
expenses, creating a $13.5 million budget cut for USGS programs. Within
the BRD, the absorption of fixed costs will remove $2.6 million from
funds needed for research, monitoring, and public education activities.
The USGS is uniquely positioned to address many of the Nation's
biological and environmental challenges, including energy independence,
climate change, water quality, and conservation of biological
diversity. Biological science programs within the USGS gather long-term
data not available from other sources. These data have contributed
fundamentally to our understanding of the status and dynamics of
biological populations and have improved our understanding of how
ecosystems function, all of which is necessary for predicting the
impacts of land management practices and climate change on the natural
environment. This array of research expertise not only serves the core
missions of the Department of the Interior, but also contributes to
management decisions made by other agencies and private sector
organizations. In short, increased investments in these important
research activities will yield dividends.
EPA
As EPA's scientific division, the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) supports valuable extramural and intramural research
that is used to understand, prevent, and mitigate environmental
problems facing our nation. ORD research informs decisions made by
public health and safety managers, natural resource managers,
businesses, and other stakeholders concerned about climate change, air
and water pollution, and land management and restoration. In short, ORD
provides the scientific basis upon which EPA monitoring and enforcement
programs are built. Funding, however, for ORD has declined since fiscal
year 2004, when it peaked at $646.5 million. At $605 million, the
budget request for fiscal year 2011 falls far short of addressing past
budget deficits. We ask that Congress restore funding for ORD to at
least the fiscal year 2004 level.
The Ecosystem Services Research (ESR) program is one important area
within ORD that would benefit from increased funding. The ESR is
responsible for enhancing, protecting, and restoring ecosystem
services, such as clean air and water, rich soil for food and crop
production, pollination, and flood control. ``EPA's Ecosystem Services
Research Program is bold, innovative, and necessary,'' wrote Dr. Judith
Meyer, chair of the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of the
EPA's Science Advisory Board in a 2009 Committee consultation. She also
wrote that ``[t]he considerable potential of the program is unlikely to
be achieved with its current level of funding and staff.'' The
President's budget request would do little to solve the problem, with a
proposed $1.5 million cut in funding for the program. More troubling is
potential elimination of FTEs that could accompany this budget cut. We
ask that Congress fully fund the program.
The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate Fellowship is
another program that has been chronically underfunded. The fellowship
contributes to the training of the next generation of scientists by
supporting graduate students pursuing an advanced degree in
environmental science. The President's request of $17.3 million
represents the first real increase for the program since fiscal year
2006 and would provide 240 new fellowships. Since its inception in
1995, this successful program has supported the education and training
of approximately 1,500 STAR Fellows who have gone on to pursue careers
as scientists and educators.
In conclusion, we urge Congress to restore funding for the ORD to
historic levels and to proportionally increase funding for human health
and ecosystem research within the program. These appropriation levels
would allow ORD to address a backlog of research needs.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
request summary
On behalf of the Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs),
which compose the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC),
thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2011
appropriations recommendations for the 29 colleges funded under the
Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act (Tribal
College Act), the two Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) postsecondary
institutions, and the Institute of American Indian Arts. The U.S.
Department of the Interior, BIE, administers these programs, save for
the Institute of American Indian Arts, which is congressionally
chartered and funded through the Interior Department.
In fiscal year 2011, TCUs seek $92.5 million to fund all of the
programs under the Tribal College Act. Specifically, we seek $89.9
million for institutional operations grants; of which, $63.2 million is
for title I grants (26 TCUs); $17.7 for title II (Dine College); and $9
million for title V ($5.5 million for United Tribes Technical College
and $3.5 million for Navajo Technical College). This request represents
an increase over fiscal year 2010 levels of $12.6 million for title I
grants; $4.7 million for Dine College; and $2.33 million for title V.
Additionally, we seek $601,000 for the technical assistance contract
authorized under the act, which is the same level as annually
appropriated since fiscal year 2006, and $2 million to help the TCUs
establish and fund endowments under title III of the act, which has
been severely cut over the past few budget/appropriations cycles.
Lastly, we are very grateful for the funding appropriated last year to
transition TCUs' institutional operations grants to a forward-funded
program. Unfortunately, the BIE erred in its implementation of the
transition to a forward funded program. We strongly urge Congress and
the BIE to work together to rectify the funding issues of at least
three title I TCUs that have occurred as a result of the flawed
transition schedule used by the BIE in implementing a forward funded
program for the TCUs' institutional operations grants.
AIHEC's membership also includes three other institutions funded
under separate authorities within the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations, namely: Haskell Indian Nations
University; Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute; and the
Institute of American Indian Arts. AIHEC supports the independently
submitted requests for funding of the institutional operations budgets
of these colleges.
brief background
Today there are 36 TCUs located in 14 States, which were begun
specifically to serve the higher education needs of American Indians.
Annually, these institutions serve students from more than 250
federally recognized tribes, more than 80 percent of whom are eligible
to receive Federal financial aid.
TCUs receiving Federal funding are accredited by independent,
regional accreditation agencies and like all institutions of higher
education, must undergo stringent performance reviews on a periodic
basis to retain their accreditation status. TCUs are young,
geographically isolated, and poor. Our oldest institution, Dine
College, was established in 1968. Most TCUs are located in areas of
Indian country that the Federal Government defines as extremely remote.
They serve their communities in ways that reach far beyond college
level programming and are often called beacons of hope for American
Indian people. Our institutions provide much needed high school
completion (GED), basic remediation, job training, college preparatory
courses, and adult education programs. They serve as community
libraries and centers, tribal archives, career and business centers,
economic development centers, public meeting places, and elder and
child care centers. It is an underlying goal of all TCUs to improve the
lives of students through higher education and to move American Indians
toward self-sufficiency. This goal is fundamental because of the
extreme poverty in which most American Indians live. In fact, 3 of the
5 poorest counties in America are home to TCUs, where unemployment
rates are consistently well above 60 percent. By contrast, the current
national unemployment rate, which is considered to be alarmingly high,
is 9.9 percent.
TCUs, the U.S. military academies, and Howard and Gallaudet
Universities are the only institutions of higher education that depend
on the Federal Government for their basic institutional operating
funds. TCUs remain the most poorly funded institutions of higher
education in the Nation.
justifications
TCUs provide critical access to vital postsecondary education
opportunities. TCUs provide access to higher education for American
Indians and others living in some of the Nation's most rural and
economically depressed areas. The 2000 Census reported the annual per
capita income of the U.S. population as $21,587. However, the annual
per capita income of Native Americans was $12,923 or about 40 percent
less. In addition to serving their students, TCUs serve their
communities through a wide variety of community outreach programs.
TCUs are producing a new generation of highly trained American
Indian teachers, tribal government leaders, engineers, nurses, computer
programmers, and other much-needed professionals. By teaching the job
skills most in demand on their reservations, TCUs are laying a solid
foundation for tribal economic growth, with benefits for surrounding
communities. In contrast to the high rates of unemployment on
reservations, graduates of TCUs are employed in ``high need''
occupational areas such as Head Start teachers, elementary and
secondary school teachers, and nurses/healthcare providers. Just as
important, the vast majority of tribal college graduates remain in
their tribal communities, applying their newly acquired skills and
knowledge where they are most needed.
TCUs meet the strict standards of mainstream accreditation boards
offering top quality academic programs and serve as effective bridges
to 4-year institutions of higher learning. A growing number of TCUs
have attained a 10-year accreditation term, the longest term granted to
any higher education institution. While most TCUs are 2-year
institutions offering certificates and associate degrees, their
transfer function is significant. An independent survey of TCU
graduates conducted for the American Indian College Fund indicated that
more than 80 percent of respondents who attended a mainstream college
prior to enrolling at a TCU did not finish the degree they were
pursuing at the mainstream college. The rate of completion markedly
improved for those who attended a TCU prior to beginning a degree
program at a mainstream institution. After completing tribal college
coursework, less than half of respondents dropped out of mainstream
colleges and nearly 40 percent went on to earn a bachelor's degree.
This clearly illustrates TCUs' positive impact on the persistence of
American Indian students in pursuit of baccalaureate degrees. The
overwhelming majority of respondents felt that their TCU experience had
prepared them well for further education and noted that it had a very
positive influence on their personal and professional achievements.
Despite a proven track record of success, TCUs still face serious
disparities in institutional operations funding. Title I of the Tribal
College Act authorizes funding for the basic institutional operating
budget of one qualifying institution per Federal recognized tribe based
on a full-time American Indian student enrollment formula. Distribution
of funds under title I of the Tribal College Act is enrollment driven.
Currently 25 of TCUs are funded under title I of the Tribal Colleges
Act, with Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College expected to be added as
the 26th, in fiscal year 2011. Title I institutions are currently
receiving $5,784 per Indian student toward their institutional
operating budgets. If you factor in inflation, the buying power of the
current appropriation is $965 LESS per Indian student than it was when
it was initially funded almost 30 years ago, when the appropriation was
$2,831 per Indian student. Additionally, TCUs do not receive any
Federal funding toward their operations for non-Indian students, which
account for approximately 21 percent of their enrollments. Because they
are located on Federal trust lands, States have no obligation to fund
these institutions. While TCUs do seek funding from their respective
State legislatures for the non-Indian State-resident students or
nonbeneficiary students, who account for 21 percent of our enrollments,
their successes have been, at best, unreliable. TCUs are accredited by
the same regional agencies that accredit mainstream institutions, yet
they have to continually advocate for basic operating support for their
non-Indian State students, within their respective State legislatures.
If these nonbeneficiary students attended any other public institution
in the State, the State would provide that institution with ongoing
operations funding.
While the other TCUs' operating funds allocations are not
enrollment driven and therefore the disparity is not as easily
illustrated, they too suffer from a lack of stable operating revenue.
This is not simply a matter of appropriations falling short of an
authorization; it effectively impedes our institutions from having the
necessary resources to grow their programs in response to the changing
needs of their students and the communities they serve.
some additional facts
Enrollment Gains and New TCUs.--Compounding existing funding
disparities is the fact that although the numbers of TCUs and students
enrolled in them have dramatically increased since 1981, appropriations
have increased at a disproportionately low rate. Since they were first
funded, the number of tribal colleges has quadrupled and continues to
grow; Indian student enrollments have risen more than 310 percent.
Between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2011, five more TCUs have or
will become eligible for title I funding under the Tribal College Act.
TCUs are in many ways victims of their own successes. The growing
number of tribally chartered colleges and universities being
established and increasing enrollments have forced TCUs to slice an
already inadequate annual funding pie into even smaller pieces.
Local Tax and Revenue Bases.--TCUs cannot rely on a local tax base
for revenue. Although tribes have the sovereign authority to tax, high
reservation poverty rates, the trust status of reservation lands, and
the lack of strong reservation economies hinder the creation of a
reservation tax base. On Indian reservations where TCUs are located,
there is sweeping unemployment that is more than 80 percent higher than
that of the Nation at large.
Trust Responsibility.--The emergence of TCUs is a direct result of
the special relationship between American Indian tribes and the Federal
Government. TCUs are founded and chartered by their respective American
Indian tribes, which hold a special legal relationship with the Federal
Government, actualized by more than 400 treaties, several Supreme Court
decisions, prior congressional action, and the ceding of more than 1
billion acres of land to the Federal Government. Beyond the trust
responsibility, the fact remains that TCUs are providing a public
service that no other institutions of higher education are willing, or
able, to provide by helping the Federal Government fulfill its
responsibility to the American people, particularly in rural America.
Despite the fact that only enrolled members of a federally recognized
tribe or the biological child of a tribal member may be counted as
Indian students when determining an institution's share of the
operating funds, TCUs have open enrollment policies. Approximately 21
percent of TCU enrollments are non-Indians. These institutions are
simply and effectively providing access to quality higher education
opportunities to reservation community residents.
the president's fiscal year 2011 budget
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget recommends level funding
for all of the programs authorized under the Tribal College Act. While
the fiscal year 2010 budget included a one-time payment to transition
the institutional operations grants for TCUs to a forward funded
program so that the colleges have their operating funds prior to the
start of each academic year, this transition funding did not increase
the day-to-day operating budget of the colleges.
appropriations request for fiscal year 2011
As noted earlier, it has been almost 30 years since the Tribal
College Act was first funded and the TCUs have yet to receive the
congressionally authorized per Indian student funding level. To achieve
full funding would require an additional $19.4 million. However, we do
recognize the current budget constraints Congress is facing and
therefore request that this funding shortfall be corrected over the
next 2 fiscal years. To that end, the TCUs respectfully request a total
appropriation of $92.5 million for all of the programs authorized under
the Tribal College Act (25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) Specifically, we seek
$89.9 million for institutional operations grants; of which, $63.2
million for title I grants (26 TCUs); $17.7 for title II (Dine
College); and $9 million for Title V ($5.5 million for United Tribes
Technical College and $3.5 million for Navajo Technical College).
Additionally, we seek $601,000 for the technical assistance contract
authorized under the act, which is the same level as annually
appropriated since fiscal year 2006, and lastly, $2 million to help the
TCUs establish and fund endowments under title III of the act, which
has been severely cut over the past few budget/appropriations cycles.
Lastly, we respectfully request that Congress, working with the BIE,
rectify the collective $1.5 million shortfall of the three known title
I TCUs that is a result of the flawed transition schedule used by the
BIE to transition the TCUs' institutional operations grants program to
forward funding.
conclusion
TCUs provide quality higher education to many thousands of American
Indians who might otherwise not have access to such opportunities. The
modest Federal investment that has been made in TCUs has paid great
dividends in terms of employment, education, and economic development.
Continuation of this investment makes sound moral and fiscal sense.
We greatly appreciate your past and continued support of the
Nation's TCUs and your serious consideration of our fiscal year 2011
appropriations requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Lung Association
FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Protection Agency Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthier Outdoor Air.................................. 811.3
Federal Stationary Source Regulation............... 34.9
Federal Support of Air Quality Management.......... 142.3
Clean Air Allowance Trading Program................ 31.1
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards................ 100.7
State and Local Air Quality Management (STAG)...... 309.1
Air Monitoring................................. 15
Diesel Emission Reductions (STAG).................. 100
Human Health Risk Assessment........................... 48.9
Healthier Indoor Air................................... 47.1
Clean, Green and Healthy Schools Initiative........ 6.2
Research: Clean Air.................................... 85.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, the American Lung
Association is pleased to submit testimony in support of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) program to improve the Nation's
air. The American Lung Association was founded in 1904 to fight
tuberculosis and today, our mission is to save lives by improving lung
health and preventing lung disease. We accomplish this through
research, advocacy and education. Today, we would like to share our
support for EPA's fiscal year 2011 budget for its Clean Air Program.
This program will improve public health and more effectively protect
those with lung disease from the adverse effects of air pollution. As
Congress addresses global warming and energy issues through exciting
new technology, cleaner energy sources and new policies, there is an
opportunity to ensure that the air is cleaner. We urge this
subcommittee to ensure that the Clean Air Act's promise of clean,
healthy air for all Americans is kept.
Lung Disease and Air Quality
Lung disease is a significant health problem in the United States.
Lung disease is the third leading cause of death in the United States--
responsible for 1 in every 6 deaths. More than 35 million Americans
suffer from a chronic lung disease. According to the National
Institutes of Health, lung diseases cost the U.S. economy an estimated
$173.4 billion annually. Nearly all lung diseases are impacted by air
pollution. How well or poorly our lungs perform depends on the quality
of the air we breathe, making the impact of air pollution inescapable.
Air pollution remains a primary contributor to the burden of
respiratory diseases in our healthcare system as well.
The Clean Air Act has proven to be a powerful tool to improve the
quality of our Nation's air. Since 1990, when Congress strengthened the
Clean Air Act, the annual average emissions of sulfur dioxide
nationwide have dropped by 59 percent, nitrogen oxide emissions have
been reduced by 35 percent and carbon monoxide has plunged by 68
percent. Ambient or outdoor ozone levels are 14 percent lower on
average. Fine particle levels are down by 19 percent. However, much
remains to be done. Millions of Americans live in counties that do not
meet current Clean Air Act health standards, including those in the
Washington, DC metropolitan area. The EPA estimates that 126.8 million
Americans in 2008 lived in areas where they were exposed to unsafe
levels of air pollution.
We are pleased to see that the President's budget increases the EPA
budget for Healthier Outdoor Air to $811.3 million and for Healthier
Indoor Air to $47.1 million. These increases will help the EPA address
the significant health and environmental impact of air pollution.
Setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide and lead every 5 years. We are pleased
to see EPA address this obligation in a timelier manner. Historically,
EPA has not met the deadlines for these reviews and has been obligated
to complete such reviews under court order. Last year, the U.S. Court
of Appeals ruled that the EPA needed to reconsider the scientific
evidence for much stronger particulate matter standards, sending their
2006 standards back to EPA for corrective action. The American Lung
Association is pleased that EPA is on track to propose a new fine
particle standard in November 2010 and issue a final standard in July
2011. In 2008, EPA set national air standards for ozone that ignored
the unanimous agreement among the independent scientific advisory
committee on the need for much more protective new standards, despite
the Clean Air Act's clear requirements to establish science-based
standards that protect public health. We are especially pleased that
EPA has proposed a much stronger ozone standard, reflecting that
earlier scientific assessment. EPA is expected to finalize the ozone
standard in August. It is critical that the committee support setting
National Ambient Air Quality Standards at levels that are appropriate
for the protection of public health. To accomplish the important air
standards work, we support EPA's budget request of $48.9 million to
support the Human Health Risk Assessment and we strongly support
funding for Federal Stationary Source Regulations at $34.9 million that
includes work to set the standards.
Meeting National Air Pollution Health Standards
Efforts to clean up power plants and other measures to implement
pollution cleanup are finally moving forward, but much work remains.
EPA is working on new rules to implement the ozone standards and PM
standards. EPA also must move forward with regulations to clean up
power plants including the Clean Air Interstate Rule replacement and a
MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) rule for electric
generators, as well as additional rules to regulate other large
emission sources--tools that our communities must have in order to meet
the national air standards. EPA must also support state and tribal
efforts to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. We support
funding Federal Stationary Source Regulations at $34.9 million, Federal
Support for Air Quality Management budget of $142.3 million, and the
Clean Air Allowance Trading program budget of $31.1 million.
Cleaning-up Cars and Trucks
EPA has continued to make progress reducing pollution from motor
vehicles. However, light duty cars and trucks remain a significant
source of air pollution. We strongly support EPA's planned work in
fiscal year 2011 on Tier 3 standards that could include tighter
NOX standards, off-cycle standards and PM standards for
gasoline vehicles as well as lower sulfur gasoline that will enable
advanced pollution control technology. This work is vital to mitigate
any adverse air quality impacts that may result from increased use of
renewable fuels. We strongly support increasing the Federal Vehicle and
Fuel Standards and Certification budget to $100.7 million.
Funding for State and Local Air Agencies and Air Pollution Monitoring
State and local air pollution control agencies are on the front
lines in the effort to improve air quality across the Nation. These
agencies will be called on to adopt and enforce a range of new
emissions reduction programs designed to meet the needs of each area
that violate the standards. State and local air pollution agencies need
additional resources to meet the obligation to implement the Clean Air
Act. One area in need of significant resources and attention from this
committee is the air pollution monitoring network. Monitors provide the
most reliable and consistent information on air pollution in our
communities. Monitoring tracks both the levels of pollution in the
outside air as well as emissions from specific sources. This also
enables policymakers and the public to see what measures are effective
and where air quality management efforts have fallen short. Further,
emerging science warns that the air quality in areas with no
monitoring, like the areas adjacent to major highways or in poorer
neighborhoods, carries serious health risks. We are pleased to see EPA
deploy new monitors in response to the new nitrogen dioxide standards.
Without adequate monitors in place, pollution in those areas will not
be tracked and effectively reduced. To protect populations at risk and
to assess the efficacy of pollution control programs, EPA must work
with scientists and State officials to lower the costs of monitoring
and expand its reach. We are pleased that the President's budget
includes $15 million for enhancing air pollution monitoring. Further,
we strongly support the $82.5 million increase to $309.1 million for
State and Local Air Quality Management.
Funding for Diesel Retrofits
Diesel pollution kills. Researchers have found that adults and
children show increased health risks associated with living or working
in close proximity to busy roadways. Children are especially vulnerable
to the effects of traffic-related air pollution. Studies show children
exposed to higher levels of traffic-generated air pollution have
smaller lung function and worsened asthma. In addition, many components
of diesel emissions have been found to be carcinogenic. Over the past
decade, EPA has issued new regulations that will significantly reduce
emissions from new diesel engines used in trucks, buses, heavy
equipment and other vehicles. Last year, EPA issued new rules to clean
up pollution from ocean going vessels. Ocean going vessels are a
significant source of particle pollution. We urge the committee to
support EPA's efforts to combat this pollution through the
International Maritime Organization. However, it will take many years
to replace the oldest and dirtiest vehicles with new ones that meet
new, more stringent Federal emissions standards for diesel engines. We
support increasing funding to at least $100 million per year for fiscal
year 2011 for the Diesel Emission Reduction Act program.
Indoor Air
We thank the subcommittee for its support of the healthier indoor
air program at EPA. EPA has provided great leadership in addressing
radon, the second leading cause of lung cancer. EPA should continue its
work to mitigate this risk. We are pleased to see EPA increase funding
for the Healthy Schools Initiative. More than 23 million Americans
suffer from asthma. Air pollution can trigger asthma attacks both
indoors and outdoors. The programs funded by the Indoor Air program
raise awareness about asthma and environmental factors that trigger
asthma attacks; help people with asthma and their families manage
environmental triggers in their homes; work to reduce children's
exposure to indoor asthma triggers at schools and day care centers and
promote environmental management as a component of medical and
healthcare asthma management practices. The American Lung Association
is proud to partner with EPA in this important work. We strongly urge
the committee to fund the healthier indoor air program for fiscal year
2011 at $47 million. We are also pleased to support the Clean, Green
and Healthy Schools Initiative funded at $6.2 million for fiscal year
2011.
Research: Clean Air
We thank the subcommittee for its continuing support for air
pollution research at EPA. EPA's work to establish National Ambient Air
Quality Standards must be grounded in the best scientific research.
EPA's Clean Air Research program will continue the work to improve the
understanding of the impact of pollution on health and assist with
crafting innovative solutions. We urge the subcommittee to fund the
clean air research program for fiscal year 2011 at $85.3 million.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
recommendations of the American Lung Association. Every day we are
fighting for air--clean, healthy air for all Americans to breathe. A
robust EPA air pollution program is vital to our success.
______
Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Mountain Club
Dear Madam Chairwoman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: On
behalf of our more than 100,000 members, advocates, and supporters in
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) is
honored to present this testimony in support of much needed funding for
conservation and recreation programs in the fiscal year 2011 Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, including:
--$150 million for the USDA--Forest Service Forest Legacy Program;
--$600 million for the Department of the Interior--Land and Water
Conservation Fund (including $425 million for Federal-side and
$175 million for State-side programs);
--$11 million for the Department of the Interior--Highlands
Conservation Act;
--$12 million for the Department of the Interior--National Parks
Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance program.;
--$10 million for the USDA--Community Forest and Open Space
Conservation Program;
----$2.35 million for the Department of the Interior--Challenge Cost
Share Program; and
--Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act.
These programs provide economic, ecological, and recreational
benefits to Americans across the country. Land conservation and
recreation program funding are vital to maintaining the health and well
being of the Nation's lands and our citizens. We greatly appreciate the
increases many of these programs received last year. However, the
demands on these programs continue to grow so we are hopeful that these
increases will continue into fiscal year 2011. There is a great need to
fund these programs at the above requested amounts and to work toward
their full funding.
Established in 1876, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) is the
oldest conservation and recreation organization in the country. Our
mission is to promote the protection, enjoyment, and understanding of
the mountains, forests, waters, and trails of the Appalachian region.
More than 100,000 AMC members, advocates, and supporters in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic promote this mission with great enthusiasm.
Open space conservation in the East is a vital investment that
ensures clean air and water, a sustainable supply of timber products
produced from private and public forests, local food and farm products
for millions of people, and diverse recreational opportunities
including hiking, cross-country skiing, wildlife viewing, photography,
and paddling. Conservation of these resources is needed now more than
ever. According to a report by the USDA Forest Service (USFS), Forests
on the Edge, more than 44 million acres of private forestland in the
East will be developed in the next 30 years.
Priority Fiscal Year 2011 Forest Legacy Program Needs in the Northeast
For fiscal year 2011, we have assembled a list of exemplary Forest
Legacy projects in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Some of these
projects, like the Katahdin Forest, Androscoggin Headwaters North, and
Cardigan Highlands, need this funding to be completed. Others projects,
such as the Scantic River Headwaters and Little Bushkill Headwaters
Forest Reserve, are new priorities that will protect unique and
critical forests in the Eastern United States.
AMC respectfully requests an increase in overall funding for the
Forest Legacy Program to $150 million in fiscal year 2011. For fiscal
year 2011, the USFS received 60 project proposals from 41 States and
territories to protect 361,604 acres with a total project value of more
than $200 million. The Forest Legacy Program conserves working forests
threatened by conversion to development or other uses, and promotes
economic sustainability as well as recreation, open space protection,
and wildlife habitat. Public lands provide innumerable social and
economic benefits including promoting public health through outdoor
recreation, protection of watersheds and drinking water supplies,
wildfire reduction and prevention, and supporting wildlife and
fisheries as they adapt to climate change.
For fiscal year 2011, we support funding for the following Forest
Legacy projects in the AMC region:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME........................................ West Grand Lake Community
Forest
ME........................................ Katahdin Forest Expansion 3--
Gulf Hagas
NH........................................ Cardigan Highlands
NH........................................ Androscoggin Headwaters
North
MA........................................ Brushy Mountain
CT........................................ Scantic River Headwaters
NY........................................ Hurley Mountain
NY........................................ Follensby Pond
PA........................................ Little Bushkill Headwaters
Forest Reserve
MD........................................ Wicomico
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Fiscal Year 2011 Land and Water Conservation Fund Program
Needs in the Northeast
AMC respectfully requests an increase in overall funding for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), specifically $425 million for
the Federal LWCF and $175 million for the LWCF stateside program. We
applaud the substantial LWCF funding increases provided by this
subcommittee in fiscal year 2010. And we are most thankful that the
Obama administration's budget recognizes the importance of this program
by proposing significant increases for fiscal year 2011 as well as
setting a goal of full funding for the LWCF in the next four years.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier program to acquire and protect
lands in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests,
Bureau of Land Management units, and other Federal land systems. This
program faces an extensive and growing backlog of land acquisition
needs across the Nation. The LWCF will provide important funds to
obtain inholdings and lands adjacent to Federal lands such as the
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Silvio O. Conte National
NWR, Wallkill NWR and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
The LWCF stateside program provides close-to-home recreation by
helping to create thousands of State and local parks across the
country. These parks provide millions of urban and suburban residents
the benefits of access to natural areas while promoting much needed
tourism in local communities.
In fiscal year 2011, the AMC supports funding for the following
LWCF projects in our region:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Federal Land Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME........................................ Rachel Carson NWR
ME/NH..................................... White Mountain National
Forest
NH, VT, CT, MA............................ Silvio O. Conte NWR
NH........................................ Lake Umbagog--Androscoggin
Headwaters NWR
CT........................................ Stewart McKinney NWR
NJ........................................ Wallkill NWR
NJ........................................ Great Swamp NWR
PA........................................ Delaware Water Gap NRA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2011 Highlands Conservation Act Needs
AMC respectfully requests an increase in overall funding for the
Highlands Conservation Act (HCA), including $10 million for land
conservation and $1 million for USFS technical assistance funding. We
greatly appreciate the increase provided by Congress to this program in
fiscal year 2010. We are also thankful for the increase included in the
fiscal year 2011 Obama administration's budget. The HCA, passed in
2004, authorizes land conservation partnership projects and open space
purchases from willing sellers in the four State Highlands region of
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. The Act includes
authorization of $10 million in annual grants to the Highlands states
from the Department of the Interior for land acquisition and easements.
It also includes $1 million annually in technical assistance from the
USFS to work with Highlands' States and local municipalities to
implement the conservation strategies outlined in the three
comprehensive Forest Service studies of the region completed in 1992,
2002, and 2008.
The four State Highlands Region is the backyard for the more than
25 million people living in or around the major metropolitan areas of
the Mid-Atlantic States, and provides critical drinking water, wildlife
habitat, and abundant and accessible recreation opportunities. Current
projects in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut share
strong local support, commitments from State and private sources to
provide matching funding, and will protect important water supplies,
forests, farmland, recreational opportunities and wildlife habitat.
In fiscal year 2011, the AMC supports funding for the following HCA
projects:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT........................................ Naugatuck/Mad River
Headwaters
NY........................................ Greater Sterling Forest/
Torne Valley
NJ........................................ Northern Highlands
PA........................................ Hopewell Big Woods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2011 Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program
Needs
AMC respectfully requests funding of $10 million for this important
program. The Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program will
provide communities matching funds to purchase critical forestland
tracts and provide technical assistance through State forestry agencies
for outstanding forest management. The program provides 50-50 matching
funds to help local governments, tribes, and nonprofit organizations
acquire forest areas that are economically, culturally, and
environmentally important to that locality and threatened by
development. The program provides grants directly to local governments
and nonprofits for full fee acquisition, not conservation easements.
The program's criteria are built around evaluation of a project's
community impact and it requires public access and active community
engagement in forest planning for parcels.
Priority Fiscal Year 2011 Recreational Programs Needs
Fiscal Year 2011 Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
Needs
AMC respectfully requests an increase in overall funding for the
Rivers, Trails Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program and requests $12
million nationwide. Through this National Park Service program:
partners protect 700 miles of rivers; create 1,300 miles of trails;
conserve over 60,500 acres of open space annually; promote alternative
transportation; brownfield redevelopment; youth conservation, and
floodplain planning. This $12 million in funding would reverse the
steady erosion of funding and reduced staffing RTCA has experienced in
recent years. This program receives less than 1 percent of National
Park Service funding, but Federal funds are leveraged many times over
with State, local, and partnership cooperation, and in-kind matches.
Fiscal Year 2011 Challenge Cost Share Program (CCSP)
We also request $2.35 million for the CCSP program. The purpose of
this program is to increase participation by qualified partners in the
preservation and improvement of National Park Service natural,
cultural, and recreational resources. It is a matching fund program and
an equal amount of eligible and matching share (minimum 50 percent) of
cash, goods, or services from non-Federal sources is required. One-
third of CCSP funding is set aside for National Trails System projects,
supporting work under the National Trails System Act, including the New
England National Scenic Trail in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Other Priority Programs
Fiscal Year 2011 Federal Land Assistance, Management and
Enhancement Act (FLAME)
We respectfully request that the subcommittee reaffirm the
commitment to the USFS and Department of the Interior for FLAME Act
funds and ensure the program is funded at appropriate levels that would
cover the cost of emergency fires and eliminate the need to transfer
funds from nonfire programs. Additionally, we urge the Subcommittee to
provide direction to the agencies to use the most current and best
informed means of estimating annual suppression rather than using the
traditional 10-year average.
Thank you for this opportunity and your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Public and Land-Grant
Universities
On behalf of the APLU Board on Natural Resources (BNR), we thank
you for your support of science and research programs within the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). We appreciate the opportunity to provide detailed
recommendations for the following programs within USGS: $8.8 million
for the Water Resources Research Institutes, $22 million for the
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units; $64 million for the
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program; $75 million for the
Mineral Resources Program. Within EPA, we ask support of the
administration's request of $87.2 million for the EPA Science to
Achieve Results (STAR) competitive grants program and $17.3 million for
the STAR Graduate Fellowships.
APLU BNR requests $8.8 million for the Water Resources Research
Institutes (WRRI). The APLU BNR request is based on the following:
$7,000,000 in base grants for the WRRI as authorized by section 104(b)
of the Water Resources Research Act, including State-based competitive
grants; and $1,800,000 to support activities authorized by section
104(g) of the act, and a national competitive grants program. Federal
funding for the WRRI program is the catalyst that moves States and
cities to invest in university-based research to address their own
water management issues. State WRRI take the relatively modest amount
of Federal funding appropriated, match it 2:1 with State, local, and
other funds and use it to put university scientists to work finding
solutions to the most pressing local and State water problems that are
of national importance. The Institutes have raised more than $15 in
other funds for every $1 funded through this program. The added benefit
is that often research to address State and local problems helps solve
problems that are of regional and national importance. Many of the
projects funded through this program provide the knowledge for State or
local managers to implement new Federal laws and regulations. Perhaps
most important, the Federal funding provides the driving force of
collaboration in water research and education among local, State,
Federal, and university water professionals. This program is essential
to solving State, regional, and inter-jurisdictional water resources
problems. Institutes in Louisiana, California and North Carolina, for
example, made major contributions in emergency planning and hurricane
recovery, protecting groundwater aquifers from sea water intrusion and
reducing water treatment costs. The institutes also train the next
generation of water resource managers and scientists.
APLU BNR supports a funding request of $22 million for the
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU). This program serves
to (1) train the next generation of Fish and Wildlife managers; (2)
conduct research designed to meet the needs of unit cooperators; and
(3) provide technical assistance to State and Federal personnel and
other natural resource managers.
Originally established to provide training for students in fish and
wildlife biology, the units were formally recognized by the Cooperative
Units Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-686). While the CRU still provide
experience and training for approximately 600 graduate students per
year, they also provide valuable research for their biggest clients,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and cooperating State
agencies. Today, there are 40 BRD Cooperative Research Units in 38
States, from pre-existing research programs of the FWS.
Each unit is a true Federal/State/university collaboration in that
it is a partnership between USGS, a State natural resource agency, a
host university, and the Wildlife Management Institute. For every $1
the Federal Government puts into the program, three more are leveraged
through the other partners. The United States economy has long relied
on the bountiful natural resources bestowed upon this land. Federal
investment in the CRU will be returned many times over though the
training of future natural resource managers who will guide the nation
in sustainable use of our natural resources despite ever-increasing
pressures on those resources.
The APLU BNR also supports funding at a level of $64 million for
the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP) within the
USGS budget. The mission of the NCGMP is to provide accurate geologic
maps that help sustain and improve the quality of life and economic
vitality of the United States and mitigate geologic hazardous events
and conditions. Universities are involved in this program in two ways.
First, universities participate through the production of new geologic
maps to meet needs in stewardship of water, energy, and mineral
resources; risk reduction from natural hazards such as earthquakes and
landslides; and environmental protection. Second, through EDMAP,
universities train the next generation of geologic mappers through a
competitive matching-fund grant program. Since EDMAP's inception in
1996, more than $5 million from the NCGMP have supported geologic
mapping efforts of more than 600 students working with more than 214
professors at 131 universities in 44 States plus Puerto Rico and the
District of Columbia. A 2007 survey by NCGMP demonstrated that students
who participated in EDMAP (1) fall well above the national average for
pursuing advanced academic degrees in the geoscience field; (2) easily
obtain geoscience positions due to the knowledge gained through EDMAP;
and (3) frequently use the skills gained through EDMAP.
The APLU BNR supports $75 million for the Mineral Resources Program
(MRP). The 2008 National Research Council's (NRC) report ``Minerals,
Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy'' clearly lays out the danger
of continuing cuts to the services this program provides to our
Nation's economy. Items such as LCDs, catalytic converters,
rechargeable batteries, and other electronics all use minerals
designated as ``critical'' based on the risk that they may become
unavailable for any number of reasons. The role of minerals information
is becoming ever more vital as the Nation works to remain competitive
and searches for emerging technologies to solve some of our most
pressing environmental issues.
BNR also supports Senate bill 1462 American Clean Energy Leadership
Act title IV, subtitle E Strengthening Education and Training in the
Subsurface Geosciences and Engineering for Energy Development. There
have been substantial cuts to the number of professionals in the MRP
since 1996. At the same time, the NRC report cited above calls for the
``need to maintain adequate, accurate and timely information and
analysis on minerals at a national level in the Federal government with
additional, not fewer, professionals having appropriate backgrounds to
perform the work.'' For example, as society pushes toward
sustainability, the importance of experts designing products with an
eye toward recycling minerals will only increase. Currently, only a few
formal training programs have emerged to train a new generation in the
field. For this reason, we request support for Mineral Resources
External Grants programs of at least $5 million. The USGS committed
$1,000,000 toward Mineral Resources External Research for fiscal year
2006, but cut the program to $0 in fiscal year 2007 and committed only
$250,000 in fiscal year 2008. Sustained and additional funds are needed
to expand upon the first step in fiscal year 2006. Apart from this
small program, there is virtually no funding to sustain applied science
research and education related to mineral resources. The establishment
of a consistently well-funded Minerals Resources External Grants
program would follow the recommendations of three recent NRC reports
and would help arrest the dramatic decline of minerals expertise in the
United States.
APLU BNR recommends that the subcommittee provide funding $87.2
million for competitive grants of the Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
program and $17.3 million for STAR graduate fellowships. One of the
most effective programs for improving the agency's science capabilities
is the STAR program. In 2003, the National Research Council strongly
endorsed STAR in its report, ``The Measure of STAR.'' The investment
EPA ORD makes in STAR is especially significant and effective, because
STAR is not a stand-alone grants program. It is coordinated with EPA
program and regional offices, and targeted at high-priority needs that
support the agency's mission. The program is leveraged by the
participation of other Federal agencies and the private sector, and
involves thousands of research scholars in universities. APLU
universities have used STAR extramural research funding to accomplish
the following: improve air quality modeling nation wide; develop
evaluations of U.S. estuarine and coastal water quality degradation;
analyze ecosystem health and impairment; establish effective multi-
university research collaborations; and develop techniques to assess
the risks to fish in the Great Lakes associated with exposure to
endocrine disrupting chemicals.
STAR graduate fellowships are also an excellent investment in the
next generation of scientists and engineers, and provide opportunities
for some of the brightest minds to develop the skills to enhance and
replenish this Nation's environmental science expertise. Moreover,
these grants are often a way to get minority graduate students engaged
in high-level scientific research. STAR funding is a very important
tool in the effort to address the future workforce needs of EPA. These
investigator-initiated research grants are significantly expanding the
number of scientists conducting EPA-related research and enhancing the
overall quality of EPA S&T.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our views with the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
service organization representing the interests of more than 2,000
municipal and other State and locally owned electric utilities in 49
States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities deliver
electricity to 1 of every 7 electric consumers (approximately 45
million people), serving some of the Nation's largest cities. However,
the vast majority of APPA's members serve communities with populations
of 10,000 people or less.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining
our fiscal year 2011 funding priorities within the jurisdiction of the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
Environmental Protection Agency: ENERGY STAR Programs
APPA is disappointed in the modest 5 percent increase in the EPA
ENERGY STAR program. We request an additional $20 million in funding
for the program to bring the total amount to $75 million.
ENERGY STAR is a voluntary partnership program pairing EPA with
businesses and consumers nationwide to enhance investment in
underutilized technologies and practices that increase energy
efficiency while at the same time reducing emissions of criteria
pollutants and greenhouse gases. APPA member systems across the country
have been active participants in ENERGY STAR programs to reduce
electricity consumption.
According to the EPA, ENERGY STAR is saving businesses,
organizations, and consumers more than $17 billion a year, and has been
instrumental in the more widespread use of technological innovations
like LED traffic lights, efficient fluorescent lighting, power
management systems for office equipment, and low standby energy use.
Environmental Protection Agency: Landfill Methane Outreach Program
APPA supports robust funding for the Landfill Methane Outreach
Program (LMOP) at EPA under the Environmental Program Management,
Climate Protection Program budget. While we recognize that LMOP is not
a budget line-item, APPA encourages the subcommittee to highlight the
importance of LMOP by including report language directing the EPA to
provide adequate funding for the program. The Landfill Methane Outreach
Program helps to partner utilities, energy organizations, States,
tribes, the landfill gas industry and trade associations to promote the
recovery and use of landfill gas as an energy source. According to EPA,
LMOP has more than 700 partners that have signed voluntary agreements
to work with EPA to develop cost-effective landfill-gas-to-energy (LFG)
projects. There are approximately 509 operational LFG projects in the
United States. LMOP has also developed detailed profiles for more than
530 candidate landfills.
Landfill gas is created when organic waste in a landfill
decomposes. This gas consists of about 50 percent methane and about 50
percent carbon dioxide. Landfill gas can be captured, converted, and
used as an energy source rather than being released into the atmosphere
as a potent greenhouse gas. Converting landfill gas to energy offsets
the need for non-resources such as coal and oil, and thereby helps to
diversify utilities' fuel portfolios and to reduce emissions of air
pollutants from conventional fuel sources.
In 2005, all operational LFG energy projects in the United States
prevented the release of 19 MMTCE (million metric tons of carbon
equivalent). This reduction is the carbon equivalent of removing the
emissions from 13.3 million vehicles on the road or planting 19 million
acres of forest for 1 year. This reduction also has the same
environmental benefit as preventing the use of 162 million barrels of
oil or offsetting the use of 341,000 railcars of coal.
As units of local and State governments, APPA's member utilities
are uniquely positioned to embark on LFG projects. EPA's LMOP
facilitates this process by providing technical support and access to
invaluable partnerships to our members and the communities they serve.
Council on Environmental Quality
APPA supports the President's budget request of $3.4 million for
fiscal year 2011 for the White House's Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), and urges the subcommittee to maintain this funding level.
Public power utilities have experienced a general lack of consistency
in Federal Government regulations, particularly involving environmental
issues. While additional layers of Government should be avoided, a
central overseer can perform a valuable function in preventing
duplicative, unnecessary and inconsistent regulations. CEQ is
responsible for ensuring that Federal agencies perform their tasks in
an efficient and coordinated manner.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alabama Rivers Alliance, et al.
The undersigned organizations support fully funding the President's
budget request of $4.3 million for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to continue its study of the relationship between
hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. This study is being
conducted under the Research and Development Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) program.
The EPA has commenced with a congressional fiscal year 2010
directed study on hydraulic fracturing and its effects upon drinking
water. EPA budgeted $1.8 million in this fiscal year to begin the
study, and proposes an additional $4.3 million in the coming fiscal
year to continue on with it. This funding will ensure that EPA can
conduct a robust and transparent study with full public participation.
EPA needs congressional support to engage communities across the
country, and we respectfully request that you maximize the resources of
the EPA Research and Development so that this study can be fully
funded.
Several steps of the hydraulic fracturing process affect drinking
water. First, hydraulic fracturing uses hundreds of undisclosed
chemicals, which are mixed with water and pumped underground, directly
through aquifers, to fracture rock. This process has been linked to
surface and groundwater contamination across the country. The following
is a sampling of contamination reported during hydraulic fracturing.
The resources provided by this study will help determine the causes of
reported incidents like these:
--Silt, Colorado.--In 2001, two families reported a water well blow-
out and contamination of their drinking water during hydraulic
fracturing of four nearby natural gas wells owned by Ballard
Petroleum, now Encana Corporation. Their drinking water turned
gray, had strong smells, bubbled, and lost pressure. One family
reported health symptoms they believe are linked to the
groundwater contamination.
--Seneca County, New York.--In 2007, a family reported contamination
of drinking water the morning after hydraulic fracturing of a
nearby natural gas well owned by Chesapeake Energy Corporation.
The water turned gray and was full of sediment.
--Bainbridge Township, Ohio.--In 2007, there was an explosion of a
water well and contamination of at least 22 other drinking
water wells in Bainbridge Township after hydraulic fracturing
of a nearby natural gas well owned by Ohio Valley Energy
Systems. More than 2 years later, more than 40 families are
still without clean drinking water and are waiting to be
connected to a town water system.
--Gibbs Hill, Pennsylvania.--In 2008, two families reported
contamination of drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of a
nearby natural gas well owned by Seneca Resources Corporation.
Their water had strong fumes, caused burning in lungs and
sinuses after showering, and caused burning in the mouth
immediately upon drinking.
--Grandview, Texas.--In 2007, three families who share an aquifer
reported contamination of drinking water after hydraulic
fracturing of a nearby well owned by Williams. They experienced
strong odors in their water, changes in water pressure, skin
irritation, and dead livestock. Water testing found toluene and
other contaminants.
--Pavillion, Wyoming.--Families have been reporting contamination of
their drinking water for at least 10 years. Hydraulic
fracturing has been used in the many wells in the area owned by
Encana Corporation. Drinking water has turned black, smelled
bad, and tasted bad. Individuals report medical symptoms they
believe are related to water contamination. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency is investigating and has found
contamination in 11 water wells, including toxic chemicals that
may be from hydraulic fracturing fluids. Further tests are
needed to determine the source of contamination.
In addition to the contamination that has been linked to hydraulic
fracturing, millions of gallons of water are used to fracture each
well. Using fresh water to fracture a well can be unsustainable use of
water resources, and its impact upon our Nation's freshwater supply--
including small and seasonal streams--must be evaluated. And finally,
appropriate treatment and disposal of the waste generated from
hydraulic fracturing is critical to protecting the Nation's waters.
Aging and failing wastewater treatment plants cannot adequately treat
and take on new waste. Many of the plants in areas new to gas
development were not designed to treat the heavy metals and dissolved
solids present in wastewater from hydraulic fracturing and cannot
adequately handle it. EPA must have adequate resources to complete a
comprehensive scientific study in order to accurately assess the
impacts of hydraulic fracturing on our Nation's waters. Only with on-
the-ground data collection and monitoring at several fracturing sites
in different regions of the country will a true assessment of the
impacts of fracturing be complete.
This Congress has invested billions of dollars in the restoration
and protection of our Nation's waters, and has invested billions more
in upgrading our Nation's clean water and drinking water
infrastructure; Congress should take every opportunity to fully fund a
thoughtful and robust study that will proactively protect our Nation's
waters and not undermine the money it has already wisely invested in
protecting and restoring water quality for the people of the United
States.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue.
Alaska's Big Village Network
Alliance for the Great Lakes
American Rivers
Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment
Audubon Naturalist Society
Cahaba River Society
Carpenter Environmental Associates, Inc.
Catholic Health East
Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy--African American
Environmentalist Association
Chenango Delaware Otsego Gas Drilling Opposition Group
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Chester-Ridley-Crum Watersheds Association
Choctawhatchee Riverkeeper
Citizens Campaign for the Environment
Clean Water Action
Clean Water for North Carolina
Clean Water Network
Colorado Watershed Assembly
Committee to Preserve the Fingerlakes
Community Environmental Defense Council, Inc.
Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition
Dakota Resource Council
Damascus Citizens for Sustainability
Delaware County Neighbors
Delaware Riverkeeper Network
District IV, Florida Federation of Garden Clubs
Earth Action
Earthjustice
Environmental Advocates of New York
Enviroscapes Landscape Design
Farmington River Watershed Association
Friends of Grays Harbor
Friends of the North Fork and White Rivers
Gas Drilling Awareness for Cortland County
Gila Resources Information Project
Great Egg Harbor Watershed Administration
Great Salt Lakekeeper
Green Valleys Association
Gulf Restoration Network
Hackensack Riverkeeper
Haw River Assembly
Herring Run Watershed Association
High Country Citizens' Alliance
Hilltown Anti- Herbicide Coalition
Honor Our Pueblo Existence
Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment
Izaak Walton League of America--Central New York Chapter
Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.
Kittatinny Group of the PA Chapter of the Sierra Club
Lake Superior Greens
Land Loss Prevention Project
Little Beaver Creek Land Foundation
Maine Rivers
Montana Environmental Information Center
National Committee for the New River
Natural Resources Defense Council
Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation
New Yorkers for Sustainable Energy Solutions Statewide
New Yorkers Residents Against Drilling
North Carolina Conservation Network
Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York
Northern California River Watch
NYH2O
Otsego 2000
Partnership for Onondaga Creek
Peach Bottom Concerned Citizens Group
Pennsylvania Organization for Watersheds and Rivers
Province of St. Joseph of the Capuchin Order
Putnam County Coalition to Preserve Open Space
Rivers Unlimited
Schoharie Valley Watch
Sierra Club
St. Mary's River Watershed Association
Sullivan Area Citizens for Responsible Energy Development
Sustainable Tompkins
The Watershed Project
Town of Ulysses Citizens Advisory Board on Gas Drilling
US Environmental Watch
Western Watersheds Project--Wyoming Office
Wild South
Wilderness East
Wyoming Outdoor Council
______
Letter From the Association of Research Libraries
April 26, 2010.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lamar Alexander
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: On behalf of
the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), I write to express strong
support for funding of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
Division of Preservation and Access. With NEH's support, libraries
engage in numerous activities to preserve and provide access to our
local, State, national, and international cultural heritage. ARL also
urges you to support the overall funding for NEH at the level of $232.5
million, an increase of $65 million over fiscal year 2010. Additional
appropriations would permit ARL to address the high level of unmet
needs by supporting a greater number of humanities projects including
those focused on preserving our heritage.
NEH funding is central to libraries across the country as this
funding supports core activities including the preservation of unique
collections, the training of librarians to preserve these culturally
valuable resources, and importantly, making research tools broadly
available for use by scholars and the public. For example, NEH funding
supports regional field offices and academic programs in conservation
as well as providing individual awards that support basic preservation
activities in libraries, archives, museums, and historical
organizations throughout the United States. This support includes
preservation training programs that reach thousands of individuals
across the United States. NEH support of workforce development and
training efforts is critically important as librarians, archivists, and
museum professionals employ digital and networked-based technologies
while, at the same time, preserve books, manuscripts, photographs, and
other artifacts in many other formats. Recent examples of NEH grants in
each of these areas include:
--A regional preservation field service program will provide
preservation surveys, workshops, technical consultations, and
educational materials to museums and historical organizations
in California, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington; Balboa Art
Conservation Center, San Diego, California.
--Curriculum modules and a virtual laboratory for graduate-level
coursework in preserving and enhancing access to digital
humanities resources will be developed. In addition, these will
be used in the Digital Preservation Management Workshop, a
continuing education program by the Interuniversity Consortium
for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). Access to these
educational resources via the Internet vastly expands the
number of individuals who can benefit from this training;
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
--The digitization of 10,000 rare or unique late 19th and early 20th
century musical scores and books for online access through the
university's digital repository, the re-housing of original
materials, and the production of preservation photocopies will
be undertaken; University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.
In addition to funding training and preservation activities, the
NEH Division of Preservation and Access also provides awards to support
the creation of a wide range of research tools and reference works such
as online encyclopedias, ancient language dictionaries, and catalogs of
rare materials. Support of these diverse projects results in broad
access to important educational reference works and creates new
analytical capabilities that allows for widespread participation in
research by students and teachers. Such projects and authoritative
reference tools build the foundation for research, and in digital form,
enable broad and effective access to these resources. Examples of
recent awards include:
--A project to add 30,000 additional entries to the comprehensive
Encyclopedic Discography of Victor Recordings (1900-1950),
which is a freely available, searchable electronic database of
master recordings and published discs made by the Victor
Talking Machine Company; University of California, Santa
Barbara, Santa Barbara, California.
--Digital archiving of endangered Mexican and South American
linguistic materials to be made accessible by the Archive of
the Indigenous Languages of Latin America; University of Texas,
Austin, Texas.
--The collaboration among the Autry National Center/Southwest Museum
of the American Indian, the National Museum of the American
Indian, the National Anthropological Archives, and the National
Museum of Natural History to federate databases focused on
Native American collections and share the data in new ways with
tribal colleges and community members; American Indian Higher
Education Consortium, Alexandria, Virginia.
--The digitization of 29 unique audio collections created on lacquer
and aluminum discs and fragile reel-to-reel tape that document
Native American, African-American, and Anglo-American oral
traditions, as well as those of other immigrant populations in
the United States; Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington,
Indiana.
Finally, the Division of Preservation and Access has provided
support to stabilize humanities collections for institutions whose
collections and facilities were adversely affected by disasters.
Learning from the experiences of cultural institutions during and after
hurricanes Katrina and Rita, NEH now funds emergency response projects
so that these institutions are prepared in the case of an emergency.
For example:
--The hiring of a preservation consultant to conduct a training
workshop in emergency response procedures and provide advice
for the purchase of basic emergency supplies for the Coachella
Valley Emergency Preparedness Network. This consortium includes
three historical societies, an historic home, two Native
American museums, a separate tribal collection, an aviation
museum, a military museum, and a modern art museum.
Collectively, these institutions hold 400 cubic feet of
archeological materials, 600 baskets, 150 paintings, 16,000
color slides, 1,500 photos, 100 maps, 25 linear feet of
archival materials, 825 audio and video recordings, 3,000
volumes and 84 periodical titles; Agua Caliente Cultural
Museum, Palm Springs, California.
In fiscal year 2009, the NEH Division of Preservation and Access
received 512 funding applications for a total of $68.007 million. NEH
was able to support 170 of those requests for a total of $20.462
million (some of these funds also supported We the People grants).
Clearly, the need for Federal funding in support of preservation and
access activities far exceeds available resources. ARL urges members of
the Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to
consider additional funds for the NEH Preservation and Access Division
activities and for NEH overall.
ARL very much appreciates the subcommittee on the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies' support for NEH's preservation and
access activities in the past and requests your ongoing support as you
and other members of the subcommittee consider the NEH fiscal year 2011
budget request. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this
request. Please let me know if there is additional information that I
can provide.
Sincerely,
Prudence S. Adler,
Associate Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Sportfishing Association
Dear Chairman and Ranking Member: The American Sportfishing
Association (ASA) recommends the following as the subcommittee
considers appropriations for the Department of the Interior for fiscal
year 2011. ASA is the sportfishing industry's trade association,
committed to looking out for the interests of the entire sportfishing
community. We give the industry a unified voice, speaking out when
emerging laws and policies could significantly affect sportfishing
business or sportfishing itself. We invest in long-term ventures to
ensure the industry will remain strong and prosperous as well as
safeguard and promote the enduring economic and conservation values of
sportfishing in America.
ASA makes these recommendations on the basis of briefings with
agency staff and from years of experience with fisheries management in
this Nation.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
National Fish Habitat Action Plan.--ASA and its member companies
pride themselves on being conservationists first and foremost. The
sportfishing industry is dependent upon healthy and abundant fish
populations and habitat being available to the public. The landscape-
scale projects now being conducted by partnerships under the umbrella
of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan will help to ensure our
Nation's aquatic resources are conserved and available for future
generations to enjoy through recreational fishing and boating. Because
it will provide a significant boost to America's fisheries resources
and the recreational fishing community, ASA fully supports the National
Fish Habitat Action Plan.
Implementation of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan is well
underway and making important strides in aquatic habitat conservation
all across the United States. FWS has been a strong leader and State
partner in the implementation of the plan, and we appreciate the
administration's continuing strong commitment to it. FWS appropriations
in recent years have been instrumental in delivering habitat
improvement projects on the ground, in cooperation with the States and
in consultation with the National Fish Habitat Board, and in supporting
the Board's work. The fiscal year 2011 budget recommendation is level
funded at $7.2 million. Given that 17 Fish Habitat Partnerships have
now been recognized by the Board and that there are a number of
planning milestones to achieve in 2011 (e.g., completion of a national
fish habitat assessment), ASA recommends an appropriation of $10
million to assure adequate financial resources for these base
operational needs.
National Fish Hatcheries.--ASA recognizes the importance of
developing ecosystem-based solutions for restoring, conserving, and
managing native fish populations. National Fish Hatcheries are an
important tool in support of that goal, providing stocks to supplement
or jump-start restoration efforts for at-risk species such as Pacific
and Atlantic salmon, several species of trout, pallid sturgeon, and
freshwater mussels--many of which are identified as species of concern
in the State wildlife action plans. ASA is concerned that the
administration's fiscal year 2011 budget request of $50.307 million
cannot sustain all national fish hatchery operations and reverses a
multi-year priority of the FWS, the sportfishing industry and States to
adequately address the aquatic resource mission of the agency. ASA
believes that continued, long-term funding is critical to prevent
hatchery closures. Therefore, ASA recommends funding for National Fish
Hatchery operations at the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $54.370
million.
ASA also supports funding at the level of $485,000 for ongoing
operation of the Ouray Fish Hatchery which is critical in the Upper
Colorado River restoration effort.
ASA is very concerned about the nearly $2 million reduction in the
Aquatic Invasive Species program area. Prevention, control, and
management of aquatic invasive species is vital to continuing priority
actions intended to protect aquatic wildlife and water resources. These
actions include such activities as implementing enforceable inspection
and decontamination at infested waters to prevent the spread of aquatic
invasive species like quagga and zebra mussels, and interdiction at
waters that remain at high risk of infection. We therefore, recommend
this program be funded at the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $8.244
million.
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).--ASA deeply appreciates the
subcommittee's vision and leadership regarding the funding increases
realized in fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010, and the 2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). While it does not reduce
the annual needs of the NWRS, the ARRA is providing a jolt to local
economies by providing refuges across the country with the means to
hire local contractors and purchase local materials for important
infrastructure and habitat restoration projects. Following a period of
essentially flat annual budgets, the recent increases in annual
appropriations allowed for the suspension of workforce downsizing plans
that called for an eventual 20 percent reduction in overall staffing
levels. However, with more than 10 percent of staff already eliminated
since 2004, additional funding increases that build upon the last 3
years are essential if this valued system of conservation lands is to
rebound to its full potential. With the goal of fulfilling the
progressive conservation vision that President Theodore Roosevelt first
espoused more than a century ago, ASA respectfully requests a fiscal
year 2011 funding level of $578 million for the operations and
maintenance accounts of the NWRS.
Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act.--ASA recommends that
Congress fund the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act
(GLFWRA) in fiscal year 2011 at its full authorization of $16 million,
and to include funding for the proposed ``Great Lakes Mass Marking
Initiative.'' The GLFWRA supports the Service's mission in the Great
Lakes region. Since major reauthorizations in 1996 and 2006, this act
has supported essential projects to conserve native fish and wildlife
species, understand the impact of invasive species, restore habitat,
and undertake other projects related to the health of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Projects under the Act require a non-Federal cost-sharing
partner, so the program fosters collaboration among Federal, State,
tribal, and local interests. The GLFWRA also authorizes regional
projects that benefit the Great Lakes basin as a whole.
One proposed regional project, the ``Great Lakes Mass Marking
Initiative,'' is a cooperative undertaking among Federal, State, and
tribal authorities to employ new technologies to mark all hatchery
reared fish that are stocked into the Great Lakes. Currently, not all
stocked fish are marked or coded-wire-tagged, which limits the
information fishery managers have about the status of the fishery and
their restoration efforts. The mass marking technology--known as the
AutoFish system--has been used with great success in the Pacific
Northwest, where all stocked fish must, by law, be marked and coded-
wire-tagged. The fishery management agencies of the Great Lakes region
have explored the use of this mass marking technology, have field-
tested its applicability, and have concluded that the marking of all
hatchery reared fish would significantly enhance Great Lakes fishery
management and research. Fishery managers, working together, have
proposed this mass marking technology for funding under the GLFWRA.
Full funding for the GLFWRA, and funding for the Great Lakes Mass
Marking Initiative, are needed for the service to continue its
important role in Great Lakes restoration. ASA requests the full
authorization of $16 million for the GLFWRA, including full funding for
the Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative.
Atlantic Salmon.--Atlantic salmon management in the Connecticut
River is an important multi-State and agency restoration effort.
Although primarily supplemented by hatchery production, a long-term
goal is the establishment of a self-sustaining population. Management
of genetic diversity is critical to achieve this long-term management
goal. Due to very few adult Atlantic salmon returning to the
Connecticut River, genetic concerns such as inbreeding and estimates of
genetic diversity are potential threats to the long-term sustainability
of the population. Monitoring the genetic diversity and variability of
broodstock and sea-run returners is important to management and greatly
assists other program evaluation efforts. ASA supports the addition of
$250,000 to the FWS budget to complete this work.
ASA is also concerned with proposed cuts to the Fish and Wildlife
Assistance Program component. ASA is concerned with elimination of
several earmarks that provide funds for ongoing projects that support
critical State management functions. Specifically, ASA is concerned
with the elimination of the funding that supports the West Coast
Regional Mark Processing Center, the Washington State Mass Marking
Program, and the National Partnership for the Management of Wild and
Native Coldwater Fisheries. ASA urges Congress to restore funding for
these programs.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Fisheries Management.--The BLM Fisheries Program continues to
sustain the deep budget cut taken in fiscal year 2008, funded at a
slightly increased amount of $13,765 in fiscal year 2010, to support
the National Landscape Conservation System program. ASA opposes the
reduction requested by the administration to $13.516 million in fiscal
year 2011 for the fisheries management subactivity. ASA remains deeply
concerned about this permanent reduction in funding brought about by
program transfers during establishment of the National Landscape
Conservation System.
Energy development, especially coalbed methane gas, is greatly
impacting fisheries. BLM fisheries staff funding is woefully inadequate
to address these issues or provide necessary input into the BLM's
Resource Planning. Currently, nonaquatic specialists are providing much
of the BLM Fisheries Program work, with many not possessing aquatic
expertise or interest. To adequately implement current program levels
the BLM needs an additional 10.5 full-time employees in the aquatic
specialist series. ASA strongly encourages Congress to provide a
significant increase over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level for the
fisheries management subactivity--to a total of $20 million--in order
to address pressing fisheries needs throughout the agency. Within this
requested $6.5 million increase, ASA requests an annual increase of
$750,000 specifically for hiring new staff within the fisheries
program.
Riparian Management Activity.--ASA supports the BLM attention and
project application directed at riparian areas, but remains concerned
that the requested $22.632 million for this program, which is an
$86,000 decrease from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, falls far
short of meeting many of the identified needs. ASA opposes the
administration's proposal to reduce base funding for these fundamental
responsibilities by $200,000; instead, ASA requests that Congress add
$1.386 million to the administration's request to address its long-
standing responsibilities. ASA also urges BLM to continue its
coordination with State fish and wildlife agencies and other Federal
bureaus in order to achieve goals outlined in the National Fish Habitat
Plan and to improve water quality on BLM-managed lands.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
National Forest System Line Item.--ASA has expressed concerns about
the USFS budget structure for fish and wildlife, because it makes it
very difficult to understand the budget request and to make meaningful
comparisons with the previous year's appropriations. In fiscal year
2011, the USFS is proposing to merge several programs and their
budgets--vegetation and watershed management, wildlife and fisheries
habitat management, and forest products--into a single integrated
resource restoration activity. While ASA commends the USFS for working
to better coordinate programs within the agency, we are concerned about
the melding of activities and money and believe that without specific
budget line items and expenditures for specific purposes this proposed
approach will make accountability to the State partners, the public,
and Congress even more difficult. It is also counter to a 2004
recommendation made to the USFS after a nationwide evaluation of the
agency's fisheries program. In that report, the merging of budget line
items and the subsequent lack of accountability was highlighted and
recommendations were made to separate budget line items. We
respectfully request that Congress require individual line items
specific to fish, wildlife, and endangered species and habitat
management be established in the fiscal year 2011 budget and similarly,
that expenditures be tracked and reported in the same manner.
This breakdown would vastly improve performance accountability and
improve opportunities for integrated activities with the State fish and
wildlife agencies. We encourage the USFS to communicate to leadership
at all levels that the expectation is that fish and wildlife needs
should be considered and incorporated as projects are designed and
implemented. Further, we suggest that the USFS establish planning and
accountability protocols to ensure adequate attention to fish and
wildlife needs. Having stated those reservations, ASA supports the
request of $693.772 million for integrated resource restoration and
urges the USFS to be more forthcoming demonstrating spending
accountability on the ground.
The sportfishing industry has long depended on the strong
management of our Nation's fisheries by the Federal agencies within the
Department of the Interior. We look forward with working with the
subcommittee to ensure that the conservation of our Nation's fisheries
is upheld for the recreational enjoyment of our Nation's citizens,
which in turn leads to a healthy and robust sportfishing industry.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
Dear Chairman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of
the subcommittee: On behalf of the American Society of Agronomy (ASA),
Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), Soil Science Society of America
(SSSA), I am pleased to submit comments in strong support of enhanced
public investment in the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as
critical components of Federal appropriations for fiscal year 2011 and
beyond. With more than 25,000 members and practicing professionals,
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA are the largest life science professional societies
in the United States dedicated to the agronomic, crop, and soil
sciences. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA play a major role in promoting progress
in these sciences through the publication of quality journals and
books, convening meetings and workshops, developing educational,
training, and public information programs, providing scientific advice
to inform public policy, and promoting ethical conduct among
practitioners of agronomy and crop and soil sciences.
Summary
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA understand the budgetary challenges the Senate
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee
faces in fiscal year 2011. We also recognize that the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill has many valuable
and necessary components, and we applaud the efforts of the
subcommittee to fund the USFS, USGS, and EPA.
USFS sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of the
Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future
generations. Soils are a vital component of forest management, and
their understanding is essential to achieve EPA's strategic goals, yet
vital programs that are essential for improved soil quality have been
consistently underfunded.
The Societies are concerned with past transfers of funding for the
USFS away from base programs to support wildland fire suppression. For
the USFS, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend that the subcommittee
appropriate $5.6 billion, a 5 percent increase over fiscal year 2010,
putting the EPA back on track towards properly managing the 749 million
acres of forests in the United States. for the services they provide:
clean water and air; recreational opportunities; hunting; fishing;
forest products; and, scenic values.
The USGS provides reliable scientific information to describe and
understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural
disasters; and protect the Nation's natural resources. For fiscal year
2011, we recommend $1.3 billion for the USGS. Only a concerted, long-
term effort to boost USGS funding will produce the knowledge and tools
needed to appropriately manage and meet the many challenges facing the
Nation's water, biological, energy, and mineral resources, while
enhancing and protecting our quality of life.
In order to fulfill its mission, the EPA needs increased
investments in socioeconomic, sustainability, ecological, and
exploratory research as well as partnerships with academia and State
and local government. These areas are essential to move environmental
protection from a command-and-control regulatory system to a more
rational, compliance-based approach. For EPA science and technology,
for fiscal year 2011, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend a funding level of
$888 million a 5 percent increase over fiscal year 2010.
USFS
Forest and Rangeland Research
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA applaud the increase provided by the
subcommittee for forest and rangeland research in fiscal year 2010. For
fiscal year 2011, we recommend increasing forest and rangeland research
funding by 7 percent bringing total funding to $334 million.
Soil is the natural filter, often overlooked, vital for healthy
watersheds. Past investments in NFS have yielded enormous benefits to
society. Soil scientists annually provide critical soil resource
information to Burned Area Emergency Response teams evaluating the
environmental effects and developing rapid management responses for
hundreds of wildfires. The NFS developed the CarbonPlus Calculator
(http://nrs.fs.fed.us/carbon/local-resources/downloads/CCT_NRS13.pdf)
to help land owners estimate their forest carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions. The calculator provides tips on how to
reduce carbon footprints and teaches users about the benefits of
planting trees to absorb carbon.
National Forest System
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support a funding level of $182 million, a 7
percent increase, for inventory and monitoring program in fiscal year
2011. Strong funding for inventory and management will allow USFS to
continue efforts to inventory remaining national forest land. This
would support a comprehensive carbon inventory for forest ecosystems as
well as provide other information critical to understand U.S. forest
systems.
The fiscal year 2011 budget proposes establishment of the
integrated resource restoration budget line by combining the wildlife
and fisheries habitat management, forest products, and the vegetation
and watershed management budget lines, as well as the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Fund and the watershed improvement and job
stabilization lines.
The integrated resource restoration program will facilitate
implementation of the USDA priority for focused, large-scale ecosystem
restoration and provide ecosystem services that are important to the
public including clean and abundant water, renewable energy from
biomass, restored wildlife and fish habitat, and resilient forests and
rangelands. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support appropriation for the
integrated resource restoration line at $715 million, a 7 percent
increase over fiscal year 2010 and $21 million greater than requested
in the President's budget.
Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets (USDA Office of
Environmental Markets)
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support appropriation of $2 million to support
the mission and goals of the USDA Office of Environmental Markets
(OEM). The OEM was established to support development of new
opportunities for American agriculture and forestry through
environmental services markets.
USGS
Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing
Land use and change are major issues of concern for the Nation.
Satellite imagery is used by a variety of stakeholders: government
agencies such as USGS, EPA, NSF, and USDA; Universities-land grants and
private; and private sector environmental managers and planners.
Precision agriculture utilizes remote sensing, in combination with
GIS and GPS, to develop farm-specific management maps reducing over-
application of nutrients and loss in sensitive areas.
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA are supportive of the President's request for
geographic research, investigations, and remote sensing for fiscal year
2011 and recommend a funding level of $153 million. We urge the
subcommittee to fund the Geographic Analysis and Monitoring Program at
$11.7 million, a 5 percent increase over fiscal year 2010. This funding
level will help ensure access to a common set of current, accurate, and
consistent data and scientific information that describe the Earth's
land surface to help inform decisions by policymakers, resource
managers, researchers, citizens, and the private sector.
Water Resources Investigations
Water is a limiting resource for many regions of the United States;
certain regions have been in a sustained drought for years. Aquifers
are the leading source of fresh water across the country. Therefore it
is essential that we monitor and maintain this ecosystem service.
Nutrient loading of the Mississippi River has been linked to the
hypoxia zone in the Gulf of Mexico. As more farm acreage is converted
to crops to be converted into biofuels, there is a growing potential
for these systems to load major river systems with unwanted nutrients
and sediments. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend $168 million in funding, a
5 percent, for hydrologic, monitoring, assessments, and research (HMAR)
for fiscal year 2011. Within HMAR, critical programs--Ground water
resources, toxic substances hydrology, and hydrologic research and
development--deserve special funding consideration.
Biological Research
For fiscal year 2011, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend funding for
biological research be increased to $215 million, an increase of 5
percent which will provide strong support for biological research and
monitoring, biological information management and delivery, and
cooperative research units.
Science Support
Climate change is a major focus for many agencies in fiscal year
2011 and ASA, CSSA, and SSSA which are interested in the role
agriculture can play to mitigate climate change. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA
support the President's requested $72.1 million for fiscal year 2011.
We find that the need to identify new tools that help land managers
adapt to climate change is an essential endeavor. We applaud the
subcommittee for its foresight and encourage it to fund USGS climate
research at this level so the Department of the Interior can continue
to expand much needed work in the areas of biological carbon
sequestration and science applications and decision support.
EPA
In order to fulfill its mission, EPA needs increased investments in
both its intramural and extramural science programs as well as
associated services such as environmental education and libraries. ASA,
CSSA, and SSSA recommend that EPA increase investments in
socioeconomic, sustainability, ecological, and exploratory research as
well as partnerships with academia and State and local government.
These areas are essential to move environmental protection from a
command-and-control regulatory system to a more rational, compliance-
based approach.
For EPA science and technology, for fiscal year 2011, ASA, CSSA,
and SSSA recommend a funding level of $888 million a 5 percent increase
over fiscal year 2010. The Office of Research and Development (ORD) is
the scientific research arm of EPA. The ORD funds and conducts
essential research in pollution prevention; air, water, and soil
dynamics; and management and behaviors to improve the way we use and
conserve our resources.
To help enhance workforce development by recruiting outstanding
scientists to participate in the Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
program, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA ask the Subcommittee to place special
emphasis on funding for this program. The STAR program has not only
provided an outstanding source of research results during its tenure,
it has also trained bright young minds to explore and expand the basic
concepts behind environmental science and related innovations.
For the National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways program, we
recommend an appropriation of $35 million. Finally, for the Wetlands
program, we recommend an appropriation at the President's requested
level of $28 million, for fiscal year 2011. The study of wetlands
occurs under EPA's Office of Research and Development, Ecosystem
Services Research Program (ESRP). The program emphasizes the study of
wetland ecosystem services to provide the decision support tools needed
to target, prioritize, and evaluate policy and management actions that
protect, enhance, and restore the ecosystem goods and services provided
by wetlands.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) \1\ is pleased to
submit to the subcommittee a statement on the proposed budgets for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) for fiscal year 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national
civil engineering organization. It represents 144,000 civil engineers
in private practice, government, industry, and academia who are
dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil
engineering. ASCE is a non-profit educational and professional society
organized under Part 1.501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
asce recommends an appropriation of $3 billion for the clean water act
state revolving loan fund (srf) in fiscal 2011
The administration's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the EPA
totals $10 billion. This is slightly less than the agency's fiscal year
2010 enacted budget of $10.3 billion.
The President has requested $2 billion for the Clean Water SRF.
Although this request reflects the President's desire to deal
forcefully with the funding needs of the Nation's aging wastewater
infrastructure, ASCE believes that the wastewater investment ``gap'' of
approximately $400 billion requires an even greater annual commitment.
Aging wastewater treatment systems discharge billions of gallons of
untreated wastewater into U.S. surface waters each year. The
Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the Nation must invest
$390 billion over the next 20 years to update or replace existing
systems and build new ones to meet increasing demand.
Since 1972, Congress has directly invested more than $80 billion in
the construction of publicly owned sewage treatment works (POTWs) and
their related facilities. State and local governments have spent
billions more over the years. Total non-Federal spending on sewer and
water has been billions more. Nevertheless, the physical condition of
many of the Nation's 16,000 wastewater treatment systems is poor, due
to a lack of investment in plant, equipment and other capital
improvements over the years.
In 2008, EPA reported that the total investment needs of America's
publicly owned treatment works as of January 1, 2004, were $202.5
billion. This reflects an increase of $16.1 billion (8.6 percent) since
the previous analysis was published in January 2004.
Many systems have reached the end of their useful design lives.
Older systems are plagued by chronic overflows during major rain storms
and heavy snowmelt and, intentionally or not, are bringing about the
discharge of raw sewage into U.S. surface waters.
EPA estimated in August 2004 that the volume of combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) discharged nationwide is 850 billion gallons per year.
Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), caused by blocked or broken pipes,
result in the release of as much as 10 billion gallons of raw sewage
yearly, according to the EPA.
Wastewater infrastructure is expensive as are the monetary and
social costs incurred when infrastructure fails. The Nation's
wastewater systems are not resilient in terms of current ability to
properly fund and maintain, prevent failure, or reconstitute services.
Additionally, the interdependence on the energy sector contributes
to the lack of system resilience that is increasingly being addressed
through the construction of dedicated emergency power generation at key
wastewater utility facilities. Aging, under-designed, or inadequately
maintained systems discharge billions of gallons of untreated
wastewater into U.S. surface waters each year.
Future investments must focus on updating or replacing existing
systems as well as building new ones to meet increasing demand;
improved operations processes including ongoing oversight, evaluation,
and asset management on a systemwide basis; and watershed approaches to
look more broadly at water resources in a coordinated systematic way.
asce recommends an appropriation of $2 billion for the safe drinking
water act srf in fiscal year 2011
America's drinking water systems face an annual shortfall of at
least $11 billion to replace aging facilities that are near the end of
their useful life and to comply with existing and future Federal water
regulations. This does not account for growth in the demand for
drinking water over the next 20 years. Leaking pipes lose an estimated
7 billion gallons of clean drinking water a day.
Of the nearly 53,000 community water systems, approximately 83
percent serve 3,300 or fewer people. These systems provide water to
just 9 percent of the total U.S. population served by all community
systems. In contrast, 8 percent of community water systems serve more
than 10,000 people, and they provide water to 81 percent of the
population served.
Eighty-five percent (16,348) of nontransient, noncommunity water
systems and 97 percent (83,351) of transient noncommunity water systems
serve 500 or fewer people. These smaller systems face huge financial,
technological, and managerial challenges in meeting a growing number of
Federal drinking-water regulations.
Federal assistance has not kept pace with demand, however. Between
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 2010, Congress provided more than $11
billion for the DWSRF through annual appropriations. This total is
approximately equal to the annual capital investment gap for each of
those years as calculated by EPA in 2002.
Although drinking-water treatment plant operators are often able to
provide workarounds during system disruptions, the Nation's drinking-
water systems are not highly resilient based on present capabilities to
prevent failure and properly maintain or reconstitute services.
Additionally, the lack of investment and the interdependence on the
energy sector contribute to the lack of overall system resilience.
These shortcomings are currently being addressed through the
construction of dedicated emergency power generation at key drinking
water utility facilities, increased connections with adjacent utilities
for emergency supply, and the development of security and criticality
criteria within the sector. Investment must be prioritized to take into
consideration system vulnerabilities, interdependencies, improved
efficiencies in water usage via market incentives, system robustness,
redundancy, failure consequences, and ease and cost of recovery.
asce recommends an appropriation of $1.3 billion for the usgs in fiscal
year 2011
In a time of fiscal restraint, the USGS budget proposal for fiscal
year 2011 is up nearly 4 percent over the current fiscal year
appropriation, but we believe the request falls short of the amount
needed to support the science needs of the Nation.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request for USGS totals $1.1 billion,
$21.6 million above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The President
is asking for increases in programs for renewable energy, climate
change, water availability and use, natural hazards, and Landsat.
The Water Resources Investigations activity is funded at $228.8
million in the 2011 budget, which is $3.5 million below the 2010
enacted level. The budget proposes $158.7 million for Hydrologic
Monitoring, Assessments, and Research for collection, management, and
dissemination of hydrologic data, analysis of hydrologic systems
through modeling or statistical methods, and research and development
leading to new methods and new understanding, with a focus on water
conservation. The tight budget lead the Department to request budget
reductions for the Cooperative Water Program ($63.6 million, which is
$1.9 less than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level) and for the National
Streamflow information Program ($27.1 million, a reduction of
$563,000).
Program increases were requested for the National Water
Availability and Use Assessment, including $1.1 million for the
Groundwater Resources program and $6.4 million for Hydrologic Networks
and Analysis.
The WaterSMART Quality Assessment program describes status and
trends in water quality, provides an improved understanding of the
natural factors and human activity affecting these conditions, and
provides information to Federal, State, and local regulatory and policy
decisionmakers. A net reduction of $1.5 million is proposed in
Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessments, and Research to focus on the
WaterSMART program.
The Cooperative Water program is funded at $63.6 million, $2
million below the 2010 level. The program builds on efforts to leverage
State, local, and tribal funds to support the majority of the national
hydrologic data network of streamgages, wells, and monitoring sites.
The Water Resources Research Act program is funded at $6.5 million to
promote State, regional, and national coordination of water resources
research and training and a network of Water Resources Research
Institutes to facilitate research coordination and information and
technology transfer.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators
summary of request
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)
respectfully requests that, for fiscal year 11, the subcommittee
appropriate funding for three State drinking water programs at levels
commensurate with Federal expectations for performance and at levels
that ensure appropriate public health protection. ASDWA requests $200
million for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program; $1.287
billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF)
program; and $10 million for State drinking water program security
initiatives. A more complete explanation of the needs represented by
these requested amounts and a further explanation of these requested
levels follows.
how states use federal funds
States Need Increased Federal Support To Maintain Overall Public
Health Protection.--State drinking water programs strive to meet public
health protection goals through two principal funding programs: the
PWSS and the DWSRF Program. These two programs, with their attendant
State match requirements, provide the means for States to work with
drinking water systems to ensure that American citizens can turn on
their taps with confidence the water is both safe to drink and the
supply is adequate. In recent years, State drinking water programs have
accepted additional responsibilities to work with all public water
systems to ensure that critical drinking water infrastructure is
protected and that plans are in place to respond to both natural and
manmade disasters.
Vibrant and sustainable communities, their citizens, workforce, and
businesses are dependent upon a safe and adequate supply of drinking
water. Economies only grow and sustain themselves when they have
reliable water supplies. More than 90 percent of the population
receives water used for bathing, cooking, and drinking from a public
water system. Even people who have their own private wells to meet
their daily water needs will visit other homes or businesses served by
a public water system. Children and seniors are the most susceptible to
illness and death from several of the contaminants regulated by Federal
drinking water laws including lead, mercury, nitrates, bacteria, and
viruses. As important as public water systems are to the quality of
water we drink, and therefore our health, the majority of water
produced by public water systems is used by businesses and for fire
protection. Businesses need adequate supplies of good quality water for
processing, cooling, and product manufacturing. The availability of
adequate supplies of water is often a critical factor in attracting new
industry. Public water systems, including, cities, villages, schools,
and businesses rely on State drinking water programs to ensure they are
in compliance with Federal requirements.
The PWSS Program.--To meet the requirements of the State Drinking
Water Administrators, States have accepted primary enforcement
responsibility for oversight of regulatory compliance and technical
assistance efforts for more than 155,000 public water systems to ensure
potential health-based violations do not occur or are remedied in a
timely manner. Since 1996, State drinking water programs have
participated in the development and implementation of more than 25 new
Federal regulations and strategic initiatives designed to enhance the
protection of public health. States are also implementing an array of
proactive initiatives to protect public health from ``source to tap.''
These include source water assessments and controls; technical
assistance with water treatment and distribution; and enhancement of
overall water system performance capabilities. In recent years, States
have taken on an increasingly prominent role in working with Federal
and local partners to help ensure sufficient water quantity. In short,
State activities go well beyond simply ensuring compliance at the tap.
The DWSRF Program.--Drinking water in the United States is among
the safest and most reliable in the world, thanks to significant
investments made over the decades. The payback on this investment has
been exceptional: in the core DWSRF program, $10.7 billion in
capitalization grants from Congress since 1997 has been leveraged by
States into nearly $19 billion in infrastructure loans to small and
large communities across the country. Everyone agrees this is an
investment that pays great dividends both economically and in
protection of our citizens' health. State drinking water programs have
also used DWSRFs to support the technical assistance and training needs
of small drinking water systems and to help these water systems obtain
the technical, managerial, and financial proficiency needed to meet the
requirements of the SDWA. States also leapt into action to utilize the
infrastructure funds provided to the DWSRF through the American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) and maximized the depth and
breadth of these funding opportunities across all drinking water system
sizes and types. Through a herculean effort, all States met the
February 17, 2010 deadline (1 year from enactment) for having $2
billion in ARRA funds under contract or construction.
State Drinking Water Security Responsibilities.--Since the events
of September 2001, as well as the more recent experiences of
devastating hurricanes, wildfires and floods, States have taken
extraordinary measures to meet the security and emergency response-
related needs of the drinking water community. State drinking water
programs have responded to requests for assistance, training,
information, and financial support from the water systems under their
purview as well as supported utility-based ``mutual aid'' networks.
States continually work toward integrating security considerations
throughout all aspects of their drinking water programs.
why increased funding is urgently needed
State Drinking Water Programs are Hard Pressed.--States must
accomplish all of the above-described activities, and take on new
responsibilities, in the context of the current national economic
crisis. This has meant further cutting their budgets, streamlining
their workforces, and operating with less State-provided financial
support. State drinking water programs have often been expected to do
more with less and States have always responded with commitment and
ingenuity. However, State drinking water programs are now in crisis.
Insufficient Federal support for this critical program increases the
likelihood of a contamination event that puts public health at risk.
State Funding Gap Continues To Grow; States Cannot Keep Up.--
Although the 1996 SDWA Amendments authorized the PWSS Program at $100
million per year, appropriated amounts have only recently reached or
come close to that originally-authorized level. $105.7 million was
appropriated for the PWSS program in fiscal year 2010. However, as
explained below, with Congress' zeroing out of the State drinking water
program security grant of $5 million, the net gain to States--from
fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010--was only $1 million. Even the
fully authorized level of $100 million annually is now, nearly 14 years
after enactment, woefully inadequate for the enormity of the task faced
by State drinking water programs. A few years ago, State drinking water
program administrators identified an annual shortfall nationally of
approximately $360 million between available funds and those needed to
administer their programs. That gap only continues to grow and has
negative consequences. Many States are simply unable to implement major
provisions of the newer regulations, leaving the work undone or ceding
the responsibility back to EPA where it is likely to languish because
of their own resource constraints and lack of ``on the ground''
expertise. This situation could create a significant implementation
crisis in several regions of the country and ultimately delay
implementation of critically needed public health protections.
fiscal year 2011 request levels and sdwa program obligations
The PWSS Program.--The number of regulations requiring State
implementation and oversight as well as performance expectations
continue to grow while, at the same time, the Federal funding support
necessary to maintain compliance levels and meet expectations has been
in decline. Last year's fiscal year 10 appropriated level of $105.7
million--after subtracting the above-mentioned $5 million for drinking
water security--reflects a downward trend from the enacted budget high
point of $101.9 million appropriated in fiscal year 2004--an already
insufficient amount. Inflation has further eroded these inadequate
funding levels. State drinking water programs are hard pressed to
understand a justification for these funding levels since they are
engaged in the critical phases of implementing the LT 2/Stage 2 Rule
cluster (two sophisticated and complex initiatives to control
disinfection by-products and microbial contaminants), the recently
promulgated Ground Water Rule, and changes to the Lead and Copper Rule.
States want to offer the flexibilities allowed under these and other
rules to local water systems; however, fewer State resources mean less
opportunity to work one-on-one with water systems to meet their
individual needs. Looking ahead, States expect that new rules for
contaminants on EPA's Contaminant Candidate List will be forthcoming as
well as revisions to the Total Coliform Rule.
ASDWA therefore respectfully requests that the fiscal year 2011
funding for the PWSS program be appropriated at $200 million. This
figure was calculated by starting with a baseline of $124.3 million
(the fiscal year 2004 appropriated figure, adjusted for inflation);
adding $50.7 million to implement recently promulgated rules (per EPA's
Economic Analyses for these rules); and adding $25 million for other
new program requirements (e.g., emerging contaminants, modernizing data
systems, and supporting small water systems).
The DWSRF Program.--States were very encouraged by the $1.387
billion appropriated for the DWSRF in fiscal year 2010 and the $1.287
billion requested in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget. States
strongly support that request level. The primary purpose of the DWSRF
is to improve public health protection by facilitating water system
compliance with national primary drinking water regulations through the
provision of loans to improve drinking water infrastructure. Water
infrastructure is needed for public health protection as well as a
sustainable economy. For instance, industries have opted not to move to
locations with inadequate water and other utility capacity to meet
their needs. States have very effectively and efficiently leveraged
Federal dollars with State contributions by turning over $10.67 billion
in cumulative Federal capitalization grants (not counting ARRA funds)
into almost $19 billion in water infrastructure loans since 1997. In so
doing, States have provided assistance to more than 6,905 projects
improving health protection for millions of Americans. Approximately 72
percent of projects and 38 percent of assistance has been provided to
small communities (serving less than 10,000 people). However, EPA's
most recent National Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey (2007)
indicated that water system needs total $334.8 billion over the next 20
years to comply with SDWA mandates. States believe the $2 billion in
ARRA funds and the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level were very
substantial down payments on addressing those needs and filling the
infrastructure gap. In light of these indicators of success and
documented needs, we believe the $1.287 billion level requested in the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget will better enable (as compared to
levels provided in recent years) the DWSRF to meet the SDWA compliance
and public health protection goals for which it was designed.
ASDWA, therefore, respectfully requests $1.287 billion in fiscal
year 2011 funding for the DWSRF Program; consistent with the
President's budget request.
Security Responsibilities.--After 7 years of supporting State
security programs through a small grant of approximately $5 million in
EPA's appropriation, no funds were provided for this purpose in fiscal
year 2010 and none are requested for fiscal year 11. State drinking
water programs need funds to continue to expand their security
activities, particularly for small and medium water systems and to
support utility-based mutual aid networks for all drinking water
systems. It is very difficult to understand why this grant has been
zeroed out of EPA's proposed budget. Given the realities exemplified by
ongoing Homeland Security initiatives, the goals of the National
Infrastructure Protection Plan, and the lessons learned from Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Gustav, State drinking water programs are working
more closely than ever with their water utilities to evaluate, assist,
and support drinking water systems' preparedness, response, and
resiliency capabilities. Beyond the mandates of the Bioterrorism Act of
2002, States are being directed to expand their efforts to reflect an
``all hazards'' approach to water security and to focus their efforts
toward smaller water systems not covered by the act. These systems rely
heavily on the States to help them meet their needs and identify
potential funding sources (DWSRF).
ASDWA therefore respectfully requests $10 million in fiscal year
2011 funding for the State security initiatives. These funds would be
commensurate with the security tasks State drinking water programs must
take on.
conclusion
In conclusion, ASDWA respectfully recommends that both State and
Federal fiscal year 2011 budget needs for the provision of safe
drinking water be adequately funded by Congress. A strong drinking
water program supported by the Federal-State partnership will ensure
that the quality of drinking water in this country will not deteriorate
and, in fact, will continue to improve--so that the public can be
assured that a glass of water is safe to drink no matter where they
travel or live. States are willing and committed partners. However,
additional Federal financial assistance is needed to meet ongoing and
ever growing regulatory and security needs. In 1996, Congress provided
the authority to ensure that the burden would not go unsupported. For
fiscal year 2011, ASDWA asks that the promise of that support be
realized.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee: The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Task Force is pleased to provide this testimony
on the fiscal year 2010 (fiscal year 2011) budget request for research
and development programs in the Department of Energy (DOE).
introduction
The 127,000-member ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide educational and
technical society. It conducts one of the world's largest technical
publishing operations, holds more than 30 technical conferences and 200
professional development courses each year, and sets some 600
industrial and manufacturing standards.
background
Scientists and engineers have a long-standing professional interest
in applying science and technology (S&T) to improve the environment and
human health in the United States. Mechanical engineers increasingly
collaborate with other professionals to develop innovative and cost-
effective environmental technologies and systems.
The EPA plays an essential role in the Nation's efforts to protect
human health and safeguard the environment, and EPA's S&T research and
development (R&D) activities are instrumental in improving
environmental protection in a sound, sustainable, and cost-effective
manner. R&D efforts are needed to improve environmental health and
ecology, environmental monitoring, environmental technology
development, and implementation. Additionally, pollution prevention is
also necessary in order to address the emerging concerns of climate
change, as well as the environmental issues of homeland security and
infrastructure protection.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request for EPA is $10.02 billion, a
$277 million decrease from the fiscal year 2010 appropriated amount of
$10.3 billion. The EPA's S&T Directorate would be essentially flat at
$846.7 million in fiscal year 2011, up slightly from the $846 million
appropriated amount for fiscal year 2010. After several years of
funding decreases, followed by a significant boost to funding for
fiscal year 2010, the EPA Task Force feels that a higher appropriation
is warranted for fiscal year 2011. The R&D funds are needed in order to
enhance study responses to climate change, terrestrial carbon
sequestration and management, biofuels and oil shale waste issues, and
nanotechnology development.
overview of the asme task force review
We will focus our analysis on the R&D activities of the S&T
portfolio within the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and
the Superfund program that support eight strategic programmatic
research areas:
--Clean air and global climate change;
--Clean and safe water;
--Land preservation and restoration;
--Human health and ecosystems;
--Compliance and environmental stewardship;
--Toxic research and prevention;
--Sustainability; and
--Homeland security.
The change in funding levels supporting these core objectives
between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 is as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2010 2011 Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean air research.............................................. 102.7 107.3 +4.6
Clean water..................................................... 111 121.1 +10.1
Land protection and restoration................................. 14.1 13.8 -0.3
Human health and ecosystems..................................... 246.8 256.2 +9.4
Toxic research and prevention................................... 27.3 27.6 +0.3
Sustainability.................................................. 27.2 25.2 -2.0
Homeland security............................................... 65.2 51.3 -13.9
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 594.3 602.5 +8.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
epa ord
Through research and technical assistance, ORD provides the
scientific foundation for EPA by performing research and development to
identify and solve present and future environmental issues and
providing responsive technical support to its scientific partners. The
ORD administers programs addressing both foundational research to
improve the scientific tools used to understand and evaluate
environmental health as well as problem-driven research designed to
provide scientific solutions to high-priority environmental problems.
It is an invaluable national resource. We note that the ORD workforce
has declined by more than 10 percent over the past several years and
now is not sufficient to permit action on various topics of national
importance. Effort should be made to ``rightsize'' the ORD staff so
that it can continue to support R&D on current and future environmental
problems.
We support the increases requested for the EPA's S&T directorate,
which reverses several years of funding decreases. An evaluation of
EPA's resources is needed to ensure that it can balance between
existing priorities and new challenges. Program specifics issues are
outlined below:
CLEAN AIR RESEARCH
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2010 2011 Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global change................................................... 20.8 21.9 +1.1
Clean air....................................................... 102.7 107.3 +4.6
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 123.5 129.2 +5.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA Task Force views Global Change as a critical issue and is
supportive of this increase in funding. We urge Congress to appropriate
these additional funds for Global Change to at least the fiscal year
2011 requested level. The Task Force supports the current request for
Clean Air and Global Change Research.
CLEAN WATER RESEARCH
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2010 2011 Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean water..................................................... 111 121.1 +10.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the fiscal year 2011 budget request calls for an increase
of about $10 million more than the fiscal year 2010 appropriated
amount. This increase will help support the long-term development of
infrastructure related to water quality issues. The Task Force is
pleased with the increases for Clean Water Research and urges Congress
to sustain funding for the Drinking Water and Water Quality programs
consistent with the fiscal year 2011 request.
LAND PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2010 2011 Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land protection research........................................ 14.1 13.8 -0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The $311,000 decrease in land protection and restoration research
comes as ecosystem research and sustainability and environmental
management are being raised. Still, further support would greatly
assist this program with studies related to the impact of carbon
sequestration, something that may be implemented in the U.S. This
research is expensive but necessary. Therefore, the Task Force
recommends that additional funding for land protection and restoration
be appropriated for fiscal year 2011.
SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2010 2011 Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainability.................................................. 27.3 25.3 -2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding for Sustainability research is slated for a decrease of
almost $2 million for this year. The Task Force recommends that funding
for sustainability research be funded at the previously appropriated
levels for fiscal year 2010.
TOXIC RESEARCH AND PREVENTION
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2010 2011 Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic research and prevention................................... 27.3 27.6 +0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding for Toxic Research and Prevention is slated for an increase
of $298,000 for fiscal year 2011. The Task Force recommends that
funding for Toxic Research and Prevention be appropriated at requested
levels for fiscal year 2011.
HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOSYSTEMS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2010 2011 Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endocrine disruptors............................................ 11.4 17.4 +6.0
Fellowships..................................................... 11.1 17.3 +6.2
Computational toxicology........................................ 20.0 21.8 +1.8
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 42.5 56.5 +14.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Task Force supports the fiscal year 2011 proposed budget for
ecosystems research, which will foster new technologies that minimize
future environmental damage. The Task Force is also very pleased to see
such a bold increase for Fellowships. Although other agencies are
receiving increased funding for research to support long-term energy
reliability and sustainability, such as oil shale, biofuels, and carbon
capture and sequestration, EPA has not received funding to assess the
ecosystem impacts of these major initiatives.
HOMELAND SECURITY
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2010 2011 Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water sentinel.................................................. 18.5 11.6 -6.9
Decontamination................................................. 24.8 21.7 -3.1
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 43.3 33.3 -10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeland security activities are a significant element of EPA's S&T
activities, focusing on critical infrastructure protection and disaster
preparedness and response. The Task Force plans to review the proposed
cuts to insure that the reductions do not delay the completion of the
program's objectives.
environmental education
The fiscal year 2011 EPA budget requests $17.3 million to support
research fellowships, a large increase from the previous fiscal year.
The STAR (Science to Achieve Results) fellowship program is the only
Federal fellowship program designed exclusively for students pursuing
advanced degrees in environmental sciences and engineering. This is an
important investment and the Task Force fully supports this program.
The Task Force is pleased with the proposed increase. It is essential
to encourage students to pursue careers in environmental science and
engineering. Such investments are critical to addressing environmental
concerns, bolstering our Nation's workforce, and maintaining its
competitiveness.
conclusion
The administration's fiscal year 2011 request is generally flat
overall, while this is appropriate within current budget constraints,
the Task Force requests that additional funding for the Homeland
Security programs be considered and added if necessary to insure
security enhancements to our water supply are not delayed nor
disrupted.
The proposed fiscal year 2011 EPA Science and Technology budget
includes increases for a number of program areas, specifically Clean
Air, and Research Fellowships, and the overall research budget has
decreased slightly from last fiscal year's historic highs. This is
necessary to preserve EPA's important contribution in meeting the
challenges of our natural resource and policy issues in compliance with
its regulatory mission.
This statement represents the views of the EPA Task Force of the
Environmental Engineering Division of ASME's Technical Communities and
is not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole.
______
Prepared Statement of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Reservation
On behalf of the Fort Peck Tribes, I am pleased to present
testimony on the fiscal year 2011 BIA and IHS Budget. We are a large,
land-based tribe. The Fort Peck Reservation encompasses 2.09 million
acres of which only 378,000 are tribally owned, with another 548,000
held as individual allotments. The Reservation population is growing
and our tribal enrollment is nearly 12,000 members. Our greatest need
is healthcare, public safety and education. The United States must live
up to its trust responsibilities to the Indian people. With the
historic action by Congress to extend health insurance to an additional
32 million Americans, we hope that Congress will more closely examine
the state of healthcare in Indian country today. The health conditions
of the Nation's first Americans are substandard. My recommendations are
as follows:
--Healthcare.--Substantially increase funding for Tribal health
programs and facilities construction and maintenance so that we
may live with dignity;
--Public Safety and Education.--Expand Tribal access to Federal
public safety programs (police, prosecutors, corrections
officers, and tribal courts) and the facilities to house them
so that we may tackle crime and public safety issues in a
comprehensive manner. At the same time, expand opportunities
for tribal education to give our children a brighter future and
hope;
--Economic Development and Infrastructure.--Economic development and
infrastructure are interconnected. Address infrastructure needs
on Indian reservations by increasing funding for safe drinking
and water projects, road construction and road maintenance so
that we may keep our communities safe and healthy and promote
economic development;
--Transparency.--Direct the Bureau and IHS to develop their budgets
with meaningful consultation with Tribes to reflect local,
Tribal priorities, rather than Federal.
The tribes' unemployment rate on the reservation is 57 percent
(latest BIA Labor Force Report, 2005). Of our tribal members who are
working, approximately 43 percent live below the poverty level (BIA
Labor Force Report, 2005). Given the enormous unemployment and poverty
rates on the reservation, our needs for both Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) programs and services are
substantial.
The United States must assist tribes address basic governmental
services such as safe drinking water, safe streets and communities, and
healthcare. More than 20 years ago, an earlier Congress noted that when
there is community stability--with core governmental services being
met--``Indian tribes are in the best position to implement economic
development plans, taking into account the available natural resources,
labor force, financial resources and markets.'' If the Federal
Government could provide greater assistance to us with these core
governmental services, our members would be so much better off. Here
are a few of our key funding requests which we ask the Congress and the
administration to support. I will address the IHS budget first, then
the BIA budget.
indian health service
Indian country continues to suffer higher rates of infant
mortality, teenage suicide, accident, alcoholism, diabetes, and heart
disease when compared with other minorities and the general American
population. Yet money directed to healthcare, especially preventative
care--such as routine checkups and health education that clearly
improves the quality of life and helps avoid more expensive healthcare
costs in the future--has not been provided to Tribal communities. The
Federal Government has a trust responsibility to provide healthcare to
Native Americans, an obligation that was paid for by the Native people
of this county with millions of acres of land, resources, and our
traditional way of life.
Facilities Construction and Dialysis Center.--There is a desperate
need for fully staffed and equipped health facilities capable of
providing a full range of medical services. The IHS needs to evaluate
and plan the process for new in-patient facilities in Montana,
including the urgent expansion of the Fort Peck Tribal Dialysis Unit to
18 stations (from 10) or construction of a new dialysis unit. We are
now at capacity, serving 33 patients 6 days a week, including non-
Indian patients. If we cannot expand our services, these patients will
have to travel long distances for this life-sustaining care.
Contract Health.--We recognize the significance of the requested
$84 million increase in Contract Health Care but this increase is
inadequate to address the growing healthcare crisis in Indian country.
The Fort Peck Tribes alone need a near doubling of our inadequate
Contract Health Care budget--to $11 million--to meet the growing health
demands of our more than 11,000 tribal members. Far too many members
are not referred out for Contract Health Care Services that their
primary healthcare professionals determine are medically necessary
because we are at level 12. Members are told that no funds are
available for Contract Health Services medical services. Patients
requiring surgeries are mostly given prescriptions for pain instead of
receiving Contract Health Services, which can lead to dire
consequences.
I would like to provide an example of the danger of underfunding
Contract Health Care. It involves our Vice-Chair, Roxann Bighorn. She
suffered an injury to her knee from a fall. After several weeks her
knee did not heal. She sought a referral from the IHS to obtain an MRI.
Instead the IHS Clinic provided her a prescription for the pain and one
for the inflammation. After several weeks on these medications, her
kidneys began to falter and she was on the verge of kidney failure. One
would think that after all of this she would have risen to the level of
care to repair her knee. Unfortunately, that is not the case. This is
unacceptable, yet it is typical in Indian country. Please ensure that
Contract Health resources are increased in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
bureau of indian affairs
The Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System.--The health status of
a community is directly related to the quality of water available,
which is why the Fort Peck Tribes took the lead in building the Fort
Peck Reservation Rural Water System, a system that will provide quality
drinking water to the reservation and surrounding communities. However,
we need increased funding for the operation, maintenance and
replacement (OM&R) costs associated with the System. For nearly 2
years, we informed the BIA that our OM&R costs would rise as our water
treatment plant came on line. We request $636,000 for fiscal year 2011,
a $436,000 increase above the President's request.
Congress enacted the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act
of 2000, Public Law 106-382, to ensure safe and adequate municipal,
rural and industrial water supply to all of the residents of the Fort
Peck Indian Reservation. The law directs that funding for the operation
and maintenance of the water system is to be fully paid for by the BIA.
The Tribes and the Bureau of Reclamation have completed construction of
many components of this project, including the raw water intake
facility and will soon complete the water treatment facility. This
means that in fiscal year 2011 this Project will be delivering water to
the largest towns on the Reservation. This will require additional
training and oversight. Unfortunately, OM&R funding has not kept pace
with our progress. We need an additional $436,000 above the President's
budgeted amount of $200,000 to ensure that we can carry-out the
additional certification training and oversight, security for the
intake and sludge lagoon and water treatment plant operation. We have
provided detailed budgets and budget narratives to the BIA explaining
our OM&R program needs. The BIA has not adjusted our OM&R funding level
to reflect our growing needs.
Funding for Law Enforcement and Tribal Court Programs.--The need
for increased law enforcement and Tribal Courts remains a priority for
the Fort Peck Tribes. We greatly appreciate the increases Congress
provided last year for public safety programs. These increases,
however, are insufficient to fulfill the United States' basic trust
responsibility in the areas of health and safety. Our reservation needs
more officers and the resources they require to patrol a large land
base. This must be matched with additional resources for tribal courts.
Congress should ensure that the $20 million proposed increase in law
enforcement funding for fiscal year 2011 translates into more officers
on the Fort Peck Reservation. More officers mean more detentions so our
tribes must have increased funding for tribal court personnel.
The Fort Peck Tribes' Public Safety Department currently has 22
sworn public safety officers, less than half the number needed to
provide adequate coverage for our large reservation. These officers
cannot adequately patrol a 2 million-acre reservation with a population
of more than 11,000 and a high incidence of substance abuse and violent
crimes. A survey of current officers has shown that they will not
continue to work for the tribes under conditions where they must patrol
alone, respond to calls without backup, and work longer hours for the
same or less pay. I hope that Congress will provide adequate resources
so that Indian communities, especially rural communities like Fort
Peck, can recruit and retain public safety officers.
An independent ``Gap Analysis'' study prepared in 2006 for the
BIA's Office of Law Enforcement Services confirms the glaring shortage
of law enforcement officers in Indian country. The BIA's Office of Law
Enforcement Services divides Indian country into six Districts. Montana
is located in District 5. In 2006, District 5 had 87 law enforcement
officers, including criminal investigators and telecommunication
operators. To reach the recommended level of 3.3 law enforcement
officers per 1,000 population, District 5 would need to increase its
law enforcement personnel by 135 to reach 222 law enforcement officers.
Of this amount, 111 or 50 percent would be police officers. Unlike far
less violent non-Indian communities, which have on average 2.9 officers
to every 1,000 inhabitants, Indian country averages about 1.3 officers
for every 1,000 inhabitants. The Gap Analysis revealed that BIA
District 5 is at 39 percent capacity for law enforcement. That is one
of the primary reasons our crime statistics are so high.
On the seven reservations in Montana for the 2-year period of 2004-
05 (the period for which we have the most complete data), there were 10
murders, 62 forcible rapes, 1,147 aggravated assaults and 529
burglaries. In 2007, the Tribes' Public Safety Department was
responsible for addressing 3,956 offenses committed on the Fort Peck
Reservation, including 595 violent or serious offenses and 1,004
juvenile offenses. During fiscal year 2009, the Court processed 3,247
criminal cases; 1,512 delinquency/status offenses, 535 civil actions,
and 757 family court cases. Indian Country needs more resources in
every area of law enforcement from police staffing, tribal courts,
detention, and equipment. The Tribes already subsidize the tribal
courts budget at the level of 73 percent.
I would be remiss if I did not also call for increased funding for
detention facilities, for both operations and construction. The Fort
Peck Tribes received a $1 million stimulus grant from the Department of
Justice to rebuild our detention facilities. We are excited about this
and are now in the process of implementing this grant. However, this
new facility will require additional staffing and maintenance funding
to ensure that the new facility is properly maintained. By industry
standards we will need to double our detention personnel.
Education.--As President Obama has stated, education is the key to
lift people out of poverty and put them on the road to success. But we
must have healthy communities to raise our children in and they must be
given the resources to overcome the ills of poverty. We need the
resources to address our high drop out rates and poor school
attendance. There are too few educational, recreational, and
constructive social outlets available to our tribal youth. Without
addressing these funding shortfalls we will continue to experience
unacceptable levels of juvenile delinquency, substance abuse, suicide
and violence.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to present the views of
the Fort Peck Tribes.
______
Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy
Dear Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee: In behalf of the
Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC), for reasons described below, I am
requesting a fiscal year 2011 appropriation from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the amount of $1,505,000 for the National
Park Service (NPS) and $13,899,000 for the USDA Forest Service (USFS)
for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands surrounding or
bordering the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (ANST) in the States of
Vermont, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and
Georgia.
Background.--The Appalachian Trail (AT) is America's premier long-
distance footpath. Initially established between 1923 and 1937 as a
continuous footpath extending from western Maine to northern Georgia,
the trail gained Federal recognition in 1968 with the passage of the
National Trails System Act. Amendments to that act in 1978 expanded the
authorization for Federal and State land acquisition to establish a
permanent, publicly owned right-of-way as well as a protective corridor
or ``greenway'' along the trail. Since 1978, with the strong support of
the subcommittee and the Congress as a whole, the ANST land-acquisition
program of the NPS and USFS has become one of the most successful land-
conservation efforts in the Nation's history with the acquisition of
more than 189,000 acres, more than 3,370 parcels, in 14 States. Today,
only approximately 7 miles of the 2,179-mile AT remain to be protected
through public ownership.
Resource Characteristics.--The AT is a 2,179-mile footpath
extending along the crests and valleys of the Appalachian Mountains
through 14 States from Maine to Georgia. Often characterized as a
``string of pearls,'' the trail, which is considered a unit of the
National Park System, connects eight National Forests, six other units
of the National Park System, and approximately 60 State parks, forests,
and game-management units. With an estimated 2 to 3 million visitors
per year, it ranks among the most heavily visited units of the National
Park System and also ranks among the top 10 units from the standpoint
of natural diversity with more than 2,200 documented occurrences of
federally and State-listed rare, threatened, or endangered species at
more than 500 discrete sites.
The AT is equally well known as a remarkable public/private
partnership. Since the initial construction of the trail in the 1920s
and 1930s, volunteers affiliated with the ATC have constructed,
reconstructed, and maintained the footpath as well as a system of more
than 250 shelters and associated facilities such as privies, improved
campsites, bridges, signs, and parking lots. In 2009, for example, more
than 6,800 volunteers contributed more than 220,500 hours of labor
along the trail. As an outgrowth of an agreement between the NPS and
ATC, ATC has accepted management responsibility for most lands acquired
by that agency along the trail. ATC, through its network of 30 club
affiliates, is now responsible for virtually all phases of ``park''
operations, ranging from trail and facility maintenance and
construction to land and resources management to visitor education and
services. ATC also provides ongoing, volunteer-based stewardship for
other trail lands, totaling more than 250,000 acres.
Need for Appropriations.--As noted previously, while the ANST
protection program represents one of the most successful land-
acquisition programs in the history of the conservation movement in the
United States, that program is not yet complete. Although our hope had
been to complete the program by the year 2000, escalating land values
coupled with diminished administrative capacity in the affected
agencies have conspired to delay full program completion. Nevertheless,
a number of critical parcels are now ``ripe'' for land acquisition from
willing sellers and we are seeking fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriations
to secure those properties. A brief description of each of those
critical parcels follows.
Chateauguay: No Town Project, Vermont.--This project involves four
parcels, totaling 1,000 acres, in the towns of Barnard and Bridgewater,
Vermont, to be acquired in fee-simple and an additional 81.39-acre
parcel in Pomfret, Vermont, to be placed under a conservation easement.
Negotiations have been spearheaded for several years by The
Conservation Fund, which also has secured a pledge for a significant
private contribution toward the project. The four properties straddle
more than 1\1/2\ miles of the AT in an area where earlier acquisitions
by the NPS provided only a narrow buffer for the footpath. They include
a high-value wetland complex and feeding habitat for migratory birds,
black bears, and moose as well as the headwaters of the Locust Creek
watershed, a Vermont Class A stream. The fifth, easement parcel is
situated on a hillside adjacent to and above the trail in the Town of
Pomfret that is under threat of residential subdivision. A partial
appropriation for this project was included in the fiscal year 2010
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. ATC
and The Conservation Fund are requesting second-installment funding for
this project: an fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriation of $1.25 million
for the NPS.
Hauser Tract, Pennsylvania.--This project affects a 172-acre farm
property in Carbon County, Pennsylvania, situated on the north slope of
Kittatinny Ridge adjacent to the AT. The property also borders
Pennsylvania Game Commission lands, the Lehigh Gap Nature Center, and a
Pennsylvania Turnpike tunnel. It also includes the State's largest
native grassland habitat and is highly sought after by the Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA-DCNR) as part of
its Pocono Forest and Waters Conservation Landscape Initiative. We are
requesting an fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriation of $255,000 for the
NPS to acquire this parcel.
Dismal Creek, Virginia/Jefferson National Forest.--ATC and the USFS
are seeking to acquire in fee-simple this 89-acre farm property
consisting of two parcels adjacent to Forest Service Road 201. The two
parcels are proximate to the AT and are located within a special
biological area encompassing a number of rare plants, such as the
Yellow Sedge. Dismal Creek also flows through the properties and
conservation of the two properties is considered important for assuring
stream-water quality as well as the quality of the associated trout
fishery. ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriation of
$190,000 for acquisition of the two properties by the USFS.
Rocky Fork, Tennessee/Cherokee National Forest.--In mid-December,
2008, the USFS acquired approximately 2,200 acres of this 10,000-acre
property in eastern Tennessee situated midway between Johnson City and
Asheville, North Carolina, and adjacent to Interstate 26. The
Conservation Fund provided bridge funding to acquire the balance of the
property in anticipation of future sale to the USFS and the State of
Tennessee. The property includes many game and non-game wildlife
values, including 16 miles of ``blue-ribbon'' trout streams and
outstanding black bear, white-tailed deer, and wild turkey habitat. The
property also includes 1.2 miles of the ANST and its acquisition will
permit future construction of a 3-mile relocation to provide a much-
improved alignment for the footpath. Total costs for the acquisition
were approximately $43 million and ATC is working closely with TCF, the
Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy (SAHC), and a number of
other conservation and sportsmen organizations to complete the overall
funding package for the project. ATC and The Conservation Fund are
requesting an fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriation of $11 million for
the USFS which will permit the USFS to acquire the remaining
approximately 2,750 acres of the property.
Rich Mountain, Tennessee/Cherokee National Forest.--This 100-acre
privately owned in-holding is situated in the northwest corner of the
Rocky Fork property (see above) and unfortunately was carved out by New
Forestry, LLC--the previous owners of the Rocky Fork property--at the
time the remainder of the property was sold to the USFS and The
Conservation Fund. It includes the highest point of land for the
overall property as well as prominent cliffs locally known as Buzzard
Rock. The cliffs are only a short distance from the AT through a high
elevation health bald. The property provides sweeping views of the
Sampson Mountain Wilderness and northeast Tennessee/southwest Virginia.
ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriation of $1,000,000
for the USFS to acquire this critical in-holding.
Shook Branch, Tennessee/Cherokee National Forest.--This 20-acre
property is situated in eastern Tennessee in the Cherokee National
Forest. The AT currently follows a dangerous road-walk and crosses US
321 at a location with limited site distances to on-coming traffic. A
proposed new route has been identified and a number of parcels have
been acquired by the USFS to establish the route. The Shook Branch
property is necessary in order to complete the proposed relocation. The
current property owner has expressed a willingness to sell the
property. ATC is requesting a fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriation of
$829,000 for the USFS to acquire the property at appraised value.
Wesser Bald, North Carolina/Nantahala National Forest.--This
property is situated in western North Carolina in the Nantahala
National Forest. The AT passes within 200 feet of the property and
affords a number of outstanding scenic views at several locations along
the northern portion of the property and from a viewing platform atop
the Wesser Bald fire tower with 360-degree views encompassing the Great
Smoky Mountains skyline, the Nantahala Mountains, and northern Georgia.
The property was acquired in fee in several phases by the SAHC with the
aid of a bridge loan from The Conservation Fund. The requested fiscal
year 2011 appropriation will be used to repurchase a 20-acre portion of
the property at a bargain-sale price with ownership transferred to the
USFS. SAHC also has secured a conservation easement affecting an
additional 41 acres of the property. The total value of the fee and
easement interests is approximately $450,000. ATC is requesting an
fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriation in the amount of $180,000 for the
USFS.
Blood Mountain, Georgia/Chattahoochee National Forest.--ATC and the
USFS have sought for decades to extinguish an outstanding road right-
of-way through this 22.9-acre in-holding within the Blood Mountain
Wilderness Area that also crosses the Appalachian Trail. The property
is within the viewshed from the summit rock outcroppings of Blood
Mountain--one of the most heavily visited trail segments in the
southern national forests (Region 8). The ATC local affiliate, the
Georgia Appalachian Trail Club, is proposing to contribute $100,000
toward the overall costs of this acquisition. ATC is requesting an
fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriation of $700,000 for the USFS to acquire
the property.
With the acquisition of the above-described properties, ATC hopes
to complete a substantial portion of the remaining land-acquisition
needs in the ANST program. Again, we respectfully request an fiscal
year 2011 LWCF appropriation of $1.505 million for the NPS and $13.899
million for the USFS.
______
Prepared Statement of APS Four Corners Power Plant; Aurora Water;
Central Utah Water Conservancy District; Colorado River Energy
Distributers Association; Colorado River Water Conservation District;
Colorado Springs Utilitites; Colorado Water Congress; Denver Water;
Dolores Water Conservancy District; Grand Valley Water Users
Association; Jicarilla Apache Nation; Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District; Orchard Mesa Irrigation District; PNM Resources,
Inc.; San Juan Water Commission; Southern Ute Indian Tribe; The Nature
Conservancy and Western Resources Advocates; Tri County Water
Conservancy District; Uncomahgre Valley Waters Users Association; Utah
Water Uses Association; and Wyoming Water Association
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am requesting your
support for appropriations in fiscal year 2011 to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program,
consistent with the President's recommended budget.
Appropriation of $709,000 in ``recovery'' funds to FWS to allow FWS
to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
Appropriation of $485,000 in operation and maintenance funds within
the $50, 271,000 item entitled ``National Fish Hatchery Operations'' to
support the ongoing operation of the FWS Ouray National Fish Hatchery
in Utah.
Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet FWS Region 2 expenses in
managing the San Juan Program's diverse recovery actions.
We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request
your assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
financial participation in these vitally important programs.
Sincerely,
John M. Frachini,
Site Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) respectfully requests that the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies appropriate a total of $88.3 million to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) including an additional $45 million to
increase and expand activities of the Office of Law Enforcement (OLE),
$26.2 million for special agents, $3.1 million for ports of entry, and
$5 million for the Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensics
Laboratory, and $9 million to explore the potentially devastating
effects of White Nose Syndrome (WNS) on bats. The administration's
fiscal year 2011 proposed budget falls far short of providing the funds
needed by agencies within the Department of the Interior to protect,
preserve, recover and manage America's wildlife, including threatened
and endangered species, as required by law and by their public trust
obligations to the American people. AWI also asks Congress to include
language to preserve and protect wild horses.
OLE.--The administration's fiscal year 2011 budget proposes a
decrease in funding to one of the most important lines of defense for
America's wildlife, the FWS OLE. Even those who may not concern
themselves with wildlife are reaping benefits as OLE protects against
smuggling illegal substances from invasive species to contraband and
even helps to thwart potentially devastating human health threats.
Still, each year, OLE is increasingly underfunded and understaffed,
placing the public at greater danger unnecessarily. AWI requests an
additional $45 million be allocated to the FWS to increase and expand
the activities of OLE in its critical role combating wildlife crime.
Currently, OLE is tasked with enforcing and implementing more than a
dozen Federal wildlife and conservation laws that frequently impact
both domestic and global security.
It is disheartening that the new budget proposals have chosen to
decrease funding to such an imperative office and its programs in the
wake of success. Year after year, OLE protects the public against the
illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products, which is third only to
the illicit trade in narcotics and weapons in terms of revenue
generated globally, and despite the fact that the United States remains
a source of or destination for much of this contraband. Congress must
act rapidly to make available those funds that are crucial to OLE, its
programs, and the safety of the American public.
FWS Special Agents.--Staff tasked with enforcement of U.S. wildlife
laws risk their lives in an effort to protect our Nation's wildlife. In
fiscal year 2009, FWS agents pursued more than 13,097 investigations
resulting in more than $6.1 million in fines, 39.9 years of jail time
for the perpetrators, and 512.3 years of probation.\1\ FWS cases
documented illegal trafficking in U.S. leopard sharks, coral reef
organisms, live reptiles, and paddlefish. On the global front, FWS
agents, together with the Royal Thai Police, broke up an illegal ivory
trading ring, spanning three continents. The case, to date, has secured
the U.S. indictment of two individuals and four criminal arrests in
Thailand, as well as seizures of elephant tusks and carved ivory in
both countries. If convicted on the 23-plus indictments, prison terms
for both defendants in the United States could collectively total 78
years. This impressive record merits advancement and proper funding.
FWS Special Agents have proven time and time again their work deserves
funding levels beyond the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget
proposal, to aid in the reduction of illegal trade in wildlife and
wildlife products, which continues to imperil wildlife species in the
United States and around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Law Enforcement at a Glance. Office of Law Enforcement. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. January 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, there are only 190 FWS agents responsible for the
enforcement of Federal wildlife laws throughout the entire United
States. This number is 11 fewer than in fiscal year 2009, which was 9
fewer than existed in fiscal year 2008. There are 71 agent vacancies.
AWI respectfully requests an additional $14.2 million to fill these 71
agent vacancies and an additional $12 million to ensure sufficient
operational funds for existing agents and for those hired in the
future.
Port Inspectors.--Keeping our ports and boarders secure remains
America's single best opportunity to prevent potential attacks. Whether
intercepting bioterrorism agents or uncovering security threats, FWS
Port Security, along with U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, and other agencies involved, holds the daunting task of
keeping our Nation safe. The noble individuals employed by these
agencies are charged with precluding a wide variety of potentially
disastrous threats, including: minimizing illegal contraband shipments,
often transported in body cavities of vicious species; uncovering
smuggled goods and illegal trade rings at the border, which include
products of severely endangered species; and thwarting national and
global health risks by shielding the American public from the disease
and safety risks associated with importing non-native species (e.g.
avian flu, Newcastle's disease, and foot and mouth disease).
The current lack of sufficient operational funds for the FWS port
inspection program weakens FWS efforts to promote the conservation of
species of international concern, to protect all natural resources, and
to sustain biological processes. Most recently, FWS port agents,
together with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, uncovered shipments originating from the Virgin Islands
containing protected black coral (CITES Appendix II). Black coral when
removed, threatens the marine ecosystem and damages the habitats of
several species. This case resulted in the arrest and conviction of two
Taiwanese nationals on nine counts of conspiracy, including conspiracy,
false statements, and violations of both the Endangered Species Act and
the Lacey Act. It is critical that these programs remain fully funded
to protect domestic and international wildlife, and to ensure our
Nation's safety through hiring and training staff at each designated
U.S. ports of entry. AWI requests an additional $3.1 million for the
ports of entry.
The Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensics
Laboratory.--The successful outcomes stated previously would not have
been possible without the essential work of the FWS forensic
laboratory, used by FWS agents and inspectors to gather hard evidence
in wildlife crime cases. The lab uses state-of-the-art science, along
with years of institutional knowledge, to identify wildlife products by
species, determine the cause of death, and make other findings critical
to a successful legal case. All such findings must adhere to exacting
evidentiary standards to be used in court, thus increasing the cost of
testing each sample. The lab and its personnel have worked diligently
over the past year to nearly clear a 7-month computer case backlog but
remain challenged in tackling the 4- to 8-month hard case backlog. The
Bavin Laboratory desperately needs to hire and train essential staff to
help alleviate some of the backlog, which has delayed investigations
and potential prosecutions by FWS investigators, inspectors, and
Federal prosecutors.
All 50 States and the 175 Convention for International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES) member countries depend on this facility to
prosecute their wildlife crimes; however, this partnership is
jeopardized by the lab's inability to churn out timely results. To
reduce both staffing shortages and existing analytical workload and
backlog, $5 million is requested for the lab, including $1 million to
fill the eight essential vacancies. A timely hire is crucial to train
second generation forensic morphologists prior to the departure of
current staff. Such funds would also allow for the construction of a
new building to house the lab's comparison standards collection ($3.5
million).
Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act.--The wild horse is as much
a symbol of American heritage as the image of Uncle Sam and baseball.
Currently, these wild horses are at risk of mistreatment by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM), which misuses most of its budget to round up
and warehouse wild horses and burros to make room for privately owned
cattle. Wild horses have been removed from more than 19 million of the
52 million acres allocated to them by Congress. Since 2004, wild horses
have been at risk of being sold to killer-buyers who make a profit by
sending horses to slaughter for human consumption. More than 35 years
ago, Congress acted on behalf of these wild animals to protect their
natural habitat and lifestyle. It is now time for Congress to act again
to ensure these animals are neither sent into long-term holding
facilities nor sentenced to slaughter. AWI requests that this ``no-
kill'' language be maintained to ensure the BLM does not kill healthy
wild horses and burros:
``Provided, that appropriations herein made shall not be available
for the sale or destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and
burros in the care of the Bureau or its contractors.''
WNS in Bats.--Last year, there were dire reports that as many as a
1 million hibernating bats throughout the Eastern United States had
died over the previous 3 years--with some hibernacula (caves and mines
where bats hibernate) experiencing 95-100 percent mortality--and that
the problem was moving to other States. The news this year is even
worse: WNS has indeed continued its march south and west. In February,
West Virginia's Division of Natural Resources announced a WNS outbreak
in one of the State's caves, housing 200,000 hibernating bats
(including 5,000 Virginia big-eared bats and 13,000 Indiana bats, both
endangered species). That same week, wildlife officials in Tennessee
reported that two bats from Worley Cave in Sullivan County had tested
positive for WNS. Hundreds and thousands of bats hibernate in 9,600
caves in Tennessee, and biologists fear devastation of the endangered
Indiana and grey bats. And then in early March, the Maryland Department
of Natural Resources reported a likely WNS outbreak in a cave in
Allegany County.
This die-off is an unprecedented animal welfare, environmental, and
economic disaster. Bats play a crucial role in the ecosystem, including
pollinating crops and consuming insects that pose a threat to human
health and agriculture. The million bats that have been lost could have
consumed as many as 649,000 tons of insects each year. A consensus
statement issued in May 2009 by a group of scientists and wildlife
managers working on this problem calls WNS ``the most precipitous
decline of North American wildlife in recorded history,'' and they fear
it could wipe out some endangered bat species and cause others to be
listed. A fungus, called WNS for the white patches that appear on the
bats' noses and elsewhere, seems to be the culprit, and scientists are
working furiously to prevent its spread and find a cause and a
treatment. Additional funds are needed to enable them to get this
disease under control and avert an even bigger ecological and financial
catastrophe later.
We respectfully ask Congress to do the following: (1) support the
$4 million increase the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requested for
Declining Species; (2) approve the 2 additional FTEs FWS requested,
which we understand are to be the WNS coordinators for regions 3 and 4;
(3) Support the $3 million increase the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
requested for science support for FWS and National Park Service
priority research, monitoring, and technical assistance needs; (4)
Support the $600,000 increase USGS requested for wildlife: terrestrial
and endangered resources; and (5) Include an additional $5 million in
FWS' Endangered Species: Recovery of Listed Species programming funds.
We are grateful that Congress provided the FWS with an additional
$1.9 million in fiscal year 2010 for WNS research and monitoring
activities, but as recent developments show, the spread of WNS is
outpacing efforts to control it. With an additional $5 million in its
endangered species recovery program, the FWS will be able to offer
another year of WNS research grants targeting disease transmission and
spread, control and treatment, bat genetics, and population modeling--
critical to our understanding of this disease. Funding will be
available to support development and implementation of Federal and
State WNS response plans, baseline data collection, WNS surveillance
and monitoring, and related tasks, as well as public outreach. Without
sufficient resources to accelerate these efforts, WNS will continue its
relentless assault, potentially devastating the majority of our
Nation's bat species.
______
Letter From the Bird Conservation Alliance
May 14, 2010.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Chairman, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Subcommittee, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Ranking Member, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: On behalf of
the undersigned Bird Conservation Alliance members, we want to thank
you Chairman Moran and Ranking Member Simpson for this opportunity to
speak to you and the members of this subcommittee about the need to
increase funding to Federal bird conservation programs that have proven
effective. The Bird Conservation Alliance (BCA) is a network of bird
conservation organizations, scientific societies, environmental groups,
and birding clubs working together to conserve wild birds. Funding for
these programs is crucial for restoring and maintaining healthy and
abundant bird populations throughout the United States. For many of
these programs, the need is far greater than the levels that we are
advocating for.
For the purposes of this letter, we will focus on the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's (FWS) Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act
(NMBCA) grants program and the Joint Ventures (JV) program. The BCA
requests NMBCA be funded at $6.5 million ($1.5 million above fiscal
year 2010's level) and JVs be funded at $18 million ($4 million above
fiscal year 2010's level) to allow them to meet their increased
responsibilities. An increase in funding for these programs would
benefit the songbirds that are soon to arrive in the backyards and
birdfeeders of millions of anxiously awaiting Americans.
America is blessed with a spectacular abundance and rich diversity
of birds, with more than 800 species inhabiting the mainland, Hawaii,
and surrounding oceans. Currently 75 million Americans engage in bird
watching generating over $45 billion to our economy every year.
Unfortunately, we found out in last year's FWS groundbreaking State of
the Birds Report that many of our bird species are in decline and some
are threatened with extinction. The 2010 State of the Birds finds that
most U.S. bird species will be imperiled by climate change, including
common birds that are currently not of conservation concern.
NMBCA
To address two of the primary causes for the decline of bird
species; habitat loss and degradation, both of which are rapidly
increasing south of our border--the BCA respectfully suggests that
Congress act to help mitigate their impact by improving the
appropriations level for the NMBCA grants program. As the subcommittee
knows, the NMBCA supports partnership programs in the United States,
Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean to conserve migratory birds,
especially on their wintering grounds where birds of nearly 350
species, including some of the most endangered birds in North America,
spend their winters. Projects include activities that benefit bird
populations such as habitat restoration, research and monitoring, law
enforcement, and outreach and education.
From 2002-2008, grant money has gone out to 44 U.S. States and 34
countries, funding 260 projects, impacting almost 3 million acres of
critical bird habitat. More than $250 million in Federal appropriated
dollars have leveraged more than $116 million in partner contributions.
However, demand for funding of high-quality conservation projects far
outstrips current appropriations, and in 2008, 63 projects requesting
nearly $10,000,000 were not funded. From these numbers, it is clear
that conservation that would benefit our migrant songbirds is not able
to take place due to a lack of funding for this program.
JVs
JVs also exemplify a highly successful, cost-effective approach to
conservation and are now being looked to as model for the Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives. By applying science and bringing diverse
constituents together, JVs across the United States have created a
model for solving wildlife management problems and restoring habitats
critical to conserving declining species. Nationally, JVs have
protected, restored, or enhanced more than 13 million acres of
important habitat for migratory bird species. There are currently 21
JVs in the United States that provide coordination for conservation
planning and implementation of projects that benefit all migratory bird
populations and other species.
JVs have a long history of success in implementing bird
conservation initiatives mandated by Congress and by international
treaties. Projects are developed at the local level and implemented
through diverse public/private partnerships. These projects reflect
local values and needs, while addressing regional and national
conservation priorities. The projects benefit not only birds, but many
wildlife species, and have a positive impact on the health of
watersheds and local economies.
Every $1 invested in JVs leverages more than $44 in non-Federal
partner funds (1999-2004) for on-the-ground habitat conservation and
restoration projects, biological planning, and outreach. Additional
dollars would help JVs strengthen the public/private partnerships that
leverage increasingly scarce public funds for on-the-ground habitat
restoration and acquisition projects; continue to incorporate recent
scientific advances in the development of landscape-conservation plans;
and build capacity within the newer JVs, while maintaining expertise
within established ones.
BCA strongly believes increased funding for NMBCA and JVs is
essential to achieving conservation goals critical to our environment
and economy. Just as importantly, these Federal programs are good
values for taxpayers, leveraging more than $4 and $44, respectively, in
partner contributions for every $1 that we spend.
Darin Schroeder,
Vice President of Conservation Advocacy, American Bird Conservancy.
John Faaborg,
American Ornithologists Union.
Ellie Cohen,
President and CEO, PRBO Conservation Science.
Dan Silver,
Executive Director, Endangered Habitats League.
Thomas Parchman,
President, Audubon Society of Greater Denver.
Milan G. Bull,
Senior Director of Science and Conservation, Connecticut Audubon
Society.
Bill Stewart,
Conservation Chair, Delmarva Ornithological Society.
Lisa Sorenson, Ph.D.,
President, Society for the Conservation and Study of Caribbean
Birds.
Charles H. Trost, Ph.D.,
Field Trip Chair and Board Member, Portneuf Valley Audubon Society.
Donnie Dann,
Advocacy Chair and Past President, Bird Conservation Network.
Marcia T. Fowle,
Bird-Safe Glass Foundation, New York City Audubon.
Diana Van Buren,
President & Program Chair, North Fork Audubon Society.
W. Hardy Eshbaugh,
President, Audubon Miami Valley.
Tom Romito,
President, Western Cuyahoga Audubon Society.
Steve Sherrod,
Sutton Avian Research Center.
Ani Kame'enui,
Oregon Wild.
David Harrison, MD,
Conservation Chair, Salem Audubon Society.
Laurie Goodrich,
Senior Biologist, Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association.
Bill Hilton, Jr.,
Executive Director, Hilton Pond Center for Piedmont Natural
History.
Dr. John W. Fitzpatrick,
Director, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology.
Rodney Siegel,
Executive Director, The Institute for Bird Populations.
Catherine Rich,
Executive Officer, The Urban Wildlands Group.
Kurt R. Schwarz,
Conservation Chair, Maryland Ornithological Society.
Tim Richardson,
Wildlife Forever & American Land Conservancy.
Kay Charter,
Executive Director, Saving Birds Thru Habitat.
Gil Randell,
Chairman, Hawk Migration Association of North America.
David Govatski,
Chairman, Friends of Pondicherry NWR.
Elizabeth Hurst-Waitz,
Chapter President, Central New Mexico Audubon Society.
Jane Alexander,
Board member, American Birding Association,
Advisory Board member, American Bird Conservancy.
Alan Weeden,
Trustee, Weeden Foundation.
Ron Martin,
North Dakota Birding Society.
Dick Preston,
President, Tennessee Ornithological Society.
Leah Pummill,
President, Audubon Outdoor Club of Corpus Christi, TX.
Wallace Elton,
Ascutney Mountain Audubon Society.
Bruce Johnson,
President, Audubon Society of Northern Virginia Virginia.
Stephen Eccles,
Chair, Conservation Committee, Virginia Society of Ornithology.
Paul Hunter,
Secretary, Milwaukee Olmsted Bird Conservation, Alliance of
Wisconsin.
Ann Shahid,
Important Bird Areas Coordinator, Audubon South Carolina.
______
Letter From the Bird Conservation Funding Coalition
April 19, 2010.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: The Bird
Conservation Funding Coalition (BCFC) consists of national
organizations that jointly advocate for Federal funding to advance bird
conservation. Birds are not only beautiful and interesting creatures
eagerly welcomed by millions of Americans into their backyard every
year; bird watching is also a big business. According to a report
released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), birdwatchers
contributed $36 billion to the U.S. economy in 2006, the most recent
year for which economic data are available. The report, ``Birding in
the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis,'' shows that
total participation in bird watching is strong at 48 million and has
remained steady since 1996. Birds also naturally provide billions of
dollars worth of pest control each year, benefiting farmers and
consumers alike.
We ask that you once again provide funding to programs we believe
are crucial for maintaining healthy and abundant bird populations
throughout the United States. For many of these programs, the need is
far greater than the recommended levels. However, we recognize our
Nation's severe fiscal constraints and are thereby requesting a modest
increase for this coming fiscal year. These programs are:
neotropical migratory bird conservation act (nmbca) grants program
The NMBCA Grants Program supports partnership programs to conserve
birds in the United States, Latin America and the Caribbean, where
approximately 5 billion birds representing 341 species spend their
winters, including some of the most endangered birds in North America.
Between 2002 and 2008, the program supported 260 projects, coordinated
by partners in 44 U.S. States/territories and 34 countries. More than
$25 million in federal appropriated dollars have leveraged more than
$116 million in partner contributions. The BCFC respectfully requests
the subcommittee prioritize fiscal year 2011 funding for the NMBCA at
$6.5 million, an increase of $1.5 million from the amount appropriated
in fiscal year 2010.
joint ventures (jvs)
JVs exemplify a highly successful and cost-effective approach to
the conservation of all migratory bird populations. JVs are regionally
based partnerships of public and private organizations dedicated to the
delivery of bird conservation within their boundaries. They also have a
long history of demonstrated success in implementing bird conservation
initiatives mandated by Congress and by international treaties. For
every Federal dollar that was invested in JVs from 1999-2004, more than
$44 in non-Federal partner funds was brought to the table for on-the-
ground habitat conservation and restoration projects, biological
planning, and outreach. The BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee
allocate $18 million for fiscal year 2011, an increase of $4 million
from the appropriated amount in fiscal year 2010.
science and monitoring
Science and Monitoring done within the FWS Office of Migratory Bird
Management provides invaluable information on the status and trends of
bird species necessary for sound management decisions. This scientific
information helps to ensure that funds are allocated wisely within all
other BCFC priorities. The BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee
provide $35 million for this important program, an increase of
approximately $4 million from the appropriated amount in fiscal year
2010.
north american wetlands conservation act (nawca)
NAWCA provides funding for conservation projects for the benefit of
wetland-associated migratory birds in the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. Unfortunately, more than half of the original wetlands in the
United States have been lost, contributing to the steady decline of
migratory birds. Approximately 4,000 partners through 1,943 projects
have received more than $1 billion in grants from 1990-2009 which have
contributed another $2.06 billion in matching funds to affect 25.2
million acres of habitat. The BCFC respectfully requests the
subcommittee prioritize fiscal year 2011 funding for NAWCA at $52.6
million, an increase of approximately $5 million from the level
appropriated in fiscal year 2010.
state and tribal wildlife grants program
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program is the Nation's core
program for preventing wildlife from becoming endangered and supports
strategic conservation investments in every State and territory. The
conservation actions funded by this program puts thousands of Americans
to work to remove invasive species, restore and protect habitat,
reintroduce native wildlife and to work with private landowners to
improve habitat for at risk birds and wildlife. In order to ensure the
states and territories can implement needed conservation actions that
will retain and create thousands of jobs that will save both wildlife
and taxpayer dollars, we ask you to support the reduction in the non-
Federal match requirement from 50 percent to 35 percent to help
financially strapped States. The BCFC respectfully requests the
subcommittee allocates $100 million for fiscal year 2011, an increase
of $10 million from the level appropriated in fiscal year 2010.
international affairs within the fws
Wildlife Without Borders (WWB), located within the FWS Division of
International Conservation, is a mainstay of bird conservation in
Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. WWB programs are a
foundation for long-term conservation efforts because they focus on
developing in-country capacity and leverage $4 for every Federal dollar
appropriated. The BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee
prioritize fiscal year 2011 funding at $22 million which is an increase
of $8 million from the level appropriated in fiscal year 2010.
international programs within the usda forest service (usfs)
International Programs within the USFS support an array of
extremely effective bird conservation projects with a relatively small
budget. Among these are restoration of Kirkland's Warbler with programs
in Michigan and the Bahamas, and conservation of breeding habitat in
Canada's Boreal Forest. This modest increase in funding would be used
to expand and accelerate work on these projects, as well as projects
benefiting the rapidly declining Cerulean Warbler, declining prairie
grasslands birds, declining forest birds such as the Wood Thrush,
conservation of mangroves and wetlands of Mexico's Pacific Coast and
conservation of habitat for migratory hummingbirds in forests of
Western United States, Canada, and Mexico. The BCFC respectfully
requests the subcommittee provide $16 million for fiscal year 2011, an
increase of $6.2 million over fiscal year 2010.
usgs american breeding bird survey (bbs)
BBS has been providing data crucial for migratory bird conservation
planning since 1966. Today, the BBS provides the foundation for
nongame, land bird conservation in North America with more than 3,200
skilled volunteer participants sampling 3,000 routes annually across
the continental United States and Southern Canada. The BCFC
respectfully requests the subcommittee provide this important program
with the highest possible level of funding.
Birds, other wildlife, and their habitats are perhaps the greatest
legacy we have to leave to our children and subsequent generations.
Money that is spent now on wildlife programs will be repaid many times
over in a cleaner healthier environment from which we will all benefit.
Again, we thank you for your steadfast support of these critically
important programs.
Sincerely,
Darin C. Schroeder,
Vice President of Conservation Advocacy,
American Bird Conservancy.
Ron Regan,
Executive Director,
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Michael Daulton,
Senior Director for Government Relations,
National Audubon Society.
Michael Hutchins,
Executive Director,
The Wildlife Society.
______
Prepared Statement of Bat Conservation International
On behalf of the undersigned organizations and researchers, with
more than 4 million combined supporters, we submit the following
testimony requesting an additional $5 million in designated Federal
funding to support research and management on white-nose syndrome (WNS)
in fiscal year 2011. We also encourage approval of the pending
appropriations requests from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This funding is urgently needed
to understand the cause, transmission, and control of WNS and to reduce
the impacts of this devastating wildlife disease.
WNS is an infectious disease that has already killed more than 1
million bats throughout the Eastern United States. The disease is named
for a newly described fungus that grows on the noses (and sometimes
wings, ears, and tails) of affected bats. Hibernating bats affected by
WNS experience some or all of the following symptoms: (1) frequent
arousals during hibernation, leading to depleted fat reserves and
starvation; (2) suppressed immune system; (3) damage or scarring of the
wings; and (4) abnormal behavior (for example, bats emerge too soon
from hibernation and are often seen flying around in midwinter, which
usually means they will freeze or starve to death).
The unprecedented mortality associated with WNS has caused the most
precipitous wildlife decline in the past century in North America, with
significant ecological and economic consequences throughout the United
States. In the Northeastern United States, where WNS was first
discovered in 2006, mortality rates of nearly 100 percent are reported
for some bat colonies. Over the past 2 years, this disease has spread
rapidly beyond the Northeast. This past winter, the WNS-associated
fungus has been documented in Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee, and
Missouri. WNS has already killed thousands of endangered Indiana bats
and now threatens some of the largest hibernating populations of
endangered gray bats, Virginia big-eared bats, and Ozark big-eared
bats. Ultimately, more than half (25 of 46) of bat species in the
continental United States are at risk.
Bats play a critical role in maintaining the balance of nature.
They are primary predators of vast numbers of insects, including pests
that annually cost American farmers and foresters billions of dollars.
Additionally, the droppings of bats that live in caves support unique
ecosystems, including microorganisms that potentially could provide
invaluable resources for detoxifying industrial wastes and producing
safer pesticides and antibiotics. Loss of bats would have serious,
potentially irreversible consequences, both ecologically and
economically.
In June 2009, bat expert Dr. Thomas Kunz of Boston University
presented testimony to Congress that outlined a need for WNS funding in
excess of $45 million over a 5-year period, with $17 million in the
first year. This was developed through extensive collaboration among
scientists and wildlife managers deeply concerned about the
consequences of WNS. Congress appropriated $1.9 million for WNS in the
fiscal year 2010 FWS Recovery of Listed Species program. Of these
appropriated funds, FWS distributed $1 million to WNS research,
$450,000 to State WNS response activities and $450,000 to FWS WNS
coordination efforts.
Since October 2009, when Congress appropriated this funding, the
WNS-associated fungus has been found in four additional States
(Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, and Missouri) as well the Canadian
provinces of Ontario and Quebec. WNS is now within 100 miles of the
crown jewel of the National Park System's cave parks: Mammoth Cave
National Park. And it has crossed the Mississippi River into the
American Midwest (see Figure 1). This past winter, at least 36
additional United States counties and 8 Canadian counties were
infected, and WNS now occurs within the range of two additional
endangered species (the Virginia big-eared bat and gray bat). A cave
used by the largest hibernating colony of Virginia big-eared bats (in
Pendleton County, West Virginia) has been diagnosed with WNS, and we
expect the largest caves used by gray bats to be impacted within the
next year. At the current rate of spread, WNS will very likely be
within range of the endangered Ozark big-eared bat within 1 year.
Figure 1. Map showing the current distribution and predicted spread
of WNS across the Eastern United States Red areas depict counties where
WNS has been detected as of May 2010. Blue areas show regions in the
United States where major hibernating colonies are present. Yellow
arrows indicate probable transmission routes as the fungal infection
spreads across the United States.
In addition to the significant risk WNS poses to federally listed
endangered species, the little brown bat, a relatively common and
widespread species in the United States, could decline to the point
that it warrants listing as threatened or endangered. Already this
year, the Center for Biological Diversity has petitioned for endangered
species listing of two bat species (Northern long-eared bat and Eastern
small-footed bat) due to threats posed by WNS and other factors.
Listing species under the Endangered Species Act is very expensive.
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO-06-463R), the
average cost for recovery of an endangered species is $15.9 million;
the highest estimate on record is $125 million to recover the whooping
crane. Bat species affected by WNS have broad geographic distributions
and complex life histories, which likely would require even higher
recovery costs. The economic consequence of additional bat listings
would undoubtedly affect operational costs of a number of industries,
including defense, energy, mining, timber, agriculture, construction,
transportation, tourism/recreation, and others. We believe it makes
better economic sense to fund WNS research and prevention now, rather
than bear the cost of endangered species recovery for years to come.
The need for support of research, monitoring and management of WNS
is substantial, but we recognize that the current economic climate may
not allow for funding at previously proposed levels. Nonetheless, the
geographic scope and expected ecological and economic consequences of
WNS will require a substantial financial response.
With an additional $5 million in appropriated funds for WNS,
resources could be available for research grants targeting control and
treatment, disease transmission and spread, population genetics, and
other topics critical to our understanding of this devastating disease
and how to combat it. Funding could also support much-needed
development and implementation of Federal and State WNS-response plans,
critical data collection, surveillance and monitoring and program
administration. Finally, resources could be available to fund public
outreach and communication efforts to disseminate information to
constituents of States within the impact zone of WNS and those expected
to become infected within the next few years.
Congressional support is critical because other funding sources are
extremely limited. State budgets have been drastically reduced and
Federal agencies cannot absorb this cost within their existing
resources. We strongly urge Congress to approve the pending
appropriations requests from the FWS and the USGS. A portion of these
requested funds will provide some support for WNS research, management
and outreach activities, but the fiscal year 2011 Federal budget
requests will not be sufficient to address this devastating disease.
For this reason, we are requesting an additional $5 million in
designated funds for WNS.
Unless additional funding is provided in the fiscal year 2011
budget, WNS will continue to spread across the landscape unchecked,
killing enormous numbers of North American bats. We desperately need
designated support for WNS research, monitoring, management, and
outreach. Without targeted funds, agencies may be forced to expend
their budgets on internal operating costs, leaving little or nothing to
truly address the cause and possible cure of WNS. As a result, we may
see significant ecological and economic changes that will have a
negative impact on America's taxpayers and the U.S. economy, while
adding new species to the ranks of endangered and extinct animals.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our position concerning this
serious matter, and respectfully ask you to consider our urgent
request.
Sincerly yours,
10,000 Birds, NY; Adirondack Council, NY; Allegheny
Defense Project, PA; Appalachian Center for
the Economy and the Environment, WV;
Appalachian Voices, NC.
Bat Conservation International, TX; Bat World
Sanctuary, TX; Biodiversity Conservation
Alliance, WY; Biodiversity Research
Institute, ME; Cary Institute of Ecosystem
Studies, NY.
Center for Biological Diversity, AZ; Center for
North American Bat Research and
Conservation, IN; Connecticut Audubon
Society, CT; Conservation Northwest, WA;
Defenders of Wildlife, DC.
Foundation for Deep Ecology, CA; Friends of
Blackwater, WV; Global Wildlife
Conservation, CA; Green Berkshires, MA;
Hilton Pond Center for Piedmont.
Natural History, SC; Maine Organic Farmer's and
Gardener's Association, ME; Massachusetts
Forest Watch, MA; Midwest Bat Working
Group, IN; National Speleological Society,
AL.
National Cave and Karst Research Institute, NM;
Natural Resources Defense Council, NY; New
Jersey Audubon Society, NJ; Northeast
Organic Farmers Association: Connecticut;
Northeast Organic Farmers Association:
Massachusetts.
Northeast Organic Farmers Association: New
Hampshire; Northeast Organic Farmers
Association: New Jersey; Northeast Organic
Farmers Association: New York; Northeast
Organic Farmers Association: Rhode Island;
Northeast Organic Farmers Association:
Vermont.
North American Symposium for Bat Research;
Northeastern Cave Conservancy, NY;
Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to
Pesticides, OR; Organization for Bat
Conservation, MI; Predator Defense, OR.
RESTORE: The North Woods, MA; Save the Cumberland,
TN; South Carolina Audubon Society, SC;
Southeastern Bat Diversity Network, MS;
Sweet Water Trust, VT.
The Enviro Show, MA; The Lands Council, WA; The
Nature Conservancy, Tennessee Chapter, TN;
The Northeast Ecological Recovery Society,
NY; Sierra Club, DC.
The Wildlife Society, MD; Vermont Law School:
Environmental and Natural Resources Law
Clinic, VT; Walden's Puddle Wildlife
Rehabilitation and Education Center, TN;
Western Bat Working Group, SD; Western
Watersheds Project, UT.
Wild Farm Alliance, CA; Wild South, NC; Wildlife
Alliance of Maine, ME; Wildlife
Conservation Society, DC; Women, Food and
Agriculture Network, IA.
Hazel Barton, Ph.D., cave biologist, KY; Brad
Bergstrom, Ph.D., mammalogist, GA; Angie
Doerr, Ph.D., ecologist, CA; Winifred
Frick, Ph.D., bat biologist, CA; John
Hayes, Ph.D., mammal ecologist, FL.
Thomas Kunz, Ph.D., bat ecologist, MA; Gary
Kwiecinski, Ph.D., bat biologist, PA;
Kathleen LoGiudice, Ph.D., wildlife
biologist, NY; Gary McCracken, Ph.D.,
ecologist, TN; Marianne Moore, Ph.D., bat
biologist, MA.
Phil Myers, Ph.D., ecologist, MI; DeeAnn Reeder,
Ph.D., bat biologist, PA; Fraser Shilling,
Ph.D., ecologist, CA; Merlin Tuttle, Ph.D.,
bat biologist, TX.
______
Prepared Statement of the Black Mesa Community School
bureau of indian education (bie) programs
Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC); Student transportation; Indian
School Equalization Formula (ISEF); and facilities operations.
Black Mesa Community School is a K-8 school located on a 6,700-foot
high mesa in an extremely remote portion of the Navajo Reservation in
Arizona. Our testimony focuses on the challenges of operating a very
small school in an extremely isolated area and asks for your help.
Costs of Isolation.--Neither of the two roads leading onto Black
Mesa is paved. To get on or off the mesa, we must travel 16 miles of
dirt road north to Rough Rock, or 26 miles south to Pinon. From either
location, it is yet another hour's drive to our closest town--Chinle.
During periods of snow or heavy rain, both dirt roads to our community
are impassible or, if we are lucky, we can make the journey in 6 or 7
hours.
This extreme isolation requires us to be as self-sufficient as
possible, as we can't depend on vendors, service-providers, repair
people, and other outsiders being able to get to our school. Even when
they can get to us, the time they must spend in travel makes their
goods and services very expensive. When we have to send staff out to
pick up supplies or go to the bank, a roundtrip can take a full day or
more. Last year, when our large freezer broke down, impassable roads
made it impossible for the repairman to get to us. As a result, we lost
a whole month's worth of food for the school cafeteria.
Let us give you an idea of some measures we have had to institute
due to our remote location. Our student transportation program is a
vital part of our operations because so many of our children live far
away from the school campus. Bus break-downs were so frequent that we
had to purchase our own service truck and a back-hoe to dig out buses
that get stuck in the mud. We have also had to buy our own school buses
(at a cost of approximately $80,000 each) in an effort to reduce bus
malfunctions. The General Services Administration (GSA) refuses to
lease new buses to us because our roads are so bad, but the used buses
they supplied broke down too often. It cost us enormous sums to tow a
bus to the GSA for repairs, deprived students of educational days, and
put our children at risk. Thus, the school board determined that the
only course was to use our scarce transportation dollars to buy our own
buses. This means we also have high insurance bills for the buses we
own.
Because our children live so far from the school and our roads are
so bad, a one-way bus ride takes at least 2 hours--in good weather with
no bus break-down--and up to 4 hours in bad weather. Can you imagine
elementary-age children spending 4 to 8 hours per day on a school bus?
They arrive at school too tired to learn. We wish we could operate more
bus routes to make the journeys shorter but we don't get enough student
transportation funding to allow for this. As it is, our student
transportation budget was exceeded last year, and we had to make up
this shortage by taking funds from our education program.
Costs of Operating a Small School.--As you know, most of the
funding we receive from the BIE is based on the number of students we
enroll. Our community is very sparselyn populated so our student
enrollment is small--it varies from 40 to 60 students. The consequence
of being such a small school is that we do not attract much funding
from the ISEF for our education program, nor do we generate much
funding under the formula for calculating TGSC.
The TGSC law requires that each tribally operated school receive at
least $200,000 each year for its administrative and indirect costs, and
Black Mesa should qualify for this small school minimum. But we
routinely receive less than that amount because Congress never supplies
the full amount required by the law for these costs. This year, we
received only $172,800 in TGSC funding. Overall, BIE paid TGSC at only
61 percent of the amount the law requires.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The formula for calculating Tribal Grant Support Costs
(previously called ``Administrative Cost Grants'') is set out at 25 USC
Sec. 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though ours is a small school, we nonetheless must perform all
of the fundamental administrative tasks required of a school board--
including executive direction; curriculum development; financial,
personnel, property and procurement management; recordkeeping;
auditing; and maintaining prudent internal controls. But our TGSC
funding is so low that we can't afford to employ a business manager to
keep track of our grant funds and capital assets, reconcile bank
statements, arrange for audits and perform other vital financial
management services. Nor can we afford to employ a human resources
manager. All of these functions, therefore, must be performed by one
business office technician and the school principal--who is also
responsible for directing the education program and supervision of the
teaching staff. In other words, we have one person essentially
performing three jobs. A large portion of our TGSC funds must be
reserved to pay for our audit which costs $40,000 each year.
Our facilities operations budget also falls far short of the amount
we need to pay our utilities, clean our school buildings, and maintain
our Internet, telephone, and telecommunications systems. Even though
the BIE has a formula for calculating facilities operations funding
needs, we receive less than one-half of the amount the formula
produces. When our equipment malfunctions, we often have to wait days
or even weeks for a technician to travel to the school to make
repairs--and these service calls to our remote location are very
expensive.
ISEF Budget.--For the current school year, we received $338,300
under the ISEF formula for our education program. These funds must
support teaching personnel to staff seven classrooms and special
education. The low salaries we offer makes recruitment and retention of
certified personnel very difficult.
Conclusions.--The Federal Government made a commitment to the
Indian children who attend BIE-funded schools, but that commitment is
not being met. How can our children be expected to reach achievement
targets when they must spend many hours getting to/from school, have
school cancelled because of bad roads, and then find when they do get
to school the funds for their education program has to subsidize
inadequate funding for administrative costs and facilities operation
expenses?
All of us connected with the Black Mesa School work hard every day
to keep our school in operation because we know that if we fail in this
mission, most of the children in our community would not have access to
an education. The United States made a commitment to the Indian
children enrolled in the 183 BIE schools, including the Indian children
at Black Mesa. We need you to fulfill that commitment by providing us
with the resources we need to make their path toward a quality
education easier to navigate. We promise you that if you provide the
resources, all of us in the Black Mesa Community will re-double our
efforts to provide our children with a challenging and satisfying
educational experience.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the
subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the
fiscal year 2011 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) stands
alone as the only land and water conservation system with a mission
that prioritizes wildlife and habitat conservation and wildlife-
dependant recreation. Since 1995, the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement (CARE) has worked to showcase the value of the NWRS and to
secure a strong congressional commitment for conserving these special
places. Located in every U.S. State and territory, refuges conserve a
diversity of America's environmentally sensitive and economically vital
ecosystems, including oceans, coasts, wetlands, deserts, tundra,
prairie, and forests. We respectfully request a funding level of $578
million for the operations and maintenance accounts of the NWRS for
fiscal year 2011.
The NWRS needs strong and incremental increases to fulfill its
mission and purposes, and with the tragedy unfolding before our eyes in
the Gulf of Mexico with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, potentially
impacting up to 60 national wildlife refuges should the oil reach the
Gulf Loop, funding the NWRS adequately is more important than ever.
While NWRS staff is feverishly working to protect refuges and wildlife
from the oil itself, the pervasive lack of funding is noticeably
apparent by the lack of baseline data at each of the 25 refuges
expected to be first impacted. Not one of the refuges in the immediate
path of the oil spill has baseline inventories for all the resources
that could be impacted by the oil. Refuges in Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, and Florida are scrambling to do baseline inventories of
wildlife and water quality. While we thank the subcommittee for funding
the NWRS's Inventory and Monitoring program in the fiscal year 2010
budget, the strain on this program due to years of funding shortages
has put America's wildlife at a distinct disadvantage. Unless refuges
get this information now, it will be too late to prove how the oil
impacted refuge resources. This baseline inventory information is not a
luxury item; it's an essential tool.
This testimony is submitted on behalf of CARE's 22 member
organizations, which represent more than 15 million Americans
passionate about wildlife conservation and related recreational
opportunities.
American Birding Association
American Fisheries Society
American Sportfishing Association
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
Defenders of Wildlife
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
Izaak Walton League of America
Marine Conservation Biology Institute
National Audubon Society
National Rifle Association
National Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Refuge Association
Safari Club International
The Corps Network
The Nature Conservancy
The Wilderness Society
The Wildlife Society
Trout Unlimited
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Wildlife Forever
Wildlife Management Institute
CARE deeply appreciates the subcommittee's vision and leadership
regarding the funding increases realized in fiscal year 2008 through
fiscal year 2010, and the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA). While it does not reduce the annual needs of the NWRS, the ARRA
is providing a jolt to local economies by providing refuges across the
country with the means to hire local contractors and purchase local
materials for important infrastructure and habitat restoration
projects. Following a period of essentially flat annual budgets, the
recent increases in annual appropriations allowed for the suspension of
workforce downsizing plans that called for an eventual 20 percent
reduction in overall staffing levels. But with more than 10 percent of
staff already eliminated since 2004, additional funding increases that
build upon the last 3 years are essential if this valued system of
conservation lands is to rebound to its full potential. With the goal
of fulfilling the progressive conservation vision that President
Theodore Roosevelt first espoused more than a century ago, CARE
respectfully requests a fiscal year 2011 funding level of $578 million
for the operations and maintenance accounts of the NWRS.
As our 2010 CARE report shows, the NWRS needs to reach an annual
funding level of $900 million over the long term. The $578 million for
fiscal year 2011 is considered an essential next step on a long path
toward adequate funding. This annual funding is needed to properly
patrol and enforce laws on 150 million acres, provide nature programs
to the public, maintain high-water-quality, complete habitat
restoration projects, address scores of mothballed mission-critical
projects, respond to the adverse impacts of climate change, and more.
An appropriation of $578 million in fiscal year 2011 would
stabilize the workforce by keeping the workforce downsizing plans
securely on the shelf and thereby reducing pressure on the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) to cut refuge staff below already
insufficient levels. This funding level would enable FWS staff to
return to what they do best: protecting, restoring, and enhancing
America's wildlife and habitat, providing a haven for a growing list of
threatened and endangered species, and guaranteeing a positive
experience for more than 41 million annual visitors, whether hunting,
fishing, watching wildlife, or learning from educational programs.
Prior to fiscal year 2008, several years of appropriations failed
to even cover increases in fixed costs. Simply to keep fuel in the
trucks, pay for rising utilities and building rent, allow for salary
adjustments, and cover other fixed costs, the NWRS needs at least a $15
million annual increase.
Many years of inadequate budgets have ballooned the operations and
maintenance backlog to more than $3.7 billion. While the appropriation
for fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010 helped immensely, too
many visitors still show up to find roads and visitor centers closed,
viewing platforms and hiking trails in disrepair, and habitat
restoration and nature education programs eliminated.
Today, more than 35 percent of America's wildlife refuges have no
on-site staff, leaving no one there to unlock the gates, teach the
schoolchildren, or administer the hunting programs, let alone recover
endangered species or perform major habitat restoration projects. Non-
native, invasive plants have infested more than 2.3 million acres (only
14.6 percent of this acreage was treated in 2008). Further, a crippling
deficiency of law enforcement officers has led to a rise in illegal
activities such as drug production and trafficking, wildlife poaching,
illegal border activity, assaults, and many types of natural resource
violations. Currently, only 213 full-time law enforcement officers are
tasked with responsibilities and risks that the International
Association of Chiefs of Police suggests be tackled by a force of 845
professional officers.
When refuges are short-staffed, not only are activities inside
refuge boundaries affected, but refuge employees are unable to devote
sufficient attention to threats beyond refuge boundaries, such as water
rights disputes, upstream contamination, or encroaching developments.
Overworked staff cannot take advantage of land acquisition or easement
opportunities, and conservation opportunities often slip away. When
staff levels are reduced to only one or a few people per refuge,
opportunities to partner with other interested stakeholders are lost,
dramatically and adversely affecting volunteer involvement and the
leveraging of additional dollars.
In addition to their integral role in American wildlife
conservation, refuges are critically important on local and regional
scales. Visitors in 2006 generated more than $1.7 billion in sales to
local economies, creating nearly 27,000 U.S. jobs and $543 million in
employment income. While these figures are undeniably significant, the
NWRS's potential remains largely untapped and unquantified. In addition
to being local economic engines, the sustainable use of natural
resources on America's refuges provides innumerable environmental
benefits to communities. For example, many refuges in urban or suburban
settings filter storm water before it runs downstream to municipal
water supplies and, in many areas, reduce flooding by capturing excess
rainwater and attenuating coastal storm surges. The vegetation on
America's refuges captures atmospheric carbon, while natural filtration
and sound water management promotes healthy fisheries within and beyond
refuge boundaries.
Of increasing importance, national wildlife refuges provide a way
for children to connect with the natural world. There is a refuge
within an hour's drive of most metropolitan areas in the United States.
As today's children spend more time inside on computers, watching
television, or playing video games, the need for a place to bring our
younger generations to experience and explore the outdoors has never
been more important. Many refuges work with local volunteer
organizations such as ``Friends groups'' to provide environmental
education programs to local schools, but they are often the first
programs to be curtailed when budgets are tight.
In a Nation with ever-shrinking natural areas, we must act quickly
to safeguard our unique natural heritage for the benefit of wildlife
and millions of present and future Americans. It was Theodore Roosevelt
who reminded America that ``our duty to the whole, including the unborn
generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from
wasting the heritage of these unborn generations.'' CARE agrees that 41
million annual visitors and all future generations deserve the
opportunity to see and appreciate 150 million acres of the most
visually stunning and biologically rich lands and waters in North
America. Simply put, the way to ensure a future with clean water,
thriving wildlife populations, and hunting and fishing opportunities is
to increase the NWRS's fiscal year 2011 appropriation to $578 million
and continue the restoration of America's commitment to healthy public
lands.
On behalf of our more than 15 million members and supporters, CARE
thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to offer comments on the
fiscal year 2011 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill and extends our sincere appreciation for the
subcommittee's strong commitment to the NWRS.
______
Prepared Statement of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment
Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE) is an 80,000 member
non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization that works to empower
communities and advocate solutions that protect public health and the
environment. CCE appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EPA's
budget request.
The Environmental Protection Agency represents a mere 1 percent of
the entire Federal budget, therefore CCE believes that, at a minimum,
the EPA's proposed budget should be funded in its entirety, and also
believes Congress should increase funding for the EPA. The EPA is
responsible for protecting the precious natural resources of our
country and ensuring the protection of human health from pollutants.
CCE strongly believes that a healthy environment translates to
healthier communities.
CCE top four budget priorities for fiscal year 2011 include: Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative, Long Island Sound Funding, Clean Water
and Drinking Water SRF programs, and the Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) program.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Long Island Sound
Study should be fully funded at $475 million and $20 million
respectively. These programs support on the ground restoration projects
that are creating jobs and revitalizing our communities. The health of
the Great Lakes and the Long Island Sound is imperative to the
sustainability of communities throughout New York.
The Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds received a
much-needed boost last year. For too long the importance of repairing
and maintaining our water infrastructure has been ignored. The EPA has
proposed to cut the SRF programs by $400 million. CCE urges SRF funding
levels do not drop below fiscal year 2010 levels. The state of much of
our Nation's water infrastructure and requires sustained Federal
investment. CCE encourages you to increase funding for SRF programs.
Waiting lists are long, and Congress must ensure that people have
access to clean and safe drinking water and properly working sewage
infrastructure systems.
The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program is currently funding
a critically important study on the effects to drinking water from
hydraulic fracturing. CCE believes the previous study, conducted in
2004, was flawed and it only addressed coalbed methane. It is
imperative that the STAR program is fully funded and the EPA directs
the promised resources--$4.3 million--to the study. EPA must engage
communities, stakeholders, and citizens to ensure an open and
transparent process. CCE encourages Congress to fully fund the STAR
program at $87.2 million with instructions to the EPA that it use $4.3
million to conduct a robust study with ample opportunities for public
participation and engagement.
EPA has proposed to reduce Superfund cleanup due to a lack of funds
in the Trust Fund. EPA recommends reinstating the Superfund tax in
order to replenish the Trust Fund. CCE supports reinstating the
Superfund tax, which ensures that those responsible for contaminating
our air, land, and water fund the clean up of those areas.
In addition to our specific budget requests, CCE supports the
following budget requests:
--The EPA has requested budget increases in the following areas which
CCE supports:
--$20.8 million for Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule;
--$55.5 million for Energy Efficiency/ENERGY STAR;
--$30 million for Greenhouse Gas Permitting;
--$6 million for Greenhouse Gas standards for Transportation
Sources;
--$7.5 million for Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standards;
--$215 million for Brownfield Remediation;
--$6.3 million for Clean, Green and Healthy Schools;
--$10.9 million for Sustainable Communities;
--$6 million for Air Toxics;
--$9.5 million for Community Water Priorities Program;
--$241.1 million for State and Local Air Quality Grants;
--$274.3 million for Water Pollution Control Grants; and
--$21.9 million for Computational Toxicology Research.
Thank you for reviewing our comments.
______
Prepared Statement of the Children's Environmental Health Network
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the fiscal
year 2011 appropriations to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Children's Environmental Health Network (CEHN) urges the
subcommittee to support the EPA's Office of Children's Health
Protection (OCHP), the Children's Environmental Health Research Centers
of Excellence, the Office of Research & Development (ORD), EPA's school
environmental health programs, the Pediatric Environmental Health
Specialty Units (PESHU), and the National Children's Study (NCS). We
urge full funding of all activities that advance healthy school and
child care environments for all children, such as the relevant
components of the Healthy Communities Initiative, including but not
limited to the Clean, Green and Healthy Schools Initiative. We urge the
subcommittee to support chemical policy reform by providing adequate
resources for EPA oversight and regulation of these chemicals
In brief, CEHN appreciates the wide range of priorities that you
must consider for funding at the EPA. We urge you to give priority to
those EPA programs that directly protect and promote children's health.
In so doing, you will protect all populations as well as our
environment.
I am a pediatric deontologists and I currently serve as the Mary
Gray Cobey Professor and Division Chief of Neonatology at the
University of Maryland. I am submitting this statement as Chair of the
Board of the CEHN. CEHN is a national organization whose mission is to
promote a healthy environment and to protect the fetus and the child
from environmental health hazards. CEHN was created to promote the
incorporation of basic facts of pediatric environmental health into
policy and practice. In general, children have unique vulnerabilities
and susceptibilities to toxic chemicals. In some cases, an exposure
which may cause little or no harm to an adult may lead to irreparable
damage to a child.
The world in which today's children live has changed tremendously
from that of previous generations, including a phenomenal increase in
the substances to which children are exposed. Every day, children are
exposed to a mix of chemicals, most of them untested for their effects
on developing systems. Many of these chemicals are readily passed
across the placenta to the fetus, to the infant via breast milk or
through skin, or via food, toys and other children's products. Many of
these chemicals are also ingested in food and water or through the
lungs.
In addition to providing the necessary resources for the Federal
programs and activities that help to protect children from
environmental hazards, CEHN urges the subcommittee to also direct the
EPA to assure that all of its activities and programs--including
regulations, guidelines, assessments, and research--specifically
consider children. Our traditional approaches have been to use a one-
size-fits-all template, and that template is usually the healthy adult
male. The EPA's work must always assure that children and other
vulnerable subpopulations are protected, especially poor children,
minority children, farmworker children, and others at risk.
We ask the subcommittee to direct the EPA to report on their
activities to protect children from environmental hazards in child care
settings as well as to assess the EPA's needs for assuring that
children in these settings are protected from such hazards.
ochp
Since 1997, EPA's efforts to protect children from environmental
hazards have been led by the OCHP, which was highly effective and well-
regarded. However, funding for OCHP has been level, at approximately $6
million since its creation, and its resources were further diluted by
the addition of new and unrelated missions, without any concurrent
increase in resources.
CEHN strongly supports additional resources dedicated to children's
health for the office, and to restore the office's strong focus on
children. We are especially supportive of the Clean, Green, and Healthy
Schools Initiative, especially the interagency effort to integrate
existing school programs including asthma, IAQ, chemical cleanout,
green practices, and enhanced use of integrated pest management. We
urge the subcommittee to provide funds above the proposed $6.3 million
to OCHP for this Initiative. The program addressing the issue of PCB-
laden caulk in schools is also a priority.
children's environmental health research centers of excellence
The Children's Environmental Health Research Centers, jointly
funded by the EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, play a key role in providing the scientific basis for
protecting children from environmental hazards. With their modest
budgets (unchanged over more than 10 years), these centers generate
valuable research. A unique aspect of these centers is the requirement
that each center actively involves its local community in a
collaborative partnership, leading both to community-based
participatory research projects and to the translation of research
findings into child-protective programs and policies. Researchers have
chosen to participate in this funding mechanism because of the ability
to do interdisciplinary research, to break ground in a relatively new
field and to be involved in the community--all things that are not easy
to do using other grant mechanisms. The scientific output of these
centers has been outstanding.
The Congress recognized this last year, when it supported increased
funding, resulting in the upcoming addition of a child care component
and additional research. These goals call for a continued effort, yet
the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget proposal did not continue
this funding. We strongly urge that the subcommittee reinstate these
funds and direct EPA to sustain this effort.
school and child care environmental health: connected to healthy
communities
Millions of preschoolers enter care as early as 6 weeks of age and
can be in care for more than 40 hours per week. Yet little is known
about the environmental health status of our child care centers nor how
to assure that they are protecting this important group of children.
Environmental health is rarely if ever considered in licensing centers
or training child care professionals.
Each school day, about 54 million children and nearly 7 million
adults--20 percent of the total U.S. population--spend a full week
inside schools. Unfortunately, many of the Nation's 121,000 public and
private K-12 school facilities are shoddy or even ``sick'' buildings
whose environmental conditions harm children's health and undermine
attendance, achievement, and productivity.
No agency is authorized to intervene to protect children from
environmental hazards in schools. The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration does not protect schoolchildren. Thus, every day we
require our children to spend hours in an environment where they and
their parents have no options, alternatives or recourse if the
environment is not healthy.
Thus, CEHN urges full funding for the proposed Clean, Green and
Healthy Schools Initiative in the EPA's fiscal year 2011 budget. Under
this Initiative, EPA will co-lead an interagency effort in integrating
existing school programs including asthma, indoor air quality, and
enhanced use of integrated pest management. We urge the subcommittee to
provide additional resources and direction to assure that the child
care environment is also included in this Initiative.
CEHN also supports other aspects of the Healthy Communities
Initiative, particularly:
--an additional $1.1 million for the Indoor Air Program for efforts
to improve children's health;
--increased funding for the Pesticides Program to expand its work
with schools;
--increased funding to address air toxics pollution focused on
children's environments, including $2.3 million for community
pilot programs
CEHN urges the subcommittee to continue its support for EPA's
existing healthy schools activities, such as the Indoor Air Quality
Tools for Schools Program.
We also urge the subcommittee to appropriate the $10 million
authorized for EPA under the healthy schools provisions of the High
Performance Green Buildings Act. This statute authorizes EPA to create
Federal guidelines on school siting and (advised by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention) school environmental health programs.
This statute also authorizes an important study of the impacts of green
schools on the health of children and communities.
epa ord
The Clean, Green, and Healthy Schools Initiative is envisioned as
an interagency as well as intra-agency effort, yet resources were not
proposed for ORD involvement. We urge the subcommittee to strengthen
Clean, Green, and Healthy schools by providing additional resources of
$1.5 to $2 million to ORD so that the office can fund additional
research to fulfill its role in this Initiative.
CEHN urges funding for research to better understand how the school
and child care environment (both physical factors and potential
exposures) impacts the performance of children.
ncs
The NCS is examining the effects of environmental influences on the
health and development of more than 100,000 children across the United
States, following them from before birth until age 21. This landmark
longitudinal cohort study--involving a consortium of agencies including
the EPA--will be one of the richest research efforts ever geared toward
studying children's health and development and will form the basis of
child health guidance, interventions, and policy for generations to
come.
This study may be the only means that we will have to find answers
to some key questions regarding links between exposures and health
effects on children.
A study of this scope is calls for the participation of multiple
agencies. EPA's involvement has been limited by the lack of dedicated
resources. We urge the subcommittee to provide dedicated funds of $1
million or more in fiscal year 2011 to ensure that EPA has sustained
funding for the necessary infrastructure for data access and the
ability to collaborate with its partners on the NCS. EPA has specific
expertise to offer and the NCS will benefit if the EPA has the ability
to contribute.
pehsus
Funded by the EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, the PEHSUs form a valuable resource network, with a center in
each of the U.S. Federal regions. PEHSU professionals provide medical
consultation to healthcare professionals on a wide range of
environmental health issues, from individual cases of exposure to
advice regarding large-scale community issues. PEHSUs also provide
information and resources to school, child care, health and medical,
and community groups to help increase the public's understanding of
children's environmental health. PEHSUs assist policymakers by
providing data and background on local or regional environmental health
issues and implications for specific populations or areas. These
centers, all based in universities, have done tremendous work, covering
large geographic areas, on very limited budgets. We urge the Committee
to fully fund EPA's portion of this program's fiscal year 2011 budget
of $1.8 million.
In conclusion, investments in programs that protect and promote
children's health will be repaid by healthier children with brighter
futures, an outcome we can all support. That is why CEHN asks you to
give priority to these programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these critical issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Hiking Society, American Rivers,
Center for Biological Diversity, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Defenders
of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environment America, Environmental Defense
Fund, International Center for Technology Assessment, Lands Council,
League of Conservation Voters, Marine Conservation Biology Institute,
Marine Fish Conservation Network, National Audubon Society, National
Estuarine Research Reserve Association, National Wildlife Federation,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, Ocean Conservancy, Pew
Environment Group, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Riverkeeper, Southern
Environmental Law Center, Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance, and The Wilderness Society
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the
opportunity to submit to you written testimony regarding fiscal year
2011 appropriations for the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The
administration has requested $3,448,000 for fiscal year 2011. To
increase CEQ's effectiveness and help to fulfill Congress' original
intent in establishing the Council, we believe that an increase in that
amount to $4,694,093 is warranted.
CEQ was created by Congress in 1969 as part of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this country's ``environmental magna
carta.'' Congress placed CEQ in the Executive Office of the President
because it recognized that environmental issues warranted the same
degree of attention at the highest levels of the executive branch as
trade, economics, national security and other cross-cutting issues of
top tier importance to the Nation. In the words of Senator Henry
``Scoop'' Jackson, ``the Council will provide an institution and an
organizational focus at the highest level for the concerns of
environmental management. It will provide the President with objective
advice and a continuing and comprehensive overview of the fragmented
and bewildering Federal jurisdiction involved in some way with the
environment.'' Congressional Record, Senate 40416, December 20, 1969.
In NEPA, Congress gave CEQ the responsibility for, among other
things:
--advising the President on environmental issues;
--developing and recommending to the President national policies to
improve environmental quality so that the nation can meet its
conservation, social, economic, health and other goals;
--assisting in interagency coordination of the many departments and
agencies within the executive branch that implement or affect
environmental policies;
--overseeing the implementation of the environmental impact
assessment process within the executive branch; and
--identifying and interpreting environmental trends.
In December 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was
established as the result of President Nixon's use of Presidential
reorganization authority. CEQ recommended that EPA be established to
begin addressing responsibilities under the newly passed pollution
control laws. The two agencies have distinctively different roles.
CEQ's role involves directly advising the President on environmental
issues, developing environmental and natural resources policy and
ensuring interagency coordination, and interpreting Federal agencies'
responsibilities under NEPA. As an office in the Executive Office of
the President, it is positioned to resolve interagency disputes in a
way that no line agency can do. It does not regulate the private
sector, provide grants, run laboratories or undertake many of the
important--but different responsibilities--carried out by EPA. CEQ's
functions are distinct from EPA's just as the role of the National
Security Council's is distinct from that of the Departments of Defense
and State.
Over the past 40 years, as shown in the chart below, CEQ's budget
and staffing has fluctuated wildly. Between 1970 and 1981, staff levels
were between 49 and 70 people. Since 1981, staff levels have ranged
from 3 full-time employees to 32 employees. Clearly, the trend has been
going the wrong way.
The understanding of the complexity of environmental and natural
resource problems and their relationship to the social, economic and
security needs of Americans has improved since the 1970's, but the
challenges in developing effective and feasible policies to address the
issue are much more daunting. We now know with greater certainty what
we were beginning to understand when NEPA was passed--i.e., that our
relationship with the environment is a synergistic one, and that how we
affect the air, water, soil and wildlife around us in turn
significantly affects us. The interrelationships between our economic
and social activity and our well being and that of the other
inhabitants of the planet challenge our ability to balance competing
short and long term interests.
In our view, an increased staff level is necessary to fulfill CEQ's
responsibilities. Currently, the agency's budget allows for 24 staff,
and the administration's request would allow for 26 staff. The increase
over the administration's request that we are proposing would be the
first step in ramping up CEQ's capacity and would allow for
approximately 30 staff. This may seem like a large leap, but not when
put in the context of either the nature or the number of environmental
challenges. Nor is it out of line in an administrative context. Indeed,
from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2008, the U.S. Trade
Representative Office's budget increased by 72.1 percent, the Office of
Management and Budget by 22.8 percent and the Office of National Drug
Control Policy grew by 15 percent. In contrast, CEQ's budget shrank by
4.4 percent.
Our understanding is that CEQ has indicated that the increased
funding proposed in the 2011 President's budget would be used for
positions relating to oversight of NEPA and to ocean policy issues.
These are good and much needed choices, which we fully support. In
addition, while the ultimate choice of how any additional positions
would be used should be made by the Chair of CEQ with any applicable
guidance from Congress, here are our thoughts on how additional
positions might be used:
Oversight of NEPA.--CEQ has unique responsibilities for oversight
of the implementation of NEPA in the executive branch. It is the
ultimate interpreter of the statute, a role the Supreme Court has
acknowledged in several decisions, holding that the lower courts should
give ``substantial deference'' to CEQ's interpretations. CEQ's most
comprehensive interpretation of NEPA comes through its promulgation of
regulations that implement the procedural requirements of NEPA. 40
C.F.R. sections 1500-1508. Those regulations proscribe the process by
which all departments and agencies implement the environmental impact
assessment to their particular mission activities. From time to time,
CEQ issues guidance interpreting various requirements of NEPA; indeed,
there are three draft guidance documents out for public review and
comment at present. Each department and agency publishes its own NEPA
procedures adapted to its mission and those procedures are reviewed and
approved by CEQ. CEQ grants alternative arrangements for compliance
with its regulations in certain extraordinary circumstances and also
has the authority to resolve certain procedural disputes between
agencies in the context of NEPA compliance. There is also a formal
dispute resolution process that can be invoked by the head of a
department or agency. 40 C.F.R. section 1504 et seq.
Further, from time to time, Congress passes particular requirements
in respect to NEPA. A current example is section 1609(c) of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that requires CEQ to
report to Congress on the status and progress of NEPA reviews for
Recovery Act funded projects. CEQ so far has submitted five reports to
Congress, demonstrating that to date; NEPA has not been an impediment
to implementation of these projects. The February 1, 2010 and May 3,
2010 reports include information on how NEPA helped improve
decisionmaking for particular actions.
Finally, beyond the immediate drumbeat of the in-box, there is much
that CEQ can and should do to improve the understanding of and
implementation of NEPA among the public and agencies. The purpose of
the NEPA process is not to produce paperwork, but to improve
decisionmaking. There are real gains that could be made in
effectiveness, both from an environmental and efficiency perspective,
were CEQ to have the ability to provide additional oversight and
guidance to the Federal agencies, and work with the state, tribal and
local agencies that are often partners with Federal agencies in this
context.
For the past 10 years, there has been only one full time person
devoted to NEPA oversight. Despite the incredibly hard work, long hours
and admirable dedication and diligence demonstrated by that individual,
no one person can meet all of these goals. There are over 85 Federal
agencies that comply with NEPA and that turn to CEQ for assistance. The
assistance requested may range from meeting analytical challenges in
the face of new scientific or technological developments such as
climate change or nanotechnology, addressing complex interrelationships
of environmental, economic and public health issues, responding to
emergency situations, consulting with agencies on legal issues that
arise from time to time, and many other types of requests. CEQ very
much needs additional staff in this area.
Public Lands and Wildlife.--This country enjoys a wide variety of
public lands and waters administered for a variety of purposes:
national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, marine
sanctuaries, national recreation areas, wild and scenic rivers, and
national preserves, to name a few. Responsibility for administration of
these public lands and waters is spread out through multiple agencies,
including the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of
Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of
Reclamation. Further, two agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, share
responsibilities for protecting endangered species. It is no surprise
then that from time to time there are different interpretations of
responsibilities and conflicts arise between agencies. Agencies
frequently call on CEQ to consider and resolve these issues. Agencies
often welcome this role of CEQ so that progress can be made on long-
standing issues. CEQ's current level of staffing in this area is, in
our view, inadequate to meet these challenges.
Global Environmental Issues.--When Congress passed NEPA in 1969, it
recognized ``the worldwide and long-range character of environmental
problems'' and directed agencies to lend support to initiatives and
programs ``to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and
preventing a decline'' in the world's environment. Today, we recognize
a wide range of problems that are best addressed through treaties,
international agreements and bilateral and multilateral initiatives.
The issues include climate change, of course, but also include
deforestation, desertification, acidification of the oceans, decline of
species and many other challenges. Environmental expertise is needed
within CEQ to assist in the development and coordination of policy in
this complex area.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony. We hope that
the Subcommittee will recognize the needs as outlined above and act
accordingly. We would be pleased to address any issue in further
detail.
______
Prepared Statement of the Chippewa Flowage Area Property Owners
Association
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: The
Chippewa Flowage Area Property Owners Association (CFAPOA) was
incorporated in early 1983 by a small group of citizens who had grown
increasingly concerned about proposed alterations in the way that the
lands and waters of Wisconsin's largest semi-wilderness area would be
managed. The Articles of Incorporation propose ``to promote . . . and
protect.'' The Bylaws Preamble identifies major goals as being ``to
keep the Chippewa Flowage area clean and safe for all peoples; to
protect the environment; . . . to pursue . . . objectives that . . .
benefit this . . . reservoir.'' While the name is still ``Property
Owners'', membership is open to anyone who resides within 2 miles of
the Flowage for 30 days anytime during the year. The CFAPOA has engaged
in a number of efforts pursuant to its stated mission. Habitat
improvement, community cleanups, water-quality monitoring, invasive
species research and control, and the $1.1 million Chippewa Islands
Project are just some of the accomplishments achieved in the past few
years. The multi-jurisdictional co-operation of the U.S. Forest
Service, the Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe, the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, and the local citizens have provided a model in
partnership that has been acclaimed by prestigious institutions.
I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support
of the Chippewa Flowage project in Wisconsin. I am advised that an
appropriation of $4.5 million from the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is
needed in order to complete the protection of this 18,259-acre
forestland property. I am thankful that the project was included in the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2011 at a funding level of
$2.5 million. That is so greatly appreciated. But, I am told the
project can be completed this year with an appropriation of $4.5
million.
The diversity of wood/species types within Wisconsin's northern
forest is rarely matched anywhere in the United States. The Northwoods
remains blessed with stands of aspen, balsam, spruce, and a variety of
pine, hardwoods such as red oak, maples, hemlock, and birch, and swamp
forests containing black spruce, tamarack, black ash, and white cedar.
The combination of forestland with an abundance of lakes, rivers, and
streams offers some of the best recreational opportunities in the
country, especially fishing and canoeing. Recognizing the unique
attributes of its forests, the State of Wisconsin is focused on forest
protection and easement acquisitions that benefit recreational and
natural resources. The great attraction of easements is that several
times as much acreage can be effectively protected for the same amount
of money. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has proposed
FLP projects over the last several years to implement this critical
protection effort.
I believe that in fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated $1.5
million to the FLP and the State of Wisconsin committed $2.5 million in
matching funds toward the protection of this more than 18,000 acres of
outstanding conservation easement lands. An additional $4.5 million
from the FLP is needed in fiscal year 2011 to finish the project. The
easement is an important opportunity to create a unified block of more
than 1 million acres of protected forest and natural lands in the
Chippewa Flowage watershed, which is an ecological gem. The Chippewa
Flowage is one of the wildest lakes in Wisconsin, drawing
recreationists from around the world for its fishing. More than 30,000
acres within the flowage area are managed jointly by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Lac
Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (LCO). The western
boundary of the easement property adjoins nearly 24,000 acres of
primarily natural LCO tribal land. The property extends the critical
migratory corridor surrounding the Chequamegon portion of the
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, which covers 858,400 acres in six
northwestern Wisconsin counties.
Many natural resources used by the Lac Courte Oreilles band
traditionally, and currently, are found on the property and adjoining
tribal lands, including birch and pole oak for wigwam poles, morel
mushrooms, and abundant wildlife for trapping and hunting. Pipestone
rock, used to craft peace pipes, holds traditional significance for the
LCO band and is present in the northwest corner of the property.
Benefits for surrounding communities include water supply and watershed
protection. The Village of Radisson's municipal water flows from parts
of this property. The Federal listed endangered Gray Wolf is known to
frequent the property, which also contains State Species of Concern,
State Threatened, and State Endangered species.
The Chippewa Flowage is a major tourist destination, helping to
generate $8 million annually in Wisconsin from fishing, hunting, and
wildlife viewing. The Chippewa Flowage is considered a world-class
fishery for muskellunge and walleye. Public access on this property
will continue to support the local economy. Forest-based recreation
accounts for about $5.5 billion of the $14 billion spent on recreation
in the State. The Wisconsin Northwoods is also a common destination for
migratory and forest interior birdwatchers. Wisconsin ranks third in
the Nation for bird watching, which adds $1 billion annually to the
State's economy. This property delivers wood to 66 different customers;
products include coated paper, corrugated packaging, cabinets, lumber,
moldings, paneling, and more. If this property is not protected by a
FLP easement, it will be divided and sold like other nearby
timberlands, thereby eliminating one of the sources of fiber that makes
jobs in the mills in Radisson, Birchwood, Hayward, and Drummond,
viable.
The property will also offer unique values for addressing climate
change, as it holds important forestlands and wetlands containing large
carbon stores that will help mitigate climate change. Carbon
sequestration on the lands will be further enhanced by the sustainable
forestry guidelines of the FLP easement. The project lands also offer
significant benefits for climate adaptation: public-private partnership
efforts are underway in the region to protect key habitat refugia and
habitat connectivity in response to anticipated climate shifts. The
project lands will be essential to maintain connectivity among the
large, conserved habitat blocks in the region. The property also
extends and protects a critical migratory corridor surrounding the
national forest, which will help wildlife important to the State's
economy adapt to a changing climate.
Supporting parties include Chippewa Flowage Area Property Owners
Association, Couderay Waters Regional Land Trust, Gathering Waters
Conservancy, Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal Governing Board, Ruffed Grouse
Society, Sawyer County Board of Supervisors, Town of Hunter, Town of
Ojibwa, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin Conservation
Congress, Wisconsin Representative Gary E. Sherman, and Wisconsin State
Senator Bob Jauch.
The protection of these forestlands will have significant local and
regional benefits. An appropriation of $4.5 million in fiscal year 2011
from the FLP will complete the effort to conserve 18,259 acres of high-
quality Wisconsin forest. Protecting this large block of land within
the checkerboard of public and private ownership is an exciting
opportunity to create a unified area of 1 million protected acres that
can support the local economy by preserving vast wildlife habitat,
helping climate mitigation and adaptation, ensuring public access for
recreation, and maintaining sustainable forestry practices, while at
the same time protecting the watershed and semi-wilderness esthetic in
the historically and culturally significant southeastern quadrant of
Wisconsin's third largest inland water resource.
I ask you to do all you can to ensure that this worthwhile program
is funded adequately in fiscal year 2011 and that the Chippewa Flowage
project receives $4.5 million in fiscal year 2011.
I want to thank the chairman and all the members of the
subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this
nationally important protection effort in Wisconsin, and I truly do
appreciate your consideration of this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition for Healthier Schools
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Senator Alexander: On
behalf of the Coalition's thousands of members and supporters across
the country and tens of millions of children whose health, learning and
behavior are daily impacted by dank, dark, dirty, and polluted
conditions of our PreK-12 public schools, we urge you to fund the EPA's
``Clean Green Healthy Schools Initiative'' at $8.2 million, $2 million
above the President's $6.2 million request in the fiscal year 2011 EPA
request.
The national SICK SCHOOLS 2009 collaborative report assembled by
more than 30 contributing public interest nonprofits, analyzed Federal
data from EPA, Education, and CDC, as well as peer reviewed published
sciences in healthy school environments. Result: at least 60 percent of
all 55 million school children endure lower test scores and poor
attendance due solely to the environmental conditions of their schools.
See www.healthyschools.org/sickschools.
The President's fiscal year 2011 EPA budget supports EPA's critical
Office of Children's Health Protection and the agency's voluntary
schools-focused programs that help local schools and districts to
create healthier school environments for all children. EPA will co-lead
a Federal interagency effort to integrate existing voluntary schools
programs across the agencies, including asthma, indoor air quality,
chemical clean outs, green practices (highly cost-effective as New York
State has learned) and enhanced use of integrated pest management;
promote safe handling and management of PCB-containing caulk in schools
and build regional technical support and outreach; assesses the impacts
of noncompliance with existing environmental laws on health risks in
schools; and increase technical assistance on voluntary EPA guidelines
under the Energy Independence Security Act (EISA of 2007) regarding
school siting and other school environmental concerns.
We also urge you to support increases for EPA's Healthier Indoor
Air and for school and community air toxics monitoring, and for
expanding EPA's asthma programs and pesticide-use reductions with
schools. Children are 100 percent of our future and promoting healthy
learning environments is a task that EPA is uniquely poised to tackle,
in collaboration with Education and CDC.
A copy of the national Coalition for Healthier Schools Position
Statement is attached, along with a list of its national supporters.
position statement and recommendations . . . providing the platform and
the forum for school environmental health . . . since
Each school day, 55 million children and 7 million adults--that's
20 percent of the total U.S. population and 98 percent of all
children--spend their workdays inside school buildings. Unfortunately,
too many of our Nation's 125,000 public and private K-12 schools are
``unhealthy'' buildings that can harm their health and hinder learning.
Today, clear and convincing research shows that improving specific
factors such as school indoor environmental quality improves
attendance, academic performance, and productivity.
About children
Children are more vulnerable than adults to environmental hazards
because they're smaller, have developing organs, and breathe more air
per pound of body weight. They cannot identify hazards. Adverse
exposures and injuries during childhood may have a lifetime impact. See
www.epa.gov/children.
School factors affecting health
Many school environmental factors can affect the health of children
and employees. Too many schools are sited near industrial plants or
toxic waste sites; some are sited on abandoned landfills. Many school
facilities are poorly maintained. Schools are more densely occupied and
more intensively used than office buildings, magnifying problems.
Thousands of schools are severely overcrowded, which compromises
ventilation systems, acoustics, food service, recess, and sanitation
and lavatories. Children also spend extra hours in vehicles or buses
when their schools are beyond safe walking and biking distances.
The U.S. EPA has estimated that up to half of all schools have
problems with indoor environmental quality. Children and staff are a
affected by: polluted indoor air and outdoor air, including toxic
chemical and pesticide use; chemical spills; mold infestations;
asbestos, radon, lead in paint and drinking water; inadequate chemical
management; poor siting, design; hazardous materials purchased and
stored onsite; and heavy metals and other toxics, such as mercury, CCA,
PCBs.
Results of unhealthy schools:
--60 percent of all children endure health and learning problems due
SOLELY to the conditions of their schools:
--poor health and absenteeism;
--asthma, allergies, headaches, fatigue, nausea, rashes and chronic
illnesses;
--more medication use by children and staff;
--learning and behavior difficulties;
--liability for school districts;
--lower achievement, and reduced revenues due to poor attendance.
Coalition Position
When the Nation is committed to raising academic performance and
honoring each child's potential, and to improving the environment of
every neighborhood, we have a moral obligation to protect all children
and to accommodate children who already have impairments, and
personnel.
For children, for health, for environment, for education, and for
communities, we support:
--The President's fiscal year 2011 budget for EPA's Healthy Schools
Initiative, plus $2 million
--Full staffing and resources for U.S. EPA children's health
protection and schools programs (at greater than fiscal year
2006 levels)
--Full funding and staffing for Federal agencies to coordinate
Federal strategy to address healthy school environments (CDC,
EPA, Education, Energy, Labor, Homeland Security), including
high performance school design, siting, construction, and the
greening of schools with preventive maintenance (IAQ, IPM,
green cleaning, and more)
--Fund the Healthy High Performance Schools (Subtitle E) of the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
--Fund the Healthy and High Performance Schools Act in No Child
Left Behind
--Fund school construction/renovation and urgent repairs, consistent
with enacted laws promoting healthy school environments.
This message sponsored by: American Association on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities; American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees; Alliance for Healthy Homes; American Lung
Association; American Public Health Association; Apollo Alliance;
Beyond Pesticides; Children's Environmental Health Network; Healthy
Children-Healthy World; Connecticut Foundation for Environmentally Safe
Schools; Environmental Defense; Funders Forum on Environment and
Education; Healthy Kids: The Key to Basics (MA); Green Schools
Initiative/CA; Healthy Schools Network; Improving Kids Environment
(IN); Initiative for Children's Environmental, Health; Learning
Disabilities Association of America; Marin Golden Gate Learning
Disabilities Association (CA); Massachusetts Healthy Schools Network;
National Center for Environmental Health Strategies; National Education
Association; National Education Association Health Information Network;
National PTA; Natural Resources Defense Council; New Jersey Work
Environment Council; New Jersey Environmental Federation; Oregon
Environmental Council; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Preventing
Harm Minnesota; Public Education Network; Twenty-first Century Schools
Fund (DC); West Harlem Environmental Action; and League of Conservation
Voters, Washington, DC; National Clearinghouse for Educational
Facilities; National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners; and
over 200 more organizations nationwide.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Coalition
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Coalition for the Kern County Valley
Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (KCVFHCP), we are pleased to submit
this statement for the record in support of our funding request for the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2011.
First, the Coalition supports the President's budget request for
the Department of the Interior's Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund, especially funding for Habitat Conservation Plan
land acquisition.
Second, the Coalition urges the subcommittee to appropriate
additional funding for land acquisition above the funding requested by
the President. The additional funding requested by the Coalition
anticipates that $1 million will be needed by the Kern County program
to be used for purposes of acquiring and maintaining habitat preserves.
The Coalition's request is supported by the timely need to
implement the KCVFHCP. The county's local oil and gas production
industry and water districts have contributed more than $550,000 to the
development of this program. In 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) allocated $500,000 of Federal Endangered Species Act
section 6 funds to assist in program implementation. The California
State Government has authorized $1 million to augment the Federal
funds. In order to secure the $3 million total necessary to assist in
the implementation of the plan, we will require $1 million for fiscal
year 2011 and $500,000 for fiscal year 2012.
The Coalition requests that the subcommittee appropriate the
maximum possible amount for this program, so that the funding pool can
accommodate our request and need. We are confident that the plan's
merits and urgency support this request.
Kern County's program is unique from other regions in the Nation in
that it contains some of the highest concentrations of plant and animal
species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the
continental United States. The region is occupied by 11 wildlife
species and 14 plant species covered as threatened or endangered under
the program. The potential for conflict with the Federal ESA is great
in Kern County because of the extensive oil and gas production
activities, water conveyance efforts and the urbanization that is
occurring. Since Kern County is the top oil producing county in the
Nation and experiencing rapid urban growth, potential conflicts with
the ESA and their resolution through a proactive conservation program
has significant national importance.
In recognition of the conflicts posed to economic growth by Federal
and State endangered species laws, a joint agency Memorandum of
Understanding was entered into by the FWS, Bureau of Land Management,
California Energy Commission, California Division of Oil and Gas and
Geothermal Resources, California Department of Fish and Game, and Kern
County. The participating agencies agreed to develop a unified
conservation strategy with the goal of providing a streamlined and
consistent process of complying with State and Federal endangered
species laws, yet at the same time allow important industry activities
such as oil and gas, water conveyance and other industry activities to
continue.
Preparation of the KCVFHCP began in 1989 and involved a number of
Federal, State and local government agencies, as well as the oil and
gas industry, agricultural interests, utilities, and environmental
groups.
KCVFHCP is one of the largest and most diverse endangered species
conservation programs under development in the Nation encompassing more
than 3,110 square miles. The program represents a departure from
traditional endangered species conservation programs which utilize
prohibitory controls to assure conservation of species habitat.
Instead, it is based on an incentive-based system of selling or trading
habitat credits in an open market. This innovative approach, for the
first time, provides landowners with real incentives and more
importantly, the ability to choose how best to manage their own private
property. The KCVFHCP is in the final stages of preparation. The HCP
document is completed. An environmental impact statement is being
prepared for public review in the near future. Final approval will
occur in 2011.
Numerous agencies, in concert with the State of California and
local government entities, as well as the private oil and gas industry
have contributed funding, time and other resources toward developing
the KCVFHCP. The KCVFHCP program will be completed in 2011, provided
there is the necessary Federal funding for the acquisition of habitat
to mitigate for oil and gas operations and development. Additional
funding is critical to completing the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
This is one of the final steps necessary to implement the conservation
strategy. Because of the extensive private, local and State government
financial support that went into the development of this program,
Federal participation in program implementation will demonstrate that
the burden of ESA compliance is not being placed exclusively on private
property owners. Program funding will also contribute to eventual
species recovery.
program funding needs
In order for the KCVFHCP to be implemented, the program requires
funding in the amount of $1.5 million (augments the $1.5 million in
State and Federal funding received in 1997) that could be funded in
increments over the first 2 years of the program. The purpose of this
funding is described as follows:
Oil Development Issue
A mitigation strategy has been devised that is intended to
acknowledge existing oil field activities within Kern County. The
strategy proposes to acquire 3,000 acres of endangered species habitat
to mitigate for species loss resulting from oil field development
outside of established oil field production areas, but within proximity
of those areas. This is to allow for reasonable expansion of oil field
activities over the life of the HCP program. The program strategy
allocates $3 million for acquisition and perpetual maintenance of
species reserve areas. With this type of strategy, oil field expansion
activities would be provided for in the program. This strategy would be
of great benefit to the small independent oil and gas companies within
the program area.
Urban Development/County Infrastructure Issue
The conservation program includes an urban development/county
infrastructure mitigation strategy that mitigates for species habitat
loss through the use of an incentive-based system of selling or trading
habitat credits in an open market. This innovative program will add
market value to land that is needed by project proponents to comply
with endangered species laws which will encourage the owners of such
properties to offer lands for the benefit of species conservation.
Protected species of plants and animals will benefit from a program
that promotes private property owners to conserve permanent habitat
preserves consistent with the objectives of the ESA.
Water District Activity Issue
A water district strategy is included in the program to address
covered species protection due to the construction of new facilities
and the operation and maintenance of existing water management and
conveyance facilities. The covered species will benefit from reduced
and less intrusive operation and maintenance measures than have been
conducted historically due to concerns for conflicts with endangered
species laws.
Federal Funding Support Will Augment Local Government and Private
Industry Efforts To Comply With the Endangered Species Act
The $1.5 million required for the oil field strategy would help
contribute to satisfying the program's endangered species conservation
goals, while also providing for continued economic growth of Kern
County's oil and urban development activities. Protected species would
benefit from a comprehensive long-term program that promotes the
creation of permanent habitat preserves.
Numerous private businesses, in concert with the State of
California and local government entities, are attempting to do their
part, and we come to the appropriations process to request assistance
in obtaining a fair Federal share of financial support for this
important effort. This unique cooperative partnership involving State
and local government, as well as private industry, has contributed
substantial funds to date, to assist in the development of this
program.
The California Industry and Government Coalition appreciates the
subcommittee's consideration of this request for a fiscal year 2011
appropriation to support implementation of this significant program.
undersigned organization
Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan; Western States
Petroleum Association; Independent Oil Producers Association;
Occidental of Elk Hills, Inc.; and Buena Vista Water Storage District
______
Prepared Statement of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
On behalf of Chief Gregory E. Pyle, of the Great Choctaw Nation of
Oklahoma, I extend to you the support of the people of the Choctaw
Nation to work with you in addressing the priority issues of Contract
Support Costs (CSC), Contract Health Services, (CHS) and Sanitation
Facilities Construction (SFC). Thank you Chairwoman Feinstein for
allowing the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma to submit written testimony on
these needs.
issue
CSC Funding.--$99.3 million in fiscal year 2010 and $100 million in
fiscal year 2011.
The fiscal year 2010 final appropriation provides a $116 million
increase for CSC and signals an end to a sad chapter of neglect for
Indian Self-Determination (ISD) and Self-Governance (SG). The growth of
SG compacting was seriously undermined from 2002 through 2009, by the
failure to pass adequate funding increases, to not only support
existing contractors, but those who wanted to participate in SG
opportunities. SG tribes appreciate the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal
year 2011 support of the administration and Congress to address the CSC
funding shortfall and acknowledge the commitment to sustain and expand
ISD. The well-documented achievements of ISD and SG policies have
consistently improved service delivery, increased service levels, and
strengthened tribal governments, institutions, and services for Indian
people.
It is estimated that the CSC shortfall will be $99.3 million in
fiscal year 2010 and $100 million in fiscal year 2011. The chronic
underfunding of CSC represents the single greatest impediment to the
expansion of tribal SG. CSC funding is vital to support the
infrastructure needed to operate IHS programs. The present shortfall
creates a disincentive for tribes to pursue SG compacts, and diminishes
available healthcare funding as tribal budgets must absorb the
shortfall amounts. Adequate CSC funding assures that tribes, under the
authority of their IHS contracts and compacts, have the ability to
deliver the highest-quality healthcare services to their members.
Tribal programs have significantly increased the quality and level of
services in their health systems compared to direct service programs.
Failing to adequately fund CSC defeats the very program that has most
improved health conditions for American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Finally, underfunding CSC disproportionately hurts SG/ISD tribes
because it protects direct service operations from sharing in overall
funding reductions and limitations. And again, underfunding CSCs costs
jobs in Indian country.
Recommended Action.--We strongly urge consideration of this line
item, and recommend an increase of $99.3 million in fiscal year 2010
(by supplemental appropriations) and $100 million in fiscal year 2011
to alleviate the shortfall for current contracting and compacting with
IHS. To the extent fully funding CSC in fiscal year 2011 is deemed
infeasible, the Choctaw Nation recommends that a plan be developed by
the administration and implemented immediately to sustain CSC funding
in the appropriations process by eliminating the IHS CSC shortfall over
a defined period of time. The objective would be to (1) annually
provide sufficient CSC increases to adequately cover expanded CSCs
associated with program increases and inflation ($45.8 million in
fiscal year 2011 and a similar sum in fiscal year 2012, and (2) include
an additional CSC increase to phase-out the overall shortfall in 3
years (by adding $35 million to the $45.8 million).
Pacing increases in this manner would permit the administration to
fulfill its commitment to support ISD and SG in a responsible manner
that reflects the current difficult fiscal environment. It will allow
tribal governments to support the administration and congressional
efforts currently underway to create jobs in the most severely
impoverished parts of the country. If these increases begin in fiscal
year 2012, it will eliminate the shortfall entirely in the fiscal year
2014 budget (after which annual increases would drop back to cover
future inflationary, program increase, and ISD requirements).
Finally, the administration should budget for CSC requirements
associated with future IHS budget increases. For instance, today any
new program dollar requires a matching increase of 13.5 cents in
contract support costs, because the CSC requirement is an average 25
percent of each direct service dollar that is under contract, and 54
percent of all IHS service dollars are presently under contract.
Developing appropriations increases in the future along these lines
will prevent any future expansion of the historic CSC shortfall. Once
that shortfall is eliminated (as proposed above) this approach will
guard against any recurrence of shortfalls in the future.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Taken from the Tribal Self Governance Strategic Plan and
National Priorities for the Obama Administration and the 111th
Congress, 2nd Session, 2010-2011, updated February 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
chs
CHS is the most complex service delivered by the Indian Health
Service (IHS), Tribally Operated Health Program (TOHP) healthcare
delivery system. CHS is designed to refer patents and reimburse
providers outside the IT system for medical services provided to
American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) patients. CHS services consist
of those services not provided by the TOHP hospitals and clinics.
IHS and TOHP are taking positive steps to improve the way we
deliver care in the CHS program. Dr. Yvette Roubideaux, Director of the
IHS, will soon form a new workgroup to review the CHS program and
initiate a ``best practices'' process that will allow the sharing of
successful programs. We are heading down a positive road and we applaud
the director for listening to our concerns and seeking a process to
address the needs of Tribal health providers.
The fiscal year 2010 appropriation from Congress for CHS was a good
faith beginning. The $117 million increase is very much appreciated.
The large problem with CHS is that no one is sure what the dollar
figure is to fully fund this program. It is not just the total of
dollars spent, plus denied referrals, plus deferred referrals. We know
of providers who do not submit referrals because they know they will
never meet the criteria for payment. So IHS and tribes must come up
with a formula to provide Congress with a true number.
Until this amount can be provided to Congress, all we know is that
the program is woefully underfunded. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
requests that Congress support the $83 million increase in the
President's budget request for CHS in fiscal year 2011. Also, we
strongly recommend that the funding methodology used in fiscal year
2010 be used to distribute the funds.
sfc
In mainstream America it is difficult to imagine citizens living
without access to clean water or waste disposal facilities; after all
it is 2010. Yet in many areas where AI/ANs reside, this is the rule
rather than the exception. We know this is a fact in many of the
reservation areas, but it is also a fact in rural Oklahoma. The
southeast corner of Oklahoma is the homeland for the Choctaw Nation. It
is the size of Vermont. Some Choctaw members and other Indians live in
small towns and communities served by rural water districts or city
systems, but most live in homes far from major highways and
communities. The terrain is rough, distances are significant, landscape
is mountainous with many large trees. Many of our citizens do not have
access to the most basic of services. Then we question, why are our
people sicker than the non-Indian population?
Speaking specifically for the Oklahoma City area, IHS, SFC (and
this is typical for all areas of IHS) we are unnoticed and underfunded.
SFC is preventive in nature and is not prioritized as a health delivery
need by many tribal leaders and tribal health directors. it is hard to
compete with cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. It is a major need in
our system.
The Oklahoma City area, IHS covers Oklahoma, NE Kansas, SE
Nebraska, and one tribe in Texas. The Area Sanitation Deficiency System
(SDS) is a prioritized list of needed water, sewer, and solid waste
projects. In November 2009 the SDS indicated a need of $77 million; the
SFC funding was $7,113,000. The priority list grows at a much higher
rate than the appropriations. Within the Oklahoma City Area, the IHS
and tribal programs will begin a canvassing process throughout Indian
country to identify a true unmet need. We anticipate the unmet need
will actually triple once this process is completed.
The President's 2011 budget request for SFC is $97,710,000, an
increase of only $1,853,000 more than 2010 which was equal to the 2009
level. We are requesting that Congress increase the SFC budget line
item $7,000,000 more than the President's mark so that we can begin to
close the gap in this important service.
Mandatories.--Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and
population growth increase to maintain existing health care services.
Mandatory costs increases are necessary to maintain the current
level of services. These ``mandatories'' are unavoidable and include
medical and general inflation, pay costs and population growth.
Maintaining current services is a fundamental budget principle. Failure
to do so would result in cuts in healthcare and delivery. We estimate
the current services need in fiscal year 2011 is $474 million.
Office of Tribal Self-governance.--Increase $5 million to the IHS
Office of Tribal Self-Governance
In 2003, Congress reduced funding for this office by $4.5 million,
a loss of 43 percent from the previous year. In each subsequent year,
this budget was further reduced due to the applied congressional
rescissions. As of 2010, there are 330 SG tribes managing approximately
$1.2 billion in funding. This represents 57 percent of all federally
recognized tribes and 33 percent of the overall IHS funding. The SG
office supports tribes operating programs under the Tribal Self-
Governance Amendments of 2000. The SG process serves as a model program
for Federal Government outsourcing, which builds tribal infrastructures
and provides quality services to Indian people.
The Choctaw Nation supports the fiscal year 2011 budget requests
included in the National Tribal Self-Governance Strategic Plan and
Priorities, by the National Indian Health Board and by the National
Congress of American Indians.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
Support for fiscal year 2011 Federal funding of $5.9 million for
the Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to
assist in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, with
$1,500,000 to be designated specifically to identified salinity control
efforts.
This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2011 funding for BLM
for the subactivity that assists title II of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act (Public Law 92-500). This successful and cost-
effective program is carried out pursuant to the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act and the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500).
The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
the State agency charged with protecting California's interests and
rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system.
In this capacity, California and the other six Basin States through the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the interstate
organization responsible for coordinating the Basin States' salinity
control efforts, established numeric criteria in June 1975, for
salinity concentrations in the River. These criteria were established
to lessen the future damages in the Lower Basin States, as well as,
assist the United States in delivering water of adequate quality to
Mexico in accordance with Minute 242 of the International Boundary and
Water Commission. California's Colorado River water users are presently
suffering economic damages in the hundreds of million of dollars per
year due to the River's salinity.
The BLM's budget justification document has stated that the BLM
continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate progress in
cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and report salt retaining measures in
order to further the Plan of Implementation of Federal Salinity Control
Program in the Colorado River Basin. The BLM budget, as proposed in the
BLM budget justification document, calls for five principal program
priorities within the Soil, Water, and Air Management Program. One of
the priorities is reducing saline runoff in the Colorado River Basin to
meet the interstate, Federal, and international agreements to control
salinity of the Colorado River.
As you are aware, BLM is the largest landowner in the Colorado
River Basin. Due to geological conditions, much of the lands that are
controlled and managed by the BLM are heavily laden with salt. Past
management practices have led to human-induced and accelerated erosion
processes from which soil and rocks, heavily laden with salt have been
deposited in various stream beds or flood plains. As a result, salts
are dissolved into the Colorado River system causing water quality
problems downstream.
Congress has charged Federal agencies, including the BLM, to
proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
BLM's rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
effective salinity control measures available. These measures
significantly complement programs and activities being considered for
implementation by the USBR through its Basin-wide Program and by the
USDA through its on-farm Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
In keeping with the congressional mandate to maximize the cost-
effectiveness of the salinity control program, the Advisory Council at
its meeting in October 2009 in Phoenix, Arizona, recommended that
Congress appropriate $5,900,000 to BLM in fiscal year 2010 for
activities that help control salt contributions from BLM managed lands
in the Colorado River Basin. In the past, BLM has used $800,000 of this
funding for proposals submitted by BLM staff to the BLM's salinity
control coordinator for projects that focus on salinity control. The
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council report states
that the BLM has now identified projects that in fiscal year 2011 could
use $1.5 million. The Colorado River Board requests that Congress
appropriate $5,900,000 to BLM in fiscal year 2011. The Colorado River
Board supports the Advisory Council's recommendation and urges the
subcommittee to specifically designate $1,500,000 for the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program as has been the direction to BLM
from the subcommittee in past years.
Since the congressional mandates of more than two decades ago, much
has been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River
system. Reclamation estimates that the quantified economic impacts and
damages to water users in the United States alone is about $376 million
per year. However significant unquantified damages also occur. For
example, damages can be incurred related to the following activities:
--A reduction in the yield of salt-sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling and reuse of the
water due to groundwater quality deterioration; and
--Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
For every 30 milligram per liter increase in salinity
concentrations, there are an additional $75 million damages within the
United States. In addition, the Federal Government has made significant
commitments to the Republic of Mexico and to the seven Colorado River
Basin States with regard to the delivery of quality water to Mexico. In
order for those commitments to be honored, it is essential that in
fiscal year 2011, and in future fiscal years, that the Congress
provides adequate funds to BLM for its activities related to salinity
control in the Colorado River Basin.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water resource to the 18 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. Preservation and improvement of Colorado River
water quality through an effective salinity control program will avoid
the additional economic damages to users in California and the other
States that rely on Colorado River water resources.
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Zimmerman,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
In support of $5,200,000 to assist in Colorado River Salinity
Control, title II from the soil, water and air management effort, and
with support for the President's request for that activity. Also a
request that $1,500,000 be spent on identified salinity-control-related
projects and studies.
This testimony is in support of funding for the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) for the subactivity that assists the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program authorized by the Congress. The BLM
budget, as proposed by the administration in the BLM budget
justification document, calls for five principal program priorities
within the Soil, Water, and Air Management Program. One of these
priorities is reducing saline runoff to meet the interstate, Federal,
and international agreements to control salinity of the Colorado River.
The BLM's budget justification documents have stated that the BLM
continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate progress in
cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and report salt-retaining measures in
order to further the Plan of Implementation of the Federal Salinity
Control Program in the Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum (Forum) believes that fiscal year 2011 funds
appropriated by the Congress for the Soil, Water, and Air Management
Program should be used, in part, for reducing saline runoff in the
Colorado River Basin.
The seven Colorado River Basin States, through the Forum, have
engaged the BLM in a partnership with the Basin States as has been done
previously with the two other Federal agencies implementing salinity
control in the Basin. The Forum has requested and the BLM has selected
a salinity control coordinator for this basinwide effort. This person
now serves with the two full-time coordinators in place for the USBR
and the USDA efforts. This enhanced working relationship has taken
advantage of the availability of Basin States' cost-sharing monies to
leverage Federal funds. The Forum is encouraged by the words in the BLM
budget document. The Forum supports the funding request for the soil,
water, and air management subactivity. As one of the five principal
Soil, Water, and Air Program priorities, the Forum believes that the
BLM needs to specifically target $5,200,000 to activities that help
control salt contributions from BLM managed lands in the Colorado River
Basin. In the past, the BLM has used $800,000 of the Soil, Water and
Air Program funding for proposals submitted by BLM staff to the BLM's
salinity control coordinator for projects that focus on salinity
control. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council has
recognized that the BLM has now identified projects that in fiscal year
2010 could use $1.5 million. For years, Congress has dedicated $800,000
on the effort and now the Forum believes $1.5 million should be so
designated.
The success of the BLM in controlling erosion and, hence, salt
contributions to the Colorado River and its tributaries is essential to
the success of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program,
including adherence to the water quality standards adopted by the seven
Colorado River Basin States and approved by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts will
result in very significant additional economic damages to water users
downstream. The Forum submits this testimony in support of adequate
funding so that the BLM program can move ahead at a pace that is needed
to sustain these water quality standards.
Overview
This testimony is in support of funding for a portion of the title
II program. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was
authorized by the Congress in 1974. The title I portion of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the
United States made, through a minute of the International Boundary &
Water Commission, to Mexico specific to the quality of water being
delivered to Mexico at the international boundary. Title II of the Act
established a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado
River water users in the United States and to comply with the mandates
of the then newly enacted Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary of
the Interior and the USBR were given the lead Federal role by the
Congress.
After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
Basin States concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
amended. In response to the Basin States' requests, the Congress
revised the Act in 1984 to give new salinity control responsibilities
to the USDA and to the BLM. That revision, while leaving implementation
of the salinity control policy with the Secretary of the Interior, gave
new salinity control responsibilities to the USDA and to the BLM. The
Congress has charged the administration with implementing the most
cost-effective program practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt
removed). The Basin States are strongly supportive of that concept and
have proceeded to implement salinity control activities for which they
are responsible in the Colorado River Basin.
Since the congressional mandates of over two decades ago, much has
been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system.
The USBR estimates that the quantified economic impacts and damages to
United States' water users alone is about $353 million per year and
there are very significant additional damages yet to be quantified.
Damages occur from:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--an increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to
groundwater quality deterioration; and
--increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
The Forum is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The Forum
has become the seven State coordinating body for interfacing with
Federal agencies and the Congress in support of the implementation of
the Salinity Control Program. In close cooperation with the EPA and
pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water Act, every 3 years the
Forum prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado
River, anticipated future salinity, and the program elements necessary
to keep the salinities at or below the concentrations in the river
system in 1972 at Imperial Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams.
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity concentrations at these three locations have been
identified as the numeric criteria. The plan necessary for controlling
salinity and reducing downstream damages has been captioned the ``Plan
of Implementation.'' The 2008 review of water quality standards
includes an updated plan of implementation. The level of appropriation
requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed upon plan. If
adequate funds are not appropriated, significant damages from the
higher salt concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the
United States and Mexico.
Justification
The BLM is, by far and away, the largest land manager in the
Colorado River Basin. Much of the land that is controlled and managed
by the BLM is heavily laden with salt. Past management practices, which
include the use of lands for recreation; for road building and
transportation; and for oil, gas, and mineral exploration have led to
man-induced and accelerated erosional processes. When soil and rocks
heavily laden with salt erode, the silt is carried along for some
distance and ultimately settles in the streambed or flood plain. The
salts, however, are dissolved and remain in the river system causing
water quality problems downstream.
The Forum believes that the Federal Government has a major and
important responsibility with respect to controlling salt contributions
from public lands. The Congress has explicitly directed specific
Federal agencies, including the BLM, to proceed with measures to
control the salinity of the Colorado River, with a strong mandate to
seek out the most cost-effective options. It has been determined that
rangeland improvements can lead to some of the most cost-effective
salinity control measures available. These salinity control measures
may be more cost-effective than some now being considered for
implementation by the USBR and by the USDA. They are very
environmentally acceptable as they will prevent erosion, enhance
wildlife habitat, increase dependable stream flows and increase grazing
opportunities.
Through studying hundreds of watersheds in the States of Utah,
Colorado and Wyoming, consortiums of Federal and State agencies,
including the BLM, have selected several watersheds where very cost-
effective salinity control efforts could be implemented immediately. In
keeping with the congressional mandate to maximize the cost-
effectiveness of salinity control, the Forum is requesting that the
Congress appropriate and the administration allocate adequate funds to
support the BLM's portion of the Colorado River Salinity Control
Program as set forth in the Forum's adopted plan of implementation.
______
Letter From the Colorado River Commission of Nevada
March 5, 2010.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for fiscal year 2011 appropriations for the Bureau of Land
Management
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: As a Nevada
representative of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum and
Advisory Council, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRCN)
submits this written testimony in support of funding for the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) for the subactivity that assists the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program. The CRCN believes the BLM needs
to specifically target $5,200,000 to activities that help control salt
contributions from BLM managed lands in the Colorado River Basin. In
the past, the BLM has used $800,000 of the Soil, Water and Air
Management Program funding for proposals submitted by BLM staff to the
BLM's salinity control coordinator for projects that focus on salinity
control. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council has
recognized that the BLM has now identified projects that in fiscal year
2011 could use $1.5 million. For years, Congress has dedicated $800,000
on the effort; the CRCN believes $1.5 million should be so designated
for fiscal year 2011.
Salinity remains one of the major problems in the Colorado River.
Congress has recognized the need to confront this problem with its
passage of Public Law 93-320 and Public Law 98-569. Your support of the
current funding recommendations that support the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program is essential to move the program forward so
that the congressionally directed salinity objectives are achieved.
Sincerely,
George M. Caan,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission is pleased to share its view on the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) fiscal year
2011 budget and has specifically identified two funding needs:
--$7,712,000 (an increase of $3,232,000 more than fiscal year 2010
enacted) for Columbia River Fisheries Management under the
other recurring programs, wildlife and parks, rights protection
implementation areas to restore base program funding to the
Commission and the fisheries programs of its member tribes to
meet management obligations, including efforts for species
listed under the Endangered Species Act, and;
--$4,800,000 (an increase of $680,000 more than fiscal year 2010
enacted) for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty under the Other
Recurring Programs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights Protection
Implementation areas to achieve base program funding adequacy
and to implement new obligations under the recent agreement
adopted by the United States and Canada under the Treaty.
The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) was
founded in 1977 by the four Columbia River treaty tribes: Confederated
Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the
Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Confederated Tribes and Bands of
the Yakama Nation, and Nez Perce Tribe. CRITFC provides coordination
and technical assistance to these tribes in regional, national, and
international efforts to protect and restore our shared salmon resource
and the habitat upon which it depends. The collective ancestral
homeland of the four tribes covers nearly one-third of the entire
Columbia River Basin in the United States.
In 1855, the United States entered into treaties with the four
tribes \1\ whereupon we ceded millions of acres of our homelands to the
United States. In return, the United States pledged to honor our
ancestral rights, including the right to fish. Unfortunately, a
perilous history brought the salmon resource to the edge of extinction
with 12 salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia Basin listed
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Treaty with the Yakama Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951;
Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12 Stat. 963;
Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945; Treaty with
the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the CRITFC tribes' are leaders in fish restoration efforts
and work with State, Federal, and private entities. CRITFC's member
tribes are principals in the region's efforts to halt the decline of
salmon, lamprey and sturgeon populations and rebuild them to levels
that support ceremonial, subsistence and commercial harvests. To
achieve these objectives, the tribes' actions emphasize supplementation
of natural stocks, healthy watersheds, and collaborative efforts.
The programs in this testimony are carried out pursuant to the
Indian Self-Determination and Assistance Act. We have successfully
secured other funds to support our efforts, including funds from the
Bonneville Power Administration, the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
Fund, and the Southern Fund of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, to name a
few. Our programs are integrated as much as possible with State and
Federal salmon management and restoration efforts. Following several
years of court supervised collaboration our member tribes have
successfully forged three key 10-year agreements including a
coordinated plan for salmon restoration to meet the objectives for the
Biological Opinion on the Federal Columbia River Power System, while
ensuring protection of our treaty reserved rights.
Columbia River Fisheries Management Program Needs Under the Other
Recurring Programs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights Protection
Implementation.--Tribal natural resource management issues continue to
increase in complexity, requiring greater data collection and more
sophisticated analyses and funding has not kept pace with inflation.
Funding shortfalls are undermining efforts to fulfill tribal self-
determination goals for fisheries management, ESA recovery efforts,
protecting nonlisted species, conservation enforcement and treaty
fishing access site maintenance. Since fiscal year 2003, our funding
has decreased under the weight of inflation and rising operation costs.
We are seeking an increase of $3,232,000 more than fiscal year 2010 for
a new program base of $7,712,000 for Columbia River Fisheries
Management as explained below:
Restore Base Program and Meet Unfunded Program Needs.--The BIA's
Columbia River Fisheries Management line item is the base funding that
supports the fishery program efforts of CRITFC and the four member
tribes. Unlike State fish and game agencies, the tribes do not have
access to Dingell-Johnson/Pittman-Robertson or Wallop-Breaux funding.
The increase will be directed to support the core functions of the
fisheries management programs of the Commission's member tribes.
In 2008 CRITFC and its member tribes successfully concluded lengthy
negotiations resulting in three landmark agreements: (1) a Columbia
Basin Fish Accords with Federal action agencies overseeing the Federal
hydro system in the Columbia Basin; (2) a Ten-Year Fisheries Management
Plan with Federal, tribal, and State parties under U.S. v OR, and (3) a
new Chinook Chapter of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.\2\ These agreements
establish regional and international commitments on harvest and fish
production efforts, commitments to critical investments in habitat
restoration, and resolving contentious issues by seeking balance of the
many demands within the Columbia River basin. While through these
agreements the tribes have committed to substantial on-the-ground
projects with some additional resources from the Bonneville Power
Administration, the overall management responsibilities of the tribal
programs have grown exponentially without commensurate increases in BIA
base funding capacity. For example, the tribes' leadership in
addressing Pacific Lamprey declines is this species' best hope for
survival and recovery. The tribes are taking the lead in developing
needed lamprey management plans. The tribes are also addressing unmet
mitigation obligations, such as fish losses associated with the
construction of John Day and The Dalles dams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ``Salmon Win A Triple Crown'' at http://www.critfc.org/
text/wana_w09.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public safety continues to be a high priority for CRITFC and the
four tribes. Tribal law enforcement infrastructure is a necessary
component of fisheries management. Tribal infrastructure needs include
additional conservation officers, tribal code improvements, courts and
prosecutorial capacity increases, and modern detention facilities.
CRITFC conservation officers are also the cornerstone of the search and
rescue, and subsequently recovery efforts. In the popular and heavily
used Columbia Gorge they provide the most continuous on-river presence
for both the tribal and nontribal community who depend on the river for
commercial, cultural, and recreational opportunities.
The Columbia River in lieu and treaty fishing access sites were
authorized by Congress to fulfill the promises beginning in 1939 when
the U.S. Government built the first of four Federal dams that flooded
traditional fishing sites and villages on the lower Columbia River.
After nearly 70 years, 29 sites are in place with two more sites slated
for completion in 2011 thereby fulfilling the Government's pledge.
Eighteen of the sites are along the Washington shores of the Columbia
River between Bonneville and McNary Dams. Tribal fishers from the four
tribes use the sites to support their harvest for ceremonial,
subsistence and commercial purposes. The sites vary with improvements
including boat launches, fish drying sheds, fish cleaning stations, and
camping facilities.
Compounding the challenges in implementing tribal fish management
agreements are the impacts that climate change will have on the
interior Columbia Basin and the tribe's treaty resources. The
University of Washington Climate Impact Group predicts new challenges
to salmon management due primarily to thermal effects and runoff timing
changes. The CRITFC is being asked to develop mitigation and adaptation
strategies on behalf of our member tribes. CRITFC and its member tribes
currently have insufficient funds to do the technical work and allow
policy-level participation in the co-management arena.
The funding provided through the BIA to support tribal fishery
programs is crucial to the tribes' and CRITFC's ability to successfully
carry out tribal rights protection, including these agreements, by
providing sound technical, scientific and policy products to diverse
public and private forums. Lost buying power through rising costs,
inflation and lack of pay-cost adjustments to tribal funding has
further challenged us to deliver these essential services.
U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty under the Other Recurring
Programs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights Protection Implementation.--For
tribal participants in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the U.S. Section has
identified a program need of $4,800,000 for BIA.
The United States and Canada entered into the Pacific Salmon Treaty
in 1985 to conserve and rebuild salmon stocks, provide for optimum
production, and control salmon interceptions. The treaty established
the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) as a forum to collaborate on
intermingled salmon stocks. The U.S. section of the PSC annually
develops a coordinated budget for tribal, State and Federal programs to
ensure cost and program efficiencies. Congress increased funding in
2000 in order to implement the 1999 Agreement but funding has
significantly eroded since then. In 2008, the United States and Canada
adopted a new long-term Treaty agreement after nearly 3 years of
negotiations. Both parties agreed to significant new management
research and monitoring activities to ensure the conservation and
rebuilding of the shared salmon resource
The $4,800,000 provides for direct tribal participation with the
Commission, panels and technical committees. The funding enables the
tribes to assist in Treaty implementation and facilitates management
protecting trust resources. This funding maintains tribal resource
assessment and research programs structured to fulfill required Treaty
implementation activities. We are seeking to restore this capacity
through reprogramming existing BIA funds in a manner consistent with
policy and law. The fiscal year 2011 recommended level for this program
is an increase of $680,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level. The recommendation follows the U.S. section's recommendation,
includes pay cost adjustments and brings the program back in line with
previous levels of participation.
Pacific Salmon Treaty obligations add significantly to the tribes'
administrative management, and research responsibilities. To
effectively implement the treaty, tribal representatives must meet
frequently to review technical information and develop informed policy
input for use by the tribes' Pacific Salmon Commission representatives.
These treaty-mandated responsibilities result in additional expenses
for the tribes. Because each of the 25 tribes covered by this funding
source is a separate government and manages its own fisheries, these
obligations require direct tribal involvement.
The tribal management programs provide needed and beneficial and
technical support to the U.S. section. The Pacific Salmon Commission
relies heavily on the various technical committees established by the
Treaty. The work of these committees is integral to the task of
implementing fishing regimes consistent with the Treaty and the goals
of the Parties. Numerous tribal staff appointed to these committees and
all of the tribal programs generate data and research to support their
efforts. For example, indicator stock tagging and escapement monitoring
provides key information for estimating the parties' annual harvest
rates on individual stocks, evaluating impacts of management regimes
established under the Treaty, and monitoring progress toward the
Chinook rebuilding program started in 1984.
In summary, through combined efforts of the four tribes supported
by a staff of experts, we are proven natural resource managers. Our
activities benefit the region while also essential to the U.S.
obligation under treaties, Federal trust responsibility, Federal
statutes, and court orders. We ask for your continued support of our
efforts. We are prepared to provide additional information you may
require on the Department of the Interior's BIA budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission
As Executive Director of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission
(CRRC), located in Alaska, I am pleased to submit this testimony, which
reflects the needs, concerns and requests of CRRC regarding the
proposed fiscal year 2011 budget. CRRC respectfully requests that the
subcommittee restore $500,000 in recurring base funding in the Bureau
of Indian Affairs' (BIA) Trust-Natural Resources Budget. Of this
amount, CRRC requests $350,000 for its core administrative operations,
and $150,000 to restart and continue operations at the Alutiiq Pride
Shellfish Hatchery in Seward, Alaska.
I request that this funding be returned to the base budget due to
the difficulties CRRC has had receiving its legally and contractually
bound funding from the BIA over the last few years. Despite entering
into a legally binding Self-Determination contract with CRRC in 1993, a
contract that was subsequently renewed, the BIA has, in recent years,
failed to request funding for CRRC in its budget. Recently, we brought
suit against the BIA, which resulted in a legally binding agreement
that the BIA would continue to honor its contract with CRRC and
continue to fund it. Unfortunately, once again, the BIA failed to
request funds in its budget. Because we do not want funding for other
BIA programs to suffer, we request that Congress restore CRRC's funding
to the base budget to assist the BIA in meeting its legal obligation to
provide funding to CRRC.
Commission History.--CRRC is a nonprofit coalition of Alaska Native
Villages. CRRC was organized in 1987 by the seven Native Villages of
the Chugach region of Alaska: Tatitlek Village IRA Council, Chenega IRA
Council, Port Graham Village Council, Nanwalek IRA Council, Native
Village of Eyak, Qutekcak Native Tribe, and Valdez Native Tribe.
CRRC was created by these Villages to address environmental and
natural resource 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 choice to create
a separate entity demonstrates the level of their concern for
environmental and natural resource management and protection--the
creation of CRRC ensured that natural resource and environmental issues
received sufficient attention and focused funding.
In recognition of the level of concern the Chugach region Villages
had, and the importance of CRRC's work, the BIA awarded CRRC a self-
determination contract (``self-determination contract'') with the
Department of the Interior through the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (``ISDEAA''), Public Law No. 93-368, in 1993,
and received $350,000 as part of the BIA's base budget from fiscal year
1994 through fiscal year 2002. CRRC was able to leverage this funding
into almost $2 million annually to support its several community-based
programs. While the base funding of $350,000 allowed CRRC to maintain
core administrative operations, specific projects have received funding
from sources such as ANA Grants, the EVOS Trustee Council, the State of
Alaska, the BIA and the Forest Service. With these funds, CRRC has
managed to develop and operate several important programs that provide
vital services, valuable products, and necessary employment
opportunities. These programs include:
Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery.--The Alutiiq Pride Shellfish
Hatchery is the only shellfish hatchery in the State of Alaska. A
20,000 sq. ft. shellfish hatchery located in Seward, Alaska, the
Alutiiq Pride houses shellfish seed, brood stock and algae production
facilities. The Hatchery is operated by CRRC and, when funded, has
employed four individuals. Alutiiq Pride is undertaking hatchery
nursery and grow out operations research to adapt mariculture
techniques for the Alaskan Shellfish industry, as well as conducting
scientific research on blue and red king crab as part of a larger
federally sponsored program. As the only shellfish hatchery in the
State, CRRC is the only organization in Alaska that can carry out this
research. While CRRC planned to expand the production of the Hatchery
so that it can support some of CRRC's base operating costs once it
becomes self-sustaining, reduction and delays in funding since 2001 has
led to the hatchery slowing down its operations and laying off most of
its employees.
Alutiiq Pride has been successful in culturing geoduck, oyster,
littleneck clam, and razor clam species, and is currently working to
develop culture, nursery, and grow-out techniques for red king crab and
blue king crab. This important research cannot continue without base
operational funding.
The production and sale of geoducks and razor clam seed--two
projects the hatchery is currently working on--has the potential to
raise substantial revenue. For example, the production potential from
only 2 million seed sales can approach $400,000, which is a tenfold
revenue increase. The shellfish industry in Alaska has not yet grown to
the point where seed sales cover the cost of operations, but we expect
geoduck seed sales will coincide with the expected growth of the oyster
sales industry. Until the Hatchery is self-sufficient in 2-5 years,
however, it requires operations and research and development funds if
it is to meet the State's growing demand for shellfish seed.
To be able to re-hire hatchery employees and restart and continue
to develop these important programs, CRRC is seeking annual funding of
$150,000 for hatchery operating expenses and research and development
until the Hatchery is able to become self-sustaining.
Natural Resource Curriculum Development.--Partnering with the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, CRRC is developing and implementing a model
curriculum in natural resource management for Alaska Native students.
This curriculum integrates traditional knowledge with Western science.
The goal of the program is to encourage more Native students to pursue
careers in the sciences. So far, there 15 students have completed the
program, earning a total of 15 credits each towards a 30-credit
certificate in tribal management. 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.
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.
Statewide Subsistence Halibut Working Group.--CRRC participates in
this working group, ensuring the halibut resources are secured for
subsistence purposes, and to conduct harvest surveys in the Chugach
region.
Employment.--CRRC has provided employment for 35 Native people in
the Chugach region--an area where Native people face high levels of
unemployment. As a result of reduction and elimination of funding in
the past few years, CRRC had to lay off 20 employees, including most of
our Village employees. This amounts to six families per Village losing
this income. In Villages with an average population of 100, this loss
of income is a devastating blow to the local community economies. If
funding is not restored, we will be unable to rehire our employees, and
these 20 families will create a much larger burden on State and Federal
financial resources. Several of our projects, each of which serve
important and innovative goals and provide valuable products and
services, have also been put on hold until we have the funding to
resume operations and rehire the necessary employees.
Funding History.--As mentioned above, CRRC receives its core
administrative funding through a self-determination contract with the
Department of the Interior. CRRC entered into its original 3-year
contract in 1993. Under the contract, the BIA agreed to provide annual
funding to CRRC to protect the region's natural resources and engage in
economic development for the Villages. This contract has subsequently
been renewed each time it has come up for renewal.
The ISDEAA requires the Interior to provide at least the amount of
funding the ``Secretary would have otherwise provided for the operation
of the programs'' the contract supports (the so-called ``Secretarial
Amount'') plus additional contract support costs. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 450j-
1(a)(1)-(2). This means that Interior is required to provide CRRC with
the same amount that the Secretary of the Interior would have to run
the program. The ISDEAA further specifies that the Interior generally
cannot reduce the contract funding from one year to the next. Despite
this legislative and contractual obligation to provide consistent
annual funding to CRRC, the BIA, since fiscal year 2003 has avoided its
funding obligation by failing to request funding for CRRC in its
budget.
Even though Congress has been helpful in restoring funding for CRRC
in the BIA's budget, the BIA has continued to avoid using those funds
for CRRC. In fiscal year 2006, the BIA unilaterally reduced CRRC's
funding to $300,000--a significant cut from our previous level of
funding. In fiscal year 2007, Congress again provided $300,000 for
CRRC, but the BIA used the absence of associated targeted spending
language to redirect CRRC's funding elsewhere in its budget. Despite
repeated appeals to the agency, and despite its contractual obligation
to pay, the BIA did not provide CRRC with any funding in fiscal year
2007. As a result, CRRC was forced to take out a bank loan of $100,000
just to avoid closing its operations entirely. We were forced to lay
off many employees, and several of our projects were put on hold
because of the lack of funding and the resulting lack of employees.
In fiscal year 2008, the BIA again sought to withhold all funding,
and even tried to cut off CRRC's contract, which is illegal under the
ISDEAA. CRRC was forced to spend several thousand dollars in legal fees
to file suit to obtain its rightful funding for fiscal year 2008. The
BIA resolved this lawsuit and agreed that it would continue to provide
funding to CRRC, but once again, in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year
2010, the BIA did not provide for CRRC funding in its budget. We fear
that without Congressional assistance in the form of a targeted
spending request, we will be forced to sue the BIA every year to obtain
the funding that CRRC should rightfully receive pursuant to its
contract.
If the BIA does not request funding for CRRC, it must take the
funds from its other programs to fulfill its legally obligated duty to
CRRC. Because we do not want to take funds from other BIA programs, we
are asking that Congress restore this funding the base budget to assist
the BIA in meeting this legal and contractual obligation.
Our base budget is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chugach Region Shellfish Mariculture Development........ $75,000
Oyster grow-out operations in Tatitlek
Oyster marketing
Nanwalek Sockeye Salmon Development Project............. $25,000
Seek funds for disease free water engineering study
Operate smolt out-migration weir
Program Development/Regional Office Operations.......... $250,000
Two staff persons/supplies/quarterly board meetings
Biological Professional Assistance
Project Development and Planning
Harvest Surveys
Resource Evaluation and Management
---------------
Total Direct Costs................................ $350,000
Indirect Cost (27.7 percent)............................ $96,950
---------------
Total projected base budget....................... $446,950
Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery Operations............. $150,000
---------------
Total............................................. \1\ $596,950
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $500,000 requested.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of
acquiring land at Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio. An
appropriation of $5.275 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund in order for the National Park Service
to acquire the remaining phase of the 580-acre Blossom property. The
administration's budget for this year, recognizing the national
significance of this land protection effort at Cuyahoga Valley National
Park, includes an LWCF recommendation for the Park of $6.82 million.
This will permit the protection of the Blossom acquisition as well as
several other Cuyahoga Valley National Park inholdings.
Located between Cleveland and Akron, the Cuyahoga Valley National
Park conserves the Cuyahoga River valley and the associated historic
canal and railroad corridors in Summit and Cuyahoga counties. The park
is a major year-round outdoor recreation attraction in northeastern
Ohio. More than 2.8 million people visited Cuyahoga Valley in 2008,
making it the sixth most visited National Park in America and the
single most visited NPS site in the Midwest. Native Americans named the
river Cuyahoga, or ``crooked river,'' aptly describing the river's
serpentine meanderings as it flows northwards beneath bluffs towards
Lake Erie. The conserved forests, farmlands, and wetlands within the
national park offer visitors a remarkable array of outdoor recreation,
wildlife-viewing opportunities, and spectacular scenery including
peaceful creeks, waterfalls, open prairie, and dense hardwood forests,
all within easy access of a major metropolitan area.
In fiscal year 2011, the National Park Service has the opportunity
to complete the acquisition (begun in fiscal year 2010) of the 580-acre
Blossom property, the top-priority inholding at Cuyahoga Valley
National Park. The acquisition is crucial due to its location, natural
and scenic resources, and likelihood of significant development if not
protected. The Blossom tract is currently owned by the Cleveland
Orchestra/Musical Arts Association (MAA) as part of the renowned 780-
acre Blossom Music Center, a vital and exceedingly popular performing
arts destination for residents of the Cleveland area and beyond. MAA is
an important cultural presence in the area; in order to sustain the
many public-benefit programs MAA and the Orchestra provide to the
community in the face of significant financial challenges, it now must
monetize the bulk of this key asset. MAA agreed last year to make 580
park-quality acres surrounding its facilities available for acquisition
by the National Park Service, and Congress responded by providing $4
million to begin the purchase in fiscal year 2010. Requested funding in
fiscal year 2011 will allow the completion of the project so that MAA
can set aside all other plans regarding these highly developable lands.
As a large inholding, the acquisition of the Blossom tract would
greatly benefit efforts to protect forest and water resources in the
southern section of the national park. A mature forest covers most of
the property, and its addition to the park will create 1,200 acres of
unfragmented and protected forestlands. This acreage, combined with
other nearby blocks of protected forest, forms a 5,000-acre forest
ecosystem, the largest in the national park. This network of
forestlands provides unparalleled habitat for a high diversity of
species and particularly for important nesting and feeding areas for
bird and other species most sensitive to habitat disturbance. Along
these lines, the Blossom land is one of just two sites in the entire
park that host cerulean warbler, black and white warbler, veery, and
other bird species that are in decline nationally. Such rich forest
communities are increasingly rare in northeastern Ohio.
The Blossom property is key to improving water quality protection
in the Cuyahoga Valley. Three distinct watersheds drain the Blossom
land (Robinson Run, Adam Run, and an unnamed creek). These creeks
provide many high-quality coldwater stream habitats that in turn
support diverse fish populations and a broad spectrum of other
sensitive species. Unlike many other tributaries of the Cuyahoga, these
creeks have remained healthy and intact, mostly in part because of
their location at the heart of the larger forest ecosystem. The Blossom
tract therefore presents what likely is the best remaining watershed
protection opportunity in the park.
Recreational opportunities surround the inholding and will be
enhanced by acquisition of the trails, creek corridors, and woodlands
of the Blossom lands. Just across the Cuyahoga River to the west are
the popular Hunt Farm Visitor Information Center, a boarding station on
the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad, the Ira trailhead on the Ohio &
Erie Canal Towpath Trail, and the Beaver Marsh wetland area. Just to
the south of the property is the 278-acre Hampton Hills Metropark,
managed by Summit County, featuring its own hiking trails, soccer
fields, picnic grounds, and natural areas.
Acquisition of the Blossom property by the National Park Service
would be a signature accomplishment in the history of the park and in
the complement of public resources here. As noted before, Congress
approved a $4 million appropriation in fiscal year 2010 to commence the
project. In order to complete the protection of these lands, an
appropriation of $5.275 million from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund directed to the Cuyahoga Valley National Park is needed in fiscal
year 2011.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation's premier
Federal program to acquire and protect lands at national parks,
forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and
recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the
public with substantial social and economic benefits including
promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking
water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting the
adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these
reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to the program
in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration's
commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing
the many demands this subcommittee faces, I also want to thank the
committee for its recent effort to restore much-needed funding to this
depleted program. This wise investment in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund is one that will permanently pay dividends to the
American people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Ohio, and I appreciate your consideration of this
funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Civil War Preservation Trust
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide written testimony. My name is James Lighthizer,
and I am the president of the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT). I am
writing to respectfully request that the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee for the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies fully
fund the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program (CWBPP), financed
through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the Department
of the Interior, at its authorized amount of $10 million.
I would like to start by providing a little information about our
organization. CWPT is a 55,000-member nonprofit organization--the only
national one of its kind--dedicated to preserving America's remaining
Civil War battlefields. To date, CWPT has permanently protected more
than 29,000 acres of hallowed ground in 20 States, most of it outside
National Park Service boundaries.
I am here today to discuss with you the small but highly effective
Federal land conservation program that has made much of our success
possible: the CWBPP. This matching grants program encourages
cooperative partnerships between State and local governments and the
private sector to preserve targeted, high-priority Civil War
battlegrounds. Since it was first funded in fiscal year 1999, the
program has been used to protect more than 15,500 acres of hallowed
ground nationwide.
Time is running out for our remaining Civil War battlefields. We
estimate that even in this depressed economy, 30 acres of battlefield
land are lost every day. If we are to save these sites so that future
generations may visit them and learn from them, the time to act is now.
We estimate that in the next 5 to 10 years the fate of many of these
battlefields will be determined.
origins of the program
In 1990, Congress created the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission
(CWSAC), a blue-ribbon panel composed of lawmakers, historians, and
preservationists. Its goal: determine how to protect America's
remaining Civil War battlefields. In 1993, the Commission released a
study entitled ``Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields.'' The
report identified the 384 most historically important Civil War
battlegrounds and further prioritized them according to preservation
status and historic significance. Sixteen years later, this landmark
report and a recent update conducted by NPS remain our guide for
determining which battlefields should be preserved.
In addition to creating a prioritized list of battlefield
preservation targets, the Commission also recommended that Congress
establish an ``emergency'' $10 million-a-year Federal matching grant
program for acquisition of battlefield land outside NPS boundaries. The
intent of the matching grants formula was to encourage private sector
and State and local government involvement in battlefield acquisition.
The Commission's proposal for an emergency Federal matching grant
program was the genesis of the Civil War Battlefield Preservation
Program.
congressional funding and first successes
Five years after the ``Report on the Nation's Civil War
Battlefields'' was released, Congress acted upon the Commission's
recommendation by setting aside $8 million from the LWCF for Civil War
preservation matching grants. This first appropriation for the program
was made available over 3 years, and required a 2 to 1 non-Federal/
Federal match. Grants were competitively awarded through the American
Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP), an arm of NPS. Funding was
solely for acquisition of properties outside NPS boundaries at
battlefields identified in the 1993 report. Land could be purchased
from willing sellers only; there was--and there remains--no eminent
domain authority.
Thanks to the new program, there began an unprecedented and almost-
immediate surge in Civil War battlefield preservation. The $8 million
appropriation generated $24 million for land acquisition by encouraging
State and private investment in battlefield land protection. The
program inspired the Virginia and Mississippi legislatures to
appropriate $3.4 million and $2.8 million, respectively, to meet the
Federal match. The Civil War Preservation Trust alone contributed $4
million in private sector funds to meet the match.
As a result of the non-Federal funds generated by the program,
battlefields like Virginia's Brandy Station and Manassas received a new
lease on life. In addition, other sites such as Prairie Grove in
Arkansas, Champion Hill in Mississippi, and Bentonville in North
Carolina--just to name a few--were substantially enhanced. Largely
because of the success of those first 3 years, Congress appropriated an
additional $11 million for the program in fiscal year 2002, this time
with a more attractive 1 to 1 non-Federal/Federal match requirement.
authorization of the program
After approval of the fiscal year 2002 appropriation, authorization
of the CWBPP seemed the next logical step. Supporters on Capitol Hill
felt that authorization of the program would convey to the Department
of the Interior congressional intent regarding the program's goals and
objectives. Further, authorization would provide funding predictability
for the program's non-Federal partners, encouraging them to continue
their involvement in battlefield preservation.
The authorization bill, entitled the Civil War Battlefield
Preservation Act of 2002, was introduced in the House and Senate in the
summer of 2002. The bipartisan bill formally tied the program to the
1993 CWSAC report, creating a Federal conservation program with a
highly focused, prioritized list of acquisition targets. It also
provided for an annual appropriation of up to $10 million per year--the
level originally recommended by the Commission in 1993. The Civil War
Battlefield Preservation Act was passed with the unanimous consent of
both the House and Senate in the fall of 2002, and was signed into law
on December 17, 2002 (Public Law 107-359).
additional successes and reauthorization legislation
Since the program was first funded in fiscal year 1999, Civil War
Battlefield Preservation Program grants have been used to protect
15,500 acres of hallowed ground in 14 States. Among the many
battlefields that have benefited from this program are: Antietam,
Maryland; Averasboro, North Carolina; Chancellorsville, Virginia;
Chattanooga, Tennessee; Corinth, Mississippi; Harpers Ferry, West
Virginia; and Perryville, Kentucky.
One of the program's most notable successes occurred in 2006, when
the Department of the Interior awarded a $2 million grant to help save
the Slaughter Pen Farm on the Fredericksburg Battlefield in Virginia.
This property, soaked with the blood of 5,000 men in blue and gray, was
nearly lost to industrial development. Five Medals of Honor were earned
by Union soldiers for heroism on that field.
The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program was reauthorized as
part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (H.R. 146),
which President Obama signed into law on March 30, 2009 (Public Law
111-11).
fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 appropriations request
We would like to thank the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for providing $9
million for the CWBPP in fiscal year 2010. This appropriation has
allowed for the preservation of many historically significant lands at
battlefields such as: Bentonville, North Carolina; Champion Hill,
Mississippi; Davis Bridge, Tennessee; Perryville, Kentucky; Resaca,
Georgia; and the Wilderness, Virginia. The ABPP, which administers the
grant program, received the Treasury warrant on February 12, 2010,
allowing the agency to begin obligating its fiscal year 2010
allocation. The agency has already completed an apportionment memo to
obligate $1.7 million and more apportionment memos are sure to follow
in the coming months as pending applications quickly consume the entire
$9 million appropriation. CWPT and our nonprofit partners are certain
the entire $9 million allocation will be obligated by the end of this
fiscal year. Since the entire fiscal year 2010 allocation will be
consumed by current deals, in order for the program to continue it will
need additional funding in fiscal year 2011.
We respectfully ask the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to fully fund the Civil War
Battlefield Preservation Program at its authorized amount of $10
million. Please note that a letter signed by nine Senators was
delivered to both the subcommittee and full committee in March. The
Member letter requested that the program be fully funded at its
authorized amount of $10 million in fiscal year 2011. President Obama
included a $6 million request for the program as part of his fiscal
year 2011 budget.
We recognize that these are difficult economic times and appreciate
the constraints on this subcommittee as you work to draft an
appropriation bill that meets the needs of the agencies and programs
under your jurisdiction. However, we believe that now is the opportune
time to provide full funding for the CWBPP, especially with the Civil
War sesquicentennial commemorations beginning next year. Funding at
this level will allow for the continued success of the program and the
preservation of key battlefield lands that will serve as lasting,
tangible legacies for the sesquicentennial. In addition, with time
rapidly running out to forever protect these hallowed grounds, funding
for this program will soon no longer be necessary. We estimate that in
the next 5 to 10 years the remaining Civil War battlefield lands will
be either paved over or protected. That is why we must act now in order
to preserve as much key battlefield land as possible before time runs
out.
conclusion
There is no question that the Civil War was a defining moment in
our country's history. For 4 long years, North and South clashed in
hundreds of battles that reunited our Nation and sounded the death
knell for slavery. More than 625,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians
perished as a result of the war.
Preserved battlefields not only honor the memory of our Civil War
ancestors, but all of our Nation's brave men and women in uniform.
Further, preserved battlefields serve as outdoor classrooms to teach
new generations of Americans about the significance of the Civil War--
and remind them that the freedoms we enjoy today came at a terrific
price.
I sincerely hope this subcommittee will consider our request to
provide full funding of the CWBPP at its authorized level of $10
million. As noted, this is especially important as the nation begins to
prepare for the upcoming sesquicentennial commemoration of the Civil
War, beginning in 2011. The commemoration is expected to stimulate
renewed interest in the conflict and generate unprecedented visitation
to preserved Civil War battlegrounds. The preserved battlefield lands
will create a legacy that long outlasts the sesquicentennial
anniversary. We look forward to working with this subcommittee on
battlefield protection and other historic preservation issues. Thank
you for the opportunity to provide testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Deschutes Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of
acquiring land along the Crooked National Wild and Scenic River in
Oregon. An appropriation of $1.2 million is needed in fiscal year 2011
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in order for the Bureau of
Land Management to acquire the 101-acre Crooked River Canyon inholding.
In a demonstration of the importance of this acquisition, the $1.2
million amount was included in the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2011.
On behalf of the Upper Deschutes Home Rivers Initiative and the
Deschutes Chapter of Trout Unlimited, thank you for your time and
interest in protecting our unique rivers and canyons here in Central
Oregon. We are a national organization with more than 400 local members
who support conservation and restoration of native fish habitat in the
Upper Deschutes river basin. Trout Unlimited supports projects for our
community and watershed which combine volunteers, staff support, and
outside grant funds to care for our local and shared natural resources.
We couldn't imagine living and working in a better place, and we hope
congress can help preserve our natural heritage.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act celebrated its 40th Anniversary in
2008. The act, championed by Senator Frank Church and signed into law
by President Lyndon Johnson on October 2, 1968, protects the free-
flowing waters of many of our Nation's most spectacular rivers. The act
is notable for safeguarding the special character of these rivers,
while also recognizing the potential for appropriate use and
development. These living landscapes are uniquely managed to protect
the public's enjoyment of these heritage resources for present and
future generations. The managing agencies also try to accommodate and
reflect community and landowner interests. Every designation preserves
a sliver of traditional American experiences that are important to
local communities, such as fishing and boating in waters our Nation's
forefathers would have recognized and enjoyed. Oregon enjoys a
reputation for some of the greatest river ecosystems and river
recreation in the country. Many of these rivers are currently protected
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Located in Jefferson County near the city of Terrebonne, Oregon,
and available for acquisition by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in
fiscal year 2011, is the 101-acre Crooked River Canyon property. The
Crooked River is a nationally designated wild and scenic river which
runs through the high desert in central Oregon and provides remote
recreational opportunities including fishing, whitewater boating,
wildlife viewing, and stunning scenic views. Because of the influx of
cold ground spring water through the canyon walls, the river is home to
unique ecosystems of lush gardens of plants rare to central Oregon's
arid climate. Near one of the fastest growing areas in the United
States, the Crooked River is a major tributary of the Deschutes River
and in years of high water has attracted whitewater boaters from
Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Juniper trees and big sagebrush are part
of the spectacular scenery along the narrow, meandering, dry canyon
riddled with rock outcrops and lined by cliffs. Shaded ledges on rock
cliffs provide spring nesting sites for prairie falcon, bald eagle,
golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other raptors along with the ash-
throated flycatcher, gray flycatcher, and Western kingbird.
Despite the fact that this river is nationally designated, there is
very limited public access. All points where the river is easily
accessible are privately owned, making it very difficult for the public
to enjoy this resource. The Crooked River Canyon property is one of the
few areas where public access is available, but it is currently for
sale and threatened with development. The Crooked River Canyon parcel
contains the ``outstandingly remarkable'' scenic and recreational
values that led Congress to designate the Lower Crooked River as a part
of the national wild and scenic river system in 1988. Approximately a
mile and a half of the river flows through this property, which
encompasses steep walls of the gorge and unique high desert scenery.
Among supporters of public ownership of the Crooked River Canyon
property are American Whitewater, representing approximately 80,000
whitewater paddlers across the Nation, American Rivers, the Wilderness
Society, and the Oregon Natural Desert Association.
An fiscal year 2011 BLM appropriation of $1.2 million from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund for acquisition of this property would
preserve the scenic qualities of the gorge and permanently protect
public access to this section of the Crooked River.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation's premier
Federal program to acquire and protect lands at national parks,
forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and
recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the
public with substantial social and economic benefits including
promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking
water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting the
adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these
reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to the program
in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration's
commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing
the many demands this committee faces, I also want to thank the
subcommittee for its recent effort to restore much-needed funding to
this depleted program. This wise investment in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund is one that will permanently pay dividends to the
American people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Oregon, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Defenders of Wildlife
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record.
Founded in 1947, Defenders has more than 1 million members and
supporters and is dedicated to the conservation of wild animals and
plants in their natural communities.
Defenders understands the sober fiscal realities, and, in general,
we are very pleased with several of the high-priority initiatives in
the President's budget, including: (1) the continued emphasis on
assisting wildlife and ecosystems in surviving the impacts of climate
change and providing the necessary science; (2) the recognition of the
importance of landscape level conservation; and (3) the commitment to
reach full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
However, while the Department of the Interior (DOI) is moving ahead
with praiseworthy initiatives to coordinate their work in addressing
the impacts of climate change, it still is unclear how different
efforts underway within the Department, individual agencies, and the
Council on Environmental Quality will result in a comprehensive
national strategy across all Federal departments and agencies in
coordination with States, tribes, and other stakeholders to assist
fish, wildlife, plants and natural systems in adapting to climate
change, as directed in both the final fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year
2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations
conference reports. We continue to be deeply grateful for the
subcommittee's leadership on climate change, and we ask that you
maintain your excellent efforts on this critically important issue,
including working with the administration to ensure progress in
developing the national strategy.
However, we also are troubled by certain aspects of the request. In
particular, we have deep concerns about the agency operating accounts,
as they are the critical foundation on which rests the agencies'
abilities to meet their missions and implement the administration's
highest-priority initiatives. The unfortunate failure to, at minimum,
meet fixed costs for the agencies will further erode base programs,
even more dramatically compromising their status about which Congress
has previously expressed concern. We also are concerned about specific
aspects of the allocation of LWCF dollars, and, potentially, with some
of the policy implications of the ``New Energy Frontier Initiative''
and with the reorganization of the Forest Service (USFS) budget.
We urge the subcommittee to continue to rebuild the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), our Nation's premier wildlife conservation
agency. We strongly support the following increases:
--To continue progress in addressing the impacts of climate change on
wildlife and ecosystems, a total of $40 million for Climate
Change Adaptive Science Capacity, an increase of $20 million
more than fiscal year 2010 that will allow needed progress in
the effort to build more than 20 Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives across the country. In developing the
Cooperatives, it is important that the agency communicate in a
timely and comprehensive manner with their own staff and with
the many external partners about what these new partnerships
are, how partners can participate, and how these are additive
to existing partnerships.
--To address the needs of our Nation's most vulnerable plants and
animals, a total of $217 million for the endangered species
operating accounts, an increase of $37.7 million more than
fiscal year 2010, allocated as follows: $15 million for
candidate conservation, an increase of $2.4 million; $32
million for listing, an increase of $9.9 million; $95 million
for recovery, an increase of $9.7 million; and $75 million for
consultation, an increase of $15.7 million. We are deeply
concerned that the request was essentially flat and even
reduced in for listing. Increases are needed for addressing the
backlog of 249 domestic and 20 foreign candidate species
awaiting protection under the Endangered Species Act, for
restoring a 16 percent staffing shortfall in the recovery
program, for addressing concerns about tracking species under
the consultation program and for updating Habitat Conservation
Plans to incorporate climate change into existing long-term
permits. We also are concerned about the decreases for the Wolf
Livestock Loss Demonstration program and for White Nose
Syndrome and ask that funding be restored.
--To continue efforts to restore the integrity of the National
Wildlife Refuge System, a total of $578.3 million, an increase
of $75 million more than fiscal year 2010 as recommended by the
diverse coalition of 23 organizations in the Cooperative
Alliance for Refuge Enhancement. Defenders is concerned about
the $3.3 million decrease, an effective $18.3 million cut,
since an increase of at least $15 million each year is needed
to keep pace with fixed costs and to have adequate management
capability. We appreciate the $8 million requested increase for
inventory and monitoring needed to manage for climate change,
however, the amount is not a net increase. FWS also must ensure
that new inventory and monitoring efforts are integrated with
existing programs of other Federal agencies and non Federal
entities to avoid duplication and to allow for easy information
sharing.
--To restore the mission critical Office of Law Enforcement, a total
of $77 million, an increase of $11.2 million, to support
hiring, training and equipping 24 special agents, 10 additional
port inspectors, and 4 of 12 critically needed forensics
scientists. The special agent force is still 23 percent below
the authorized number of 261 and Defenders is extremely
disappointed that the request included a decrease of $2.5
million, including $2 million that was specifically added in
fiscal year 2010 for special agents. We also recommend report
language directing the agency develop a plan to increase the
special agent force to, and maintain it at, the authorized
level.
--To build the international affairs program, a total of $22 million,
an increase of $7.6 million more than the fiscal year 2010
level. The request included a 9 percent decrease in this very
modest program. Even at current funding, international affairs
lacks resources to implement most international treaties and
agreements the United States is involved in; to address
emerging problems at the global level such as human-wildlife
conflict, wildlife disease, and invasive species; to address
the growing permitting, research, and monitoring workload,
including the effort FWS is undertaking on species native to
the United States; and other crucial needs.
--To support the Migratory Bird Management program, a total of $68.5
million, an increase of $14 million more than fiscal year 2010.
The request cut Migratory Bird Management by $1.7 million, yet
increases are needed to continue development and implementation
of plans for 139 focal species of highest conservation need, to
cover critical gaps in inventory and monitoring, and for the
innovative Urban Conservation Treaties for Migratory Birds.
--For critical grant programs, $115 million for State and Tribal
Wildlife Grants, an increase of $25 million; $100 million for
the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, an increase of $15
million; $6.5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund, an increase of $1.5 million; and $18 million
for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, an increase of
$6.5 million.
The multiple-use lands of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the USFS are becoming increasingly crucial to the conservation of
wildlife and habitat in the United States, yet their resources are not
adequate to meet significant challenges. While Defenders supports the
administration's efforts to move toward a clean energy economy, it must
proceed in a balanced way that ensures the ability to maintain
sustainable wildlife populations. We were extremely pleased that the
fiscal year 2010 conference report directed the Department of the
Interior and the USFS to submit a comprehensive review on siting and
coordination of renewable energy projects. We urge continued strong
oversight to ensure that any energy development is done in an
environmentally sensitive fashion. And given the overriding challenge
posed by climate change, it is imperative that both agencies have clear
climate change adaptation and restoration policies and incorporate
these considerations into any energy development plans.
Defenders supports the stated goals of the Integrated Resource
Restoration (IRR) initiative to move to a restoration and resiliency
based approach to forest management. However, the success of any such
effort--and beneficial rather than harmful outcomes--will depend on
establishment of science-based management objectives and dedicated
support for planning, assessment, and monitoring. It is not clear from
the budget that such requirements have been taken into consideration.
In particular, given the merging of Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat
Management into IRR and elimination of its output measures, we are
concerned about the adequacy of wildlife diversity objectives in this
new proposal. Moreover, the agency currently is developing new National
Forest Management Act (NFMA) planning regulations--an effective
planning rule is necessary to ensure proper implementation of any
integrated program. We urge the subcommittee to work with the
administration to ensure a strong policy and regulatory framework
before IRR is allowed to move forward. We will be following up with
more detailed recommendations.
We recommend the following funding for BLM and FS programs:
--For BLM climate change adaptation, we support the request of $17.5
million, an increase of $2.5 million more than fiscal year
2010. However, as was the case in fiscal year 2010, it is again
proposed for funding under the soil, water, and air
subactivity. Since the stated focus of this funding primarily
is to assist native plant and animal communities in adapting to
climate change, consideration should be given to funding this
initiative through the wildlife and fish budget activities.
--For BLM wildlife and fisheries management, a total of $65.4
million, an increase of $15 million more than fiscal year 2010
and for BLM threatened and endangered species management, a
total of $32.6 million, an increase of $10 million. Defenders
is extremely disappointed that these two activities were cut by
a combined total of more than $2 million, especially given the
dire status of the sage grouse and the need for proactive
conservation actions in the face of expanded renewable energy
development. Moreover, reports are that the practice continues
of inappropriately diverting at least 30 percent of funding to
compliance activities of energy and other nonrelated programs.
Consideration should be given to directing the Government
Accounting Office or a reputable outside entity knowledgeable
in natural resource management to review this problem and make
recommendations to resolve it.
--For the BLM Challenge Cost Share (CCS) program, a total of $19.5
million, an increase of $10 million directed to wildlife.
Defenders is extremely disappointed in the decision to
eliminate this program, that, given the diversion of resources
from wildlife programs accomplishes much of the agency's
proactive wildlife and habitat conservation work.
--For BLM resource management planning, a total of $55 million, an
increase of $5 million more than fiscal year 2010. We are quite
concerned about the $8.2 million decrease in the request. As is
the case with the wildlife activities, failure to invest in
planning sets the BLM up for less than optimal results in
energy development and adaptation policy implementation.
--For BLM's land and realty management subactivity, we support the
requested $3 million increase to support site specific National
Environmental Policy Assessments for renewable energy projects.
--For USFS land management planning, $80 million, an increase of
$34.1 million more than fiscal year 2010 and for USFS inventory
and monitoring, $180.5 million, an increase of $10 million.
Defenders was concerned that these requests were flat. Given
the new IRR proposal, parallel commitments are required to move
toward a restoration and sustainability agenda. Moreover,
robust Land Management Planning funding, which has declined by
more than 40 percent since 2001, is needed to support the
ongoing NFMA rulemaking process.
--Given the IRR proposal, it is not clear if the separate Wildlife
and Fisheries Habitat Management line item will still exist,
however regardless of whether there is a separate or combined
line item, Defenders supports a total of at least $163 million
for wildlife and fish output measures, a $20 million increase
more than the fiscal year 2010 level that was still nearly $15
million below the 2001 inflation adjusted level. The program
has lost 15 percent of its scientists since 2003 and Defenders
is greatly concerned about the loss of biological capability in
the agency.
--For USFS forest and rangeland research R&D programs, $265.1
million, an increase of $20 million more than fiscal year 2010
that includes a total of $41.9 million for climate change
research and $37.1 million for fish and wildlife R&D. Defenders
is concerned about the $5 million reduction for climate change
research in the request.
The U.S. Geological Survey through its Biological Research
Discipline (BRD) and National Climate Change and Wildlife Science
Center supports the basic science necessary for conservation of fish,
wildlife and habitat. To provide adequate science support, we urge the
following increases:
--For the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, $27
million, an increase of $12 million more than fiscal year 2010.
We thank the subcommittee for its past strong support,
including the strong direction to the administration in the
fiscal year 2010 conference report that the future identity and
activities of the center remain distinct and accountable in the
overarching DOI climate change adaptation effort and urge that
strong support and oversight continue. We appreciate the
administration's requested increase of $8 million; however we
believe that a larger increase is needed to move more quickly
in establishing planned regional centers across the country.
--For the BRD Research and Monitoring Program, a total of $170
million, an increase of $9.3 million above fiscal year 2010,
which includes a $5 million increase to support Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives, and for BRD Cooperative Research
Units, $22.5 million, an increase of $3.2 million. We have
concerns about the $3.6 million net decrease for BRD in the
request, but we appreciate the increases for FWS/NPS/BLM
science support ($4 million), in particular the $1 million for
BLM, the first time specific science support funding has been
requested for BLM.
We urge the subcommittee to continue restoration of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at a total of $600 million, $425 million
for Federal LWCF and $175 million for stateside. We are pleased at the
significant increases in the request, but are concerned that a
substantial portion is being directed to two other programs.
Finally, we deeply appreciate the subcommittee's continued
attention to the impacts of illegal immigration and related enforcement
on sensitive land and wildlife resources along the Southwest border,
and we urge continued oversight, funding and opposition to related
riders hindering land management agency operations. In addition, we
urge the subcommittee to work with the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) appropriations subcommittee to ensure that DHS provides funding
to mitigate for any impacts from border security infrastructure,
including the as yet unfulfilled commitment of $50 million in fiscal
year 2009 funds and $40 million in fiscal year 2010 funds.
______
Prepared Statement of Dance/USA
Madame Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
Dance/USA is grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony on
behalf of our members across the United States. We urge the Committee
to designate a total of $180 million to the National Endowment for the
Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2011. This testimony is intended to
highlight the importance of the Federal investment in the arts to
sustaining a vibrant cultural community and to our national character.
Dance/USA, the national service organization for not-for-profit
professional dance, believes that dance is essential to a healthy
society, demonstrating the infinite possibilities for human expression
and potential, and facilitating communication within and across
cultures. Dance/USA sustains and advances professional dance by
addressing the needs, concerns, and interests of artists,
administrators, and organizations. By providing services and national
leadership, Dance/USA enhances the infrastructure for dance creation,
education and dissemination. To fulfill its mission, Dance/USA offers a
variety of programs, including data research and regional professional
development, and works with organizations within and outside the arts
field with whom common goals are shared. Dance/USA's membership
currently consists of more than 500 ballet, modern, ethnic, jazz,
culturally specific, traditional, and tap companies, dance service and
presenting organizations, artist managers, individuals, and other
organizations nationally and internationally. Dance/USA's member
companies range in size from operating budgets of under $100,000 to
more $50 million.
The NEA makes it possible for everyone to enjoy and benefit from
the performing arts.
Before the establishment of the NEA in 1965, the arts were limited
mostly to a few big cities. The Arts Endowment has helped strengthen
regional theater, opera, ballet, and other artistic disciplines that
Americans now enjoy. NEA funding provides access to the arts in regions
with histories of inaccessibility due to economic or geographical
limitations. The Endowment embodies the ideal that no one should be
deprived of the opportunity to have art in their lives. The Arts
Endowment has helped the arts become accessible to more Americans,
which in turn has increased public participation in the arts.
Despite diminished resources, the NEA continues to award grants to
nonprofit arts organizations for projects that encourage artistic
creativity. These grants help nurture the growth and artistic
excellence of thousands of arts organizations and artists in every
corner of the country. NEA grants also preserve and enhance our
Nation's diverse cultural heritage. The modest public investment in the
Nation's cultural life results in both new and classic works of art
reaching all 50 States.
NEA grants are instrumental in leveraging private funding. On
average, each NEA grant generates at least $8 from other sources.
Government cultural funding plays a catalytic leadership role that is
essential in generating private support for the arts.
The NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of every
community.
The return of the Federal Government's small investment in the arts
is striking.
The nonprofit arts industry generates $166.2 billion annually in
economic activity, supports 5.7 million full-time equivalent jobs, and
returns $12.6 billion to the Federal Government in income taxes. Few
other Federal investments realize such economic benefits, not to
mention the intangible benefits that only the arts make possible. Even
in the face of tremendous cutbacks in recent years, the NEA continues
to be a beacon for arts organizations across the country.
nea grants at work
NEA grants are awarded to dance organizations through its core
programs: Access to Artistic Excellence; Challenge America: Reaching
Every Community; Federal/State Partnerships; and Learning in the Arts,
as well as through initiatives such as American Masterpieces: Dance.
The following are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on dance
programs the NEA's 2010 Access to Artistic Excellence Program:
American Dance Festival, Inc., Durham, North Carolina, $70,000
To support What is Dance Theater?, a series that will include works
that blur the line between dance and theater. American Dance Festival
will present a variety of American and international companies as well
as commissioned new works.
American Tap Dance Foundation, Inc., New York, New York, $15,000
To support Tap City, an annual summer tap festival. The festival
offers training, education, special events, and performances.
Ballet Concierto de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, $10,000
To support an island tour as part of the company's 30th
anniversary. The company will offer performances and outreach
activities in rural communities across Puerto Rico.
Dance Saint Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, $25,000
To support presentation of the River North Chicago Dance Company,
Aszure Barton & Artists, and Giordano Jazz Dance Chicago. Performances
will be presented at the Touhill Performing Arts Center on the
University of Missouri-St. Louis campus.
Houston Ballet Foundation, Houston, Texas, $50,000
To support the presentation of George Balanchine's Ballo della
Regina and the world premiere of a new work by Houston Ballet associate
choreographer Christopher Bruce. The ballets will be performed at the
Wortham Theater Center.
Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc., Becket, Massachussets, $90,000
To support residencies and performances of dance companies. The
project will include a Creative Development Residency, presentation of
national and international dance companies, and audience engagement and
educational programs.
Spectrum Dance Theater, Seattle, Washington, $15,000
To support the development and presentation of FAREWELL: A
Fantastical Contemplation on America's Relationship with China. Through
text, music, and movement, the project will explore critical human
rights and social justice issues involving the United States and China.
the non-profit professional dance community
America's dance companies perform a wide range of styles and
genres. These include both classical and contemporary ballet, classical
and contemporary modern, as well as jazz, tap, cross-disciplinary
fusions, and traditional to modern work rooted in other cultures. Over
two-thirds of America's professional dance companies are less than 45
years old; as an established art form with national identity and
presence, dance has burst onto the scene almost entirely within living
memory. And, yet, America can boast some of the greatest dance
companies of the world and can take credit for birthing two indigenous
dance styles--tap and modern dance.
One key to this spectacular achievement has been the creation of a
national marketplace for dance. When the National Endowment for the
Arts instituted its Dance Touring Program in the 1970's, great dance
became accessible to every community in America. What used to be a
handful of professional companies and a scattering of ``regional''
dance has become a national treasure spread across cities and through
communities, schools and theaters in all 50 States.
There are now more than 600 professional dance companies in America
as well as more than 1,000 pre-professional and semi-professional
groups. Based on recent surveys, Dance/USA estimates that the 81
largest and most visible nonprofit dance companies in the United States
do the following:
--Employed more than 6,000 people in a mix of full-time and part-time
positions;
--Performed for total home audiences of nearly 2.9 million people;
--Paid approximately $237.5 million in wages and benefits;
--Had operating expense budgets totaling $452.2 million;
--Earned $156.7 million, or 38 percent of their income, from
performances;
--Earned $76.2 million from sales, tuitions, and activities other
than performances;
--Received $16.7 million from State, local, and government
contributions;
--Received $21.6 million from corporate contributions;
--Received $46.2 million from private foundations;
--Received $98.7 million from individual contributions through
donations, benefit events, guilds, and United Arts drives; and
--Had over 24,300 volunteers, including more than 2,700 members of
Boards of Trustees.
conclusion
Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending
Federal tax dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered
from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties, and its programs are
seriously underfunded. Dance/USA and other performing arts service
organizations work hard each year to strengthen support for the NEA in
Congress. As the NEA banner underscores, ``a great nation deserves
great art.'' In order for there to be great art, organizations need
stronger infrastructure and stability. Therefore, we urge you to
increase the fiscal year 2011 NEA funding allocation to $180 million.
On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Environmental Council of the States
summary
The States' environmental agencies collectively support the
President's 2011 State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) budget
request, and specifically support the Categorical Grants potion of that
request, with the exception that we believe the Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) grant should be provided the same increase as the
Clean Water Act 106 grant.
testimony
The States are integral partners and co-regulators with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the implementation of the
Nation's environmental laws. States conduct on EPA's behalf most of the
permitting, enforcement, inspections, monitoring, and data collection
required by those Federal environmental laws. In this document, the
States' environmental agencies respectfully submit their collective
comments on the 2011 budget proposal for the categorical grants portion
of the EPA's budget that supports States, tribes, and local
governments, known as the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG).
In the period 2004-2009, Federal support for State environmental
protection declined. With the passage of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the 2010 budget, this trend reversed for
the infrastructure portions of the EPA budget. States committed 100
percent of the safe drinking water and clean water ARRA funds within
the time allotted, and exceeded the minimum requirements for
expenditures on green infrastructure projects. We are grateful to
Congress for the funding and proud of the States' achievements in
quickly committing the infrastructure funds to important projects. We
expect an excellent return in terms of both jobs and environmental
compliance as a result of this investment.
However, another portion of the Federal support for States has not
been so fortunate. States rely on the ``categorical grants'' portion of
the EPA STAG budget for support for the delegated and assumed programs.
There are 20 categorical grants that cover the many environmental
protection programs that States conduct in partnership with EPA. During
the 3-year period 2007-2009, EPA promulgated 305 new or modified rules,
for which essentially no additional funding was provided to the States.
In addition, EPA continues to plan about 100 more new rules under
development that will affect States.\1\ Many of these affect States
because EPA expects States to implement them and, therefore, they carry
an additional workload. Some of these may carry an especially heavy
cost burden as well. For example, EPA listed five of these rules as
having ``Federalism implications'' in 2009:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Fall 2009 EPA Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, Index D and E,
and previous editions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--2020-AA47.--NPDES Program Management Information Rulemaking;
--2040-AD39.--Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the
Armed Forces--Phase II;
--2040-AA94.--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Radon;
--2050-AE81.--Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion
Residuals Generated by Commercial Electric Power Producers; and
--2070-AC64.--Lead-Based Paint Activities;
These rules are in various stages of development, and there are
others that have not yet been so designated that will no doubt be
listed by the time the 2011 budget goes into effect. There are also
other rules and policies that are not listed above that States believe
will have equal or greater impact on their environmental agency budgets
because they are new, are major modifications, or because they regulate
previously unregulated industries.
The primary concern of the States is that the number and complexity
of new rules is arriving at a time when State resources are at their
lowest in years. States are not opposing these rules, and may often be
eager to implement them, but there is great concern among State
environmental agency leaders about the resources being provided to
accomplish these tasks.
EPA has reported that ``for every dollar EPA Obligates, states
contribute approximately 22 cents, which results in states,
contributing 18 percent of the project cost.'' \2\ This conclusion is
based on the minimum match requirements for categorical and
infrastructure grants. However, for the largest categorical grants
(e.g., 106, clean air, etc.), States greatly ``overmatch'' the Federal
grant, which EPA's report does not take into account. Therefore, we
find that in a typical State, 20-30 percent of the total categorical
funding comes from EPA. The rest comes mostly from permit fees and
State general funds.\3\ State environmental agencies have lost a
substantial amount of their funding from non-Federal sources over the
past year, with many States reducing staff and/or holding positions
vacant.\4\ ECOS is currently documenting the cuts (or anticipated cuts)
to State environmental agencies for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011.
This document is expected to be ready in June 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``EPA Grants--State Cost Share'' via email from David Bloom to
Steve Brown, February 25, 2010.
\3\ State Environmental Expenditures, 2005-2008, Environmental
Council of the States, March 2008.
\4\ Impacts of Reductions in fiscal year 2010 on State
Environmental Agency Budgets, in publication, Environmental Council of
the States, March 2010. See www.ecos.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The combination of new and modified rules, declines in Federal
funding, and loss of State funding sources means the State-Federal
environmental partnership is under great strain. States are making hard
decisions about which parts of Federal programs they can continue to
implement, and which parts they may have to ask EPA to undertake for a
while.
Fortunately, States and EPA have worked to improve our
communications on these matters. Part of that communication has been
State input into EPA's annual budget process. In 2009, as EPA began to
develop its 2011 budget, ECOS was again asked to present its STAG
budget needs. Focusing on the categorical grants (largely because ARRA
had just passed and had addressed the infrastructure needs), ECOS
presented the ``statement of needs,'' which outlined our assessment of
the workload and the resources needed to accomplish it, with an
emphasis on the largest categorical grants such as those previously
listed. The resulting total for categorical grants was about double the
current amount provided. However, we recognized that such a request
would be very hard indeed to honor. So, we stated that ``Our base
request is a 2 percent increase above 2010 appropriations to address
inflation'' that would be applied to every categorical grant. We also
explained that new rules would need new resources, especially this
year.
We were therefore pleased to see that EPA had listened to this
request, and included an overall 14.3 percent increase for the
categorical grants programs, with most receiving the 2 percent request
and some (such as the air program and the clean water program which
have new expansions) receiving larger amounts. This approach addresses
some of the State needs, and is especially welcome during the current
difficulties that States are facing in obtaining funding from State
sources.
The primary shortcoming in the agency's budget approach is that the
drinking water program was not provided any increase. Our understanding
from the agency is that it believed that previous budgets had addressed
these needs. However, ECOS' examination of recent categorical grants
budgets does not match the agency's assessment. For example:
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Categorical Comparative
Grant: Public PWSS annual PWSS net Comparative net increase
Water System percentage percentage net increase for Air
Supervision increase increase for CWA 106 Quality
(PWSS) Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 CR (base year)............. $98,274,000 Base year Base year Base year Base year
2008 actual..................... 97,554,000 -0.738 -0.738 0.937 -1.580
2009 actual..................... 99,440,100 1.897 1.187 0.312 1.494
2010 actual..................... 105,700,000 5.922 7.556 6.061 2.874
2011 proposed................... 105,700,000 .............. 7.556 26.879 40.331
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This shows that the Categorical Grant for the drinking water
programs is not keeping pace with the air and water point-source
programs, and did not have a ``head start'' over the other programs in
previous years that would carry it forward into the present, as the
agency seems to assert. Furthermore, the PWSS grant had been
supplemented by a Homeland Security grant of nearly $6 million per year
that was eliminated in the 2010 budget. These duties must still be
conducted, but the Homeland Security subcommittee seems unlikely to
fund these activities, which means there is no funding source for them.
In consideration of these facts and trends, we respectfully suggest
that the PWSS categorical grant should be increased in an amount
commensurate with the CWA 106 grant.
other considerations
ECOS notes that the proposed EPA budget has eliminated several
programs added by Congress in last year's or previous years'
appropriations. Our endorsement of the President's budget should not
necessarily be interpreted as opposition to these programs.
ECOS understands that there is interest from some parties,
including the General Accountability Office and the EPA Inspector
General, in having EPA conduct a ``workforce analysis'' for at least
the Clean Water program. ECOS agrees that this is overdue, but suggests
that the analysis will be more accurate and complete if the States'
role in implementing the act on behalf of the EPAis included as part of
the workforce analysis. Should the subcommittee consider requiring EPA
to conduct this analysis, the States' environmental agencies encourage
you to include our role as part of the analysis.
______
Prepared Statement of the Emissions Control Technology Association
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Tim
Regan and I'm the President of the Emissions Control Technology
Association (ECTA) and an executive with Corning Incorporated. ECTA is
a trade association that promotes public policies to improve air
quality by reducing mobile source emissions through the use of advanced
technologies. ECTA represents the companies that have been at the
cutting edge of mobile source emissions control technology for three
and a half decades. Our members invented and developed the core,
specifically the substrate and the catalyst, of the catalytic
converter.
Thank you for the providing me with the opportunity to submit
written testimony in support of the Diesel Emission Reduction Act
(DERA). This subcommittee has repeatedly recognized the importance of
funding diesel emission reduction programs, and on behalf of ECTA I
both thank you and encourage you to continue that commitment.
Specifically, we respectfully request that the Committee fund the grant
program authorized by the Diesel Emission Reduction Act of 2005 at $100
million for fiscal year 2011.
We are incredibly grateful for the $300 million in funding that you
included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
as well as the $80 million that you included in the fiscal year 2010
budget for diesel emission reductions. This funding will not only
assist in cleaning the air and protecting public health, but it also
presents a unique opportunity to stimulate the economy in a timely and
targeted manner.
The Challenge
Thirty years ago, when the catalytic converter was first
introduced, our industry was faced with the challenge of reducing
nitrogen oxides from the transportation sector. Today, the challenge is
to reduce the black smoke and smell from diesel exhaust. Once again,
our industry has risen to the challenge by developing a full range of
devices, commonly known as ``after-treatment'' technology that remove
fine particulate matter and other pollutants in diesel exhaust.
Our technology is required equipment on all new on-road heavy duty
vehicles entered into service after January 1, 2007. This will make a
significant contribution toward cleaner air and better health. In fact,
EPA estimated at the time the so-called 2007 Highway Rule was
promulgated that the technology would generate $66 billion in economic
and health benefits annually when the new vehicles significantly
penetrated the fleet after the year 2020.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Environmental Protection Agency (July 7, 2005), ``2007
Heavy-Duty Highway Final Rule,'' http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/diesel.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The challenge that we continue to face is how to retrofit this new
technology onto existing vehicles and engines that are being used
today. These vehicles and engines do not have the emissions control
technology that is required for new vehicles. Consequently, they are
the ``dirtiest'' diesel devices in use, and there are a lot of them.
EPA estimates there are currently 20 million heavy duty diesel
engines in use today, the so-called ``legacy fleet.'' \2\ Because
diesel engines are so durable, the existing equipment in the fleet will
not be fully replaced until the year 2030. The best way to clean up the
legacy fleet is to retrofit it with the same kind of technology that is
being installed on new vehicles. This retrofit equipment could include
after-treatment devices, such as a diesel particulate filter or a
diesel oxidization catalyst. It also could include vehicle replacement,
engine replacement, engine rebuilds, and engine repair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Environmental Protection Agency, ``Report to Congress:
Highlights of the Diesel Emission Reduction Program.'' http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/documents/420r09006.pdf p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the cost of purchasing and installing diesel
retrofits oftentimes does not introduce enough operational efficiency
to generate a return on the investment. So, equipment owners are
understandably reluctant to invest in a retrofit unless they are given
some form of financial assistance to help defray the cost. And, it
makes sense for the public to help finance retrofits because they
generate benefits in the form of cleaner air and improved public health
for all of society.
Congressional Action
To the credit of Congress, it has acted to provide the necessary
financial assistance to promote the deployment of diesel retrofits.
This subcommittee started addressing this problem as far back as fiscal
year 2003. At that time, the subcommittee took the lead in
appropriating $5 million to provide the original funding for the Clean
School Bus USA program.
Based on the positive experience with the Clean School Bus USA
program, Congress took another big step in 2005 to advance the
deployment of diesel retrofits. Specifically, as part of the Energy
Policy Act, Congress proposed and passed DERA. This provision of law
authorized the expenditure of $1 billion over 5 years to finance diesel
retrofits through grants and revolving loans. The authorization calls
for the appropriation of $200 million per year for fiscal year 2007
through fiscal year 2011.
Madame Chairman, your subcommittee has done a valiant job in trying
to find the resources to fund DERA. These are difficult financial
times. All Federal accounts are under stress, especially those under
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. But under your leadership, your
subcommittee has continued to approve funding for this extremely
important and cost-effective program. We appreciate the subcommittee's
efforts.
The Problem
Unfortunately, the resources available to fund diesel retrofits far
exceeds the demand, even with the $300 million of funding included in
the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (Recovery Act). Despite
increased funding in recent years, the DERA program continues to be
oversubscribed. In fiscal year 2008, EPA received approximately $5 in
requests for every available dollar.
This trend continued with the Recovery Act funding. The national
grant component of the DERA program under the Recovery Act contained
funding for $155.8 million worth of clean diesel projects. However, EPA
received 598 applications requesting a total of $1.7 billion and
providing $2.2 billion in matching funds. This translates into a
request of $10 for every $1 available.
Our Request and Rationale
In light of this strong demand for funding, we respectfully request
$100 million for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) in fiscal
year 2011. We believe that this proposed increased level of funding is
reasonable and appropriate for several reasons.
First, the money will be well spent because diesel retrofits have
been proven to be one of the cost-effective emission reduction
strategies. Studies have shown that emission reduction strategies which
involve the use of diesel retrofit technology can, in almost every case
analyzed, achieve lowest cost per ton of emissions reduced compared a
long list to other strategies for reducing emissions from the
transportation sector.\3\ For example, installing a diesel particulate
filter on a Class 7 heavy duty truck is 15 times more cost-effective
than replacing a conventional bus and 46 times more cost-effective than
building an HOV lane.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See ECTA comments (February 20, 2007) in Federal Highway
Administration Docket No. FHWA-2006-26383, http://dmses.dot.gov/
docimages/p89/454896.pdf, http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/
454899.pdf.
\4\ Ibid, Table 4, p. 10, http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/
454896.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, DERA represents a unique opportunity to simultaneously
stimulate the economy and save jobs while improving national
environmental and health outcomes. DERA funding is targeted at
industries undergoing significant dislocation and layoffs. In
particular, as a study by Keybridge Research notes ``the economic
impact [of DERA funding] is likely to be the greatest in auto parts
manufacturing and heavy-duty truck (e.g., school bus) manufacturing
sectors, which have sustained job losses at nearly 9-times and 7-times
the national rate.'' Employing a methodology based on the use of
standard economic multipliers provided by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis's RIMS II model, Keybridge Research concluded that DERA is
likely to generate approximately $6 of increased economic output for
every $1 of Federal expenditures.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Keybridge Research, LLC, ``Green Stimulus: The Economic Impacts
of Funding the Diesel Emission Reduction Act.'' http://www.ectausa.com/
documents/DERAEconomicImpactStudy.pdf p. 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, spending on diesel retrofits generates a substantial return
on an investment. When DERA was enacted, EPA estimated that, if fully
implemented, the program would generate $20 billion of economic and
health benefit for $1.5 billion of cost. In a recent Report to Congress
on the first year of the DERA program (fiscal year 2008), the EPA
estimates that for every $1 spent on the DERA program, an average of
more than $20 in health benefits are generated.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Environmental Protection Agency, ``Report to Congress:
Highlights of the Diesel Emission Reduction Program.'' http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/documents/420r09006.pdf p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, because DERA sets aside 30 percent of its funds for a State
Grant Program, it can be used to help States reach attainment of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter.
Every State in the Nation now has a diesel retrofit program and would
benefit from DERA funding.
Fifth, increasing the installation of clean diesel retrofits
through significant funding for DERA can generate global warming
benefits. While U.S. EPA and others continue to study the issue, recent
studies show that black carbon from diesel exhaust has global warming
potential. Clean diesel retrofits can reduce this black carbon by more
than 90 percent.
Finally, there is a very broad base of support for the DERA
program. From the beginning, DERA enjoyed strong support from both
sides of the aisle in Congress and from the entire range of private
interests and nonprofit public interest groups. Few environmental
programs enjoy such widespread support.
State and Local Air Quality Grants
We would also like to endorse the request for increased funding to
support State and local air quality grants that is being requested by
the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) in their written
testimony submitted to the Subcommittee. State and local governments
hold primary responsibility for preventing and controlling air
pollution. They rely on grants to carry out their core obligations
under the Clean Air Act, including monitoring air quality, assessing
emissions impacts, permitting and inspecting sources, and enforcing
environmental regulations.
For fiscal year 2011, NACAA recommends that grants within the STAG
program for State and local air pollution control agencies under
Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act be funded at $309.1 million,
an $82.5 million above the fiscal year 2010 appropriation. We support
NACAA in this request.
Conclusion
Thank you again Madam Chairman for the opportunity to appear before
the subcommittee. In closing, we urge you to fund DERA at $100 million
for fiscal year 2011 because it will result in the most cost-effective
use of Federal funds to achieve emission reductions from the
transportation sector.
______
Prepared Statement of the Energy Minerals Reclamation Committee
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: On behalf of the
coal mine reclamation agencies in the States of Colorado, Montana, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, we are writing to convey our concerns with
the administration's proposed 15 percent ($11 million) reduction in
State regulatory grants in fiscal year 2011 authorized under the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (issued by the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement). More than one-half of the
Nation's coal is mined in our States.
In fiscal year 2010, Congress approved an additional $5.8 million
increase for State title V grants over the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level, for a total of $71.3 million. Congressional action helped avert
serious problems in the funding of Western State regulatory programs as
outlined in a report we prepared in November 2006, ``An Impending
Crisis for Coal Supplies'' (http://www.westgov.org/wieb/reclamation/
2006/12-01-06finalrpt.pdf). Congressional action was essential to
restoring the Federal share of State regulatory programs and reversing
a 12-year period during which OSM costs were adjusted for inflation but
State regulatory grants were not.
The administration's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget threatens to
undo the progress made by Congress. The administration's proposal to
cut State regulatory grants--a proposal that is based on the
unsupported assumption that State permit fees can be quickly raised to
fill the budget hole--is completely unrealistic. The most likely
outcome of the administration's proposal is serious erosion of State
program capabilities as positions go unfilled, personnel are laid off,
and needed equipment purchases are deferred. As State program
capabilities erode, so do our abilities to orderly review and enforce
coal mine permits and to protect the public from any potential health
and environmental impacts of coal mining.
We appreciate the support Congress has provided state regulatory
programs through title V grants and the funding of critical OSM
training and technical assistance programs. We urge you to block the
administration's proposals that would undercut effective regulatory of
coal mining by the States and maintain the constructive course Congress
has been on in the last several years.
______
Prepared Statement of the Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government
Madam chairman and distinguished members of this subcommittee:
Thank you for providing us this opportunity to the people of Enewetak
to describe issues that relate to our ability to live on our homeland
of Enewetak Atoll, which was used as a nuclear test site by the United
States from 1947 to 1958.
As the only people ever resettled on a nuclear test site, we face
many challenges. Life on Enewetak Atoll is made possible through
support provided by the congressionally funded Enewetak Food and
Agriculture Program. That program provides funding for imported food,
an agriculture rehabilitation program, and the operation of a vessel.
We request that funding for that program for fiscal year 2010 be
increased by the amount of $500,000, the same amount of increase as
provided by Congress in fiscal year 2010. Also, we hope that this
committee will support continued funding of the health program for the
four nuclear affected atolls of which we are one, and funding for the
environmental monitoring by the Department of Energy of the Runit
Island nuclear waste site which is on our atoll.
Before we discuss the particulars of this request, we would first
like to thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of this committee, on
behalf of the Enewetak people, for your support in funding the food and
agriculture program for my people in the Compact of Free Association.
We also thank you for your past support in assuring that the Enewetak
Food and Agriculture Program is adequately funded, particularly your
support for the $500,000 increase for fiscal year 2010 and your
approval of our request to purchase a replacement vessel during fiscal
year 2008 from previously appropriated program funds.
As you know, Enewetak Atoll was the site of 43 of the 67 nuclear
tests the United States conducted in the Marshall Islands. We were
removed from our land by the U.S. Government to make that testing
possible. We were exiled from our land for a period of more than 33
years--a period in which we suffered near starvation, poor health, and
lack of education.
In 1980, after a significant cleanup, soil rehabilitation, and
resettlement effort undertaken by the United States, we were able to
return and live on only a part of our land. A large part of our land
and environment remain contaminated making it impossible for us to rely
on our natural food resources and preventing us from developing a
fishing or tourist economy.
We now live on a former nuclear test site. In fact, we are the only
people ever resettled on a nuclear test site. The Enewetak Food and
Agriculture Program makes life on Enewetak possible. And that is why we
are so thankful to you for assuring funding in the minimum amount of
$1.3 million for the program in the Compact.
However, the program was funded at a level of approximately $1.9
million in fiscal year 2010 and close to that amount for the past
several years. That funding level needs to continue to maintain the
minimum components of the program which include a soil and agriculture
rehabilitation program, the importation of food, and the operation of a
vessel. Therefore, we request your support for the additional $500,000
for the program for fiscal year 2011 so that the components of the
program will be funded in the total amount of $1.9 million, as has been
the case these past several years.
In 2008 we faced a challenge with regard to the transportation of
food, material, equipment, supplies, and transport of people to and
from our atoll. Our atoll is the most distant atoll from Majuro Atoll,
the capital of the Marshall Islands. In fact, the distance between
Majuro and Enewetak is 600 miles one way. All of our food, material,
supplies, and equipment are sent to Majuro for further transshipment to
Enewetak. Consequently, a reliable vessel is a lifeline for us. The
vessel available to us up to fiscal year 2009 was so old that parts
were difficult if not impossible to find. Therefore, we were in the
market for a replacement vessel that would be even more suitable for
voyages between Enewetak and Majuro than the vessel we had. We found a
suitable vessel and greatly appreciate the approval provided by this
committee to purchase the replacement vessel from previously
appropriated program funds. That vessel was in service as of 2008 and
provides the necessary sea transport to support each of the components
of the program.
A final comment on the Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program: This
program is a true success story. It allows us to live on our homeland
while providing the resources which allow us to attempt to accomplish
some of the rehabilitation required to transform part of the atoll from
a severely damaged nuclear test site to a place that more resembles
home. The additional $500,000 to maintain current funding levels will
ensure the continued success of this program.
Now we would like to briefly address the four atoll healthcare
program. Funding for fiscal year 2011 is necessary to continue the
program. We appreciate the funding for such program provided by the
Congress in the amount of $1 million for fiscal year 2010. However,
continued funding is required to maintain the key elements of the
program which provide for an on-site physician for each of the four
atolls, necessary medicines and supplies, funding for a health aide for
each atoll, and funding for care of the people of the four atolls at
the hospitals in the Marshall Islands when required.
Lastly, we need to mention the nuclear waste site on Runit Island.
That site was built by the United States and contains more than 110,000
cubic yards of material including plutonium and other radioactive
debris. This site needs to be monitored to assure the integrity of the
structure and to assure that no health risks from the radioactive waste
site are suffered by us. To effect the foregoing, a long-term
stewardship program of Runit Island needs to be implemented by the
United States.
Again, Madam Chairman, we thank you and members of this
subcommittee for your support which makes life possible for us on our
home atoll of Enewetak.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
I am Karen R. Diver, Chairwoman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa. We appreciate having the opportunity to provide you
with testimony on fiscal year 2011 appropriations for the Indian
programs funded through the Department of the Interior and Indian
Health Service (IHS). The Fond du Lac Band provides health, education,
social and other governmental services to 6,500 Indian people living on
or near our reservation in northeastern Minnesota. These programs are
essential to our ability to educate our children, care for our elderly
and infirm, prevent crime, and protect and manage natural resources.
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE): Education.--We urge Congress to
substantially increase funding for BIE elementary/secondary school
programs. The Fond du Lac Band relies on BIE funding for the operation
of the Band's pre-K through grade 12 Ojibwe School. The Ojibwe School
serves approximately 320 students most of whom are tribal members or
descendants of tribal members. Most of our students come from very-low-
income households, illustrated by the fact that more than 90 percent of
our students qualify for free or reduced rate lunch. But although
American Indian students are the most at-risk group of students in our
Nation, the BIE elementary/secondary school programs have been
historically underfunded. The necessary increases in education program
funding can and should be offset in part by reductions in BIE's
administrative costs so that more funds go directly to the schools
where they can most effectively be used. We ask that BIE elementary/
secondary school program funding be adjusted as follows:
Increase Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Formula Funding
by 29 Percent From Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted Levels.--We urge Congress
to increase by 29 percent ($112 million) the ISEP formula funds. ISEP
formula funds are the primary means by which we pay the costs of school
operations and education programs but these funds have consistently
fallen very far short of our need. As described in the President's
budget, 75 percent of the tribal and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
schools are struggling and at risk of failing to meet the adequate
yearly progress goals required by the No Child Left Behind Act. The
Fond du Lac Ojibwe School is among those at risk. Far too many tribal
and BIA schools are in need of intervention, restructuring or
corrective action under that act, but existing funding levels are not,
and have never been, sufficient to help us meet the act's requirements.
Instead, funding shortfalls have forced us over the years to cut back
programs, layoff teachers and school aids, and reduce working hours for
others. For our students to succeed, our schools need a commitment of
high-priority support so that we can pay competitive salaries to
attract and retain skilled teachers; invest in research-based reading
and math curricula; keep pace with costs of student transportation; and
provide early childhood development programs.
Increase School Facility Operations by $30 Million and School
Facility Maintenance by $3 Million From Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted
Levels.--We urge Congress to increase funding for school facility
operations and school facility maintenance as past funding has failed
to keep pace with the cost of school operations or the growing backlog
of Indian schools and facilities needing repair.
Increase Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC) by $21 Million.--We
appreciate the President's proposal to increase funding for TGSC.
However, because these funds have seen no increase for many years even
though costs have risen, we urge that these funds be increased by $21
million from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
Increase Student Transportation by $6.2 Million.--We also urge
Congress to increase funding for student transportation by $6.2
million. Rising fuel costs and the need to replace vehicles forces us
to reallocate money needed for education programs to pay for
transportation so we can ensure that our children are able to get to
school safely. We should not have to choose between funding education
programs and providing safe and reliable transportation services to our
students.
Proposed Decreases in BIE Administrative Costs.--In our view, these
increases in funding for the school programs can and should be offset
in part by decreasing funds for BIE's administrative functions. Over
the past 6 years, funding for BIE education management has more than
tripled while funding for all of the school-based programs have
remained essentially the same, with only some modest increases for some
programs in very recent years. The funds allocated for BIE management
are not needed. BIE has failed to provide any meaningful assistance to
schools in corrective action or in restructuring under the No Child
Left Behind Act. It has not provided information to schools regarding
funding opportunities. Indeed, even when BIE has funds for grants, BIE
fails to timely award them--as has occurred with the technology grants
that should have been awarded in October 2009 and which we desperately
need to update our technology structure for our students. For these
reasons we recommend that funds allocated for BIE administrative
functions be decreased. This includes: decreasing BIE education
management by $10,000,000; decreasing BIE program enhancements by
$12,067,000; and eliminating the proposed BIE ISEP program adjustments
of $7,238,000. This shift in funding will better ensure that the money
is targeted to our schools where it can be most effectively used for
teacher salaries, education programs, school maintenance, and student
transportation.
BIA: Public Safety and Justice.--We urge Congress to increase BIA
funding for law enforcement above the level proposed in the President's
budget. While we support the President's proposal to increase law
enforcement funding to enhance the number of FBI agents working in
Indian country, this should not be at the expense of increased funding
for tribal law enforcement. In our experience, the FBI's work will be
limited to targeting specific major crimes. The FBI will not address
the very substantial day-to-day law enforcement needs that arise on
most Indian reservations which must be addressed by tribal law
enforcement departments like the Fond du Lac Band's law enforcement
department. We also ask that Congress increase the Band's base funding
by $2 million for court operations and law enforcement, and provide a
one-time appropriation of $8 million to allow us to expand the facility
that houses our law enforcement department, but which is completely
inadequate for that purpose.
We continue to face massive unmet needs for law enforcement on
matters that are not addressed by the FBI. We had to assume
responsibility for law enforcement after the Minnesota Supreme Court
ruled that the State did not have jurisdiction to enforce traffic laws
on roads within Indian reservations, State v. Stone, 572 N.W.2d 725
(Minn. 1997). We have done this using a combination of tribal and
Federal funds (made available through the Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) program and the BIA), and by cooperative agreements
with local law enforcement agencies. But because of the insurgence of
methamphetamine, alcohol, illegal prescription drug use, and gang-
related activities on our reservation our law enforcement
responsibilities continue to grow. Prescription drug abuse is an
epidemic. Increasing numbers of our elders and others are the victims
of more frequent assaults and robberies that are prescription drug
related. Our officers are responding to a growing number of drug-
related overdoses and deaths, as well as juvenile offenses involving
drugs, alcohol, thefts, assaults, and burglaries. In 2009 alone, we
responded to more than 1,000 reported incidents and requests for
assistance. These include, for example, reports and requests involving
domestic disputes, disturbances, disorderly conduct, property damage,
drug incidents, theft, medical emergencies, fire, neglected children,
runaways, suicide threats, not to mention hundreds of traffic-related
matters.
To address these problems, we need to increase our law enforcement
staff so that we can station police officers in specific locations,
such as near elderly housing, and ensure effective law enforcement
coverage 24/7. But we do not have sufficient funds to attract and
retain the number of officers that we need. We currently employ 12
patrolmen, 1 investigator, 1 school resource officer (assigned to the
Ojibwe School to try and stem the tide of juvenile crime), a Chief of
Police, and 3 administrative staff. Our goal is to schedule three
officers per shift, but we do not have sufficient funds to do this
around the clock. Fewer officers on duty means serious safety issues
for both officers and the people we need to protect. Our limited staff
also means that we cannot implement pro-active measures, such as youth
education and outreach programs, and assistance to the clinics in
developing means for identifying and preventing prescription drug
abuse. To effectively address law enforcement, we need approximately 20
officers, but do not have the funding for this.
Federal funding is also vital for law enforcement equipment. We
appreciate the help that we have received on this through the COPS
program, but to effectively address crime, we still need to
periodically upgrade or replace patrol cars, radar equipment, and in-
squad computers. We need e-ticket (ticket writers), and in-squad
cameras for patrol cars. We need to replace our existing radio system
to narrowband. In addition, the nearby counties have enhanced their 9-
1-1 system. As a result, we need additional funds to effectively
integrate the Band's system with that used by those counties as well as
a T-1 communications line to establish a more secure connection to that
system.
Finally, we need a new facility for our law enforcement department.
The department is now housed in a 6-room building which we share with
the Band's housing program, and which has no room for investigative
interviews, nor office space for specialty positions such as
investigators. The evidence room and reception area are all completely
inadequate for law enforcement purposes. A new building with a garage,
along with a larger evidence room and storage room for record keeping,
and a training room for officers, is essential.
BIA: Natural Resources.--We very much appreciate the increase in
funding for BIA natural resource programs that Congress provided for
fiscal year 2010 and urge Congress to at least maintain if not increase
those funding levels. Natural resources are vitally important to our
tribal members as they provide the foundation for our culture, meet
subsistence needs, and provide employment. The Fond du Lac Band's right
to access natural resources within and outside our reservation was
reserved by Treaties with the United States in 1837 and 1854 and
reaffirmed by the courts. In connection with these Treaty rights, the
Band is responsible for managing natural resources and for enforcing
Band conservation laws that protect those natural resources by
regulating tribal members who hunt, fish, and gather those resources
both within and outside the reservation. Funding is essential for that
work. We request that $2 million be added to our base budget for
resource management programs, as funds for this program have not been
increased since 1991.
BIA: Human Services.--We support the President's proposed increase
in funding for human services programs including those funded through
TPA, such as the Indian Child Welfare Act program but urge Congress to
increase funding by more than the $2 million proposed. A larger
increase is needed to address the impact that the methamphetamine
epidemic has on not only public health and safety, but also on child
protection, child welfare and foster care services. Increased funding
for social services and ICWA programs are essential if tribes are to
have any realistic hope of protecting Indian children, preventing
domestic violence, and fostering Indian families.
IHS.--We fully support the President's proposed increase in funding
for IHS and appreciate the commitment that the administration and
Congress have made to address the funding needs for healthcare in
Indian country. The President's proposed increase is essential to
address the high rates of medical inflation and the substantial unmet
need for healthcare among Indian people. Indians at Fond du Lac, like
Indians throughout the Nation, continue to face disproportionately
higher rates of diabetes and the complications associated with
diabetes, than the rest of the population. Heart disease, cancer,
obesity, chemical dependency, and mental health problems are also
prevalent among our people. While other Federal programs, like Medicare
and Medicaid, have seen annual increases in funding to address
inflation, the budget for IHS has never had comparable increases, and,
as a result, IHS programs have consistently fallen short of meeting the
actual needs. All Indian tribes should receive 100 percent of the level
of need formula, which is absolutely critical for tribes to address the
serious and persistent health issues that confront our communities. The
Band serves approximately 6,707 Indian people at our clinics, but the
current funding level meets only 38 percent of our healthcare funding
needs.
In conclusion, the needs at Fond du Lac and throughout Indian
country remain massive. Your support on these funding issues is
essential to our ability to maintain vitally important programs and
improve the delivery of services to Band members. Miigwech. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of The Friends of the Bosque del Apache National
Wildlife Refuge
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Friends of the
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge wish to express their
sincere thanks for your efforts to increase funding for the National
Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). We also thank you for again holding a
public witness hearing, allowing us to describe our individual refuges
and the challenges we face. As the Executive Director of the Friends of
the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, I submit this written
public testimony to offer comments on the fiscal year 2011 Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Specifically, we
request a funding level of $578 million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, NWRS in fiscal year 2011, and continuation and funding of the
Department of the Interior's Challenge Cost Share Program.
Since fiscal year 2008, Congress has provided critical funding
support for the NWRS's operations and maintenance, allowing for the
temporary suspension of workforce downsizing plans and for urgent
projects to be completed. However, the administration's proposal to cut
NWRS funding by $3.3 million in fiscal year 2011 could stall or even
reverse recent progress, threatening habitat preservation projects,
invasive species eradication, law enforcement capabilities,
environmental education, and visitor services for 41 million visitors
each year. Such cuts could be devastating for the local communities
whose economies rely on the jobs and tourism provided by local National
Wildlife Refuges. The economic impact of the Bosque del Apache NWR in
New Mexico is significant, as recreational visits to the Refuge
generate more than $4.3 million in tax revenue for the region. For
every $1 of the Refuge budget, there is a local economic effect of
nearly $8.
The effectiveness and importance of the Challenge Cost Share
Program (CCS) to Bosque del Apache NWR and many other Refuges is
undeniable, as it leverages funding through strategic partnerships to
achieve much more than through Federal funding alone. Shortfalls in the
program's reporting and accountability must be corrected through more
stringent and enforced guidelines, not by cutting one of the few
programs that has truly enabled a broad range of collaborative projects
that benefit our natural resources. At Bosque del Apache, CCS has
facilitated water management and habitat improvements, graduate student
research projects, youth outdoor education and hunting programs,
visitor services improvements, coordination of our annual birding
festival (the single greatest income-generating event for our county),
and research into the efficiency of current land use and wildlife
management practices. The projects totaled $160,000 in CCS funds, but
generated more than $185,000 in matching contributions, accomplished
projects across the spectrum of USFWS objectives, and fostered
partnerships with educational institutions, nonprofit agencies, and
State agencies.
Volunteer organizations such as the Friends provide laudable and
needed supplements to the NWRS, but should not be looked to as
substitutes for the Refuge programmatic and operational support that is
a proper Federal responsibility. Our commitment to the Bosque del
Apache National Wildlife Refuge has allowed us to supplement the
economic and educational opportunities for our region. However, we can
scarcely maintain, much less grow, the Refuge's capabilities without an
adequate Federal budget and mechanisms, such as the Challenge Cost
Share Program, for leveraging Friends' support. The Bosque del Apache
NWR has often been described as the ``Jewel of New Mexico.'' Yet that
description applies not only to the amazing natural resource that is
the Bosque, but also to the Refuge's role as an economic engine. Its
role in our community, in our economy, and in the broader mission of
restoring and preserving our natural heritage is why we must do what we
can to help it thrive. As our cities grow and water demands increase,
future generations will need the Bosque del Apache NWR and the lessons
it is teaching us to help us appreciate the delicate ecological balance
that exists in the Southwest and beyond. We can never underestimate the
importance of National Wildlife Refuges to our children's futures, to
the environment, and to our economies.
We encourage you to help us make a difference by funding the NWRS
at $578 million in fiscal year 2011, and by ensuring that the
Department of the Interior's Challenge Cost Share Program is funded.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and please contact me if
you have any further questions.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Back Bay
I am Molly Brown from Virginia Beach, Virginia. I am the President
of Friends of Back Bay, a group of more than 150 dedicated volunteers
who are committed to the protection of the Back Bay National Wildlife
Refuge. Located in southeastern Virginia Beach, Back Bay National
Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) was established on February 29, 1938, as a
4,589-acre refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds. We thank
Congress for their continued support of this project. The Director of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a Refuge boundary expansion
on May 7, 1990. The expansion area includes 6,340 acres of important
wildlife habitat. To date the Fish and Wildlife Service has been able
to acquire 4988 acres.
In order to continue the Back Bay Refuge expansion project, we
respectfully request $1 million for fiscal year 2011. This money will
help to fill in the mosaic pattern of small land parcels from willing
sellers who have been waiting patiently to sell their land to the
Refuge. This continuing project was first funded by Congress in 1990.
With only a few remaining parcels to purchase, we hope Congress will
want to see this Back Bay project completed.
The enclosed map gives a visual description of the Acquisitions
through 2009 and the remaining parcels by priority to be purchased from
willing sellers within the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge proposed
acquisition boundary. Here is a brief description of each parcel.
Fiscal Year 2010
Rice: Tract 249--$425,000--8 Acres--Closing this fiscal year (2010)
with LWCF funds appropriated. This project uses most of the
appropriated funds with the remainder ($120,000) to be ``banked'' in
combination with future funds to complete acquisitions, as listed
below. Project Description--valuable riparian/wetland habitat on the
southern bank of Nanney's Creek. This Creek has been identified as one
of Virginia Beach's ``impaired waterways'' by the State DEQ.
Cooperative efforts by private landowners (mostly farmers), the City of
Virginia Beach, the State of Virginia and Back Bay NWR are ongoing to
restore the water quality of this tributary of Back Bay. This property
is adjacent to existing Refuge property on its north and east
boundaries.
Fiscal Year 2011
Brown: Tract 193--$216,000--18 Acres. Project Description--Mostly
forested wetlands on the west side of Back Bay with existing valuable
habitat for migratory birds, especially neotropical migrants. This
property is within the original Refuge acquisition boundary and is
adjacent to existing Refuge property on three sides (North, East, and
South). Option to purchase in effect.
Johnson: Tract 173--$402,000--30 Acres. Project Description--
Emergent marsh habitat adjacent to Ashville Bridge Creek with existing
valuable habitat for migratory birds, especially waterbirds. This
property is within the original Refuge acquisition boundary and is
adjacent to existing Refuge property on three sides (North, East, and
West). Option to purchase in effect.
Van Nostrand: Tract 250--$200,000--15 Acres. Project Description--
This property has been cleared, and is ready for farming and/or
development. Although the current habitat has little wildlife value,
reforestation of this parcel, as Back Bay NWR has done with so many
other parcels, will serve as quality habitat for a variety migratory
birds, especially neotropical migrants. Option to purchase in effect.
Griffith: Tract 100c, d and e--$250,000--105 Acres. Project
Description--Emergent marsh habitat on the east side of Back Bay. This
property already supports a wide variety of nesting and wintering
migratory birds, especially waterfowl. Because this parcel is located
on the bay side of the highly developed Sandbridge area of Virginia
Beach, failure to acquire this piece could result in increased private
recreational boating facilities by individuals who own lots/houses
adjacent to this property. The Refuge is currently partnering with The
Conservation Fund to appraise and acquire this parcel.
Good things continue to happen at Back Bay! A new educational
project to enhance the wildlife viewing opportunities of the public is
the ``windows on wildlife.'' This one-way glass will allow the public
to watch migratory birds without being seen by and thus disturbing the
waterfowl. This project opened this winter. On a recent January day,
the pond featured a visual smorgasbord of tundra swans, Canada geese,
black sucks, snow geese, mallards and pied-billed grebes. A red-tail
hawk flew close to the building and landed on the branch of a near by
tree. This ``national treasure'' received 150,000 visitors in 2009.
This March the Back Bay Restoration Foundation conducted its 9th
annual Back Bay Forum 2010. There were presentations on research and
data collected within the Back Bay watershed, followed by an
opportunity for participants to identify future research and action
needed for the health of the bay system. Scientists stated that
conditions are improving since last year. The water clarity is better
and vital underwater grasses are growing again. Large numbers of ducks
are coming back. The local hunters had a very successful season.
I wish to extend my appreciation for the funding that you
appropriated through fiscal year 2009. The $545,000 that was
appropriated in fiscal year 2009 has purchased 8 acres of a key parcel
along Nanney's Creek. To date we have purchased 4,988-acres of the
proposed 6,340-acre expansion. This means that this project is more
than 78 percent completed in seventeen years. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on this important project.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
Friends of Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge located near Cambridge,
Maryland, I am submitting testimony for the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
concerning the fiscal year 2011 budget for the National Wildlife Refuge
System (NWRS). We respectfully request that the subcommittee support
the following funding levels:
--$578 million in fiscal year 2011 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (FWS) NWRS Operations and Maintenance (O&M) account;
--Fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900
million including $300 million for the NWRS, and pass S. 2747,
legislation to ensure dedicated and full funding to the LWCF;
--Increase funding to $210 million for key FWS partner-based programs
including Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, Partners for
Fish and Wildlife, State Wildlife Grants, the Coastal Program
and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act;
--Fund the NWRS construction account at $100 million for large-scale
habitat restoration projects and visitor service facilities.
An astonishing 20 percent of all work that occurs on wildlife
refuges is contributed by more than 30,000 volunteers each year.
Critical to facilitating this remarkable commitment is the
reauthorization of the Volunteer and Community Partnership Act which
encourages the use of volunteers to assist the FWS in refuge management
as appropriate. We also urge Congress to fund the Department of the
Interior's Challenge-Cost Share Program. This program was created to
leverage funding through strategic partnerships that would not be
achieved by the Federal Government on its own. We are concerned that
not funding the program would have significant adverse impacts to
conservation and environmental education programs at refuges
nationwide.
It is necessary that the NWRS budget by about $20 million each year
in order to maintain services and programs from the previous year. This
increase accounts for cost-of-living increases for FWS personnel,
growing rent and real estate costs and other cost increases, while
sustaining current levels of visitor services and wildlife management.
Funding the O&M account at $578 million would allow the NWRS to avoid
further employee layoffs and reductions in services that are important
at the Blackwater NWR and Chesapeake Marshlands Wildlife Complex, and
to the more than 150,000 who visit the Blackwater NWR each year, while
also preventing the approximately $3.5 billion NWRS O&M backlog from
growing larger. While refuges received an increase for fiscal year
2010, the NWRS is still not funded at the level it was in fiscal year
2003 when adjusted for inflation. Because of this, refuges such as
ours, the Blackwater NWR, struggle to meet their most basic wildlife
conservation objectives.
Refuges are also vital economic engines in the local economy,
fueling hotel stays, restaurant patronage and much, much more.
According to Banking on Nature, a 2007 report by the FWS, recreational
visits to national wildlife refuges generate substantial economic
activity. Nearly 35 million people visited national wildlife refuges in
2006, generated more than $1.7 billion for local economies--including
27,000 jobs and $185 million in tax revenues. Eighty-seven percent of
all economic activity generated by refuges is from nonresident
visitation. These visitors contribute to the local economy through
patronage of local hotels, restaurants, outfitters, and gas stations to
name just a few examples. We simply cannot afford to lose these local
economic engines. Supporting our refuges with adequate funding is an
effective method of resisting the economic depression with which the
Nation is currently struggling.
The Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies should provide strong funding for NWRS visitor
services programs and visitor facility enhancement projects. Visitor
services funding pays for many Friends and volunteer programs. We
depend on this funding for programs that allow us to remain effective
stewards of our refuge.
Recognizing invasive species as a top threat to our refuge lands,
we also ask the subcommittee to continue their support by again
providing adequate funding for cooperative projects with Friends groups
and volunteers on invasive species control. This funding supports
worthy programs like competitive grants for Friends groups and the
Volunteer Invasives Monitoring Program. Utilizing the energy and
enthusiasm of Friends and volunteers is a proven, effective and
economical partnership for the NWRS and FWS.
We encourage the subcommittee to allocate sufficient funding to
assess and purchase high-priority water rights and high-priority lands
and conservation easements through the LWCF, $900 million. Inadequate
water quantity and quality represent some of the biggest obstacles for
refuges to overcome and unfortunately, many refuges do not own the
water rights on the refuge or they are not guaranteed an allocation of
water from a river or stream. The FWS is currently compiling a needs-
based priority database of where water rights need to be secured, and
we urge the subcommittee to allocate sufficient funding to allow the
FWS to acquire these essential rights while they are available and
affordable. Also, NWRS land acquisition backlog is estimated at more
than $4 billion, with more than 15 million acres remaining to be
acquired within approved refuge boundaries. While a full suite of
conservation strategies should be employed in working with private
landowners, in cases where fee title acquisition is preferred by the
landowner and the refuge has identified it as a top priority, the FWS
should acquire the land.
We encourage the subcommittee to allocate $10 million for the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through the FWS' resource
management general administration appropriation. Each year, NFWF
receives more project proposals than they are capable of funding.
Adequate funding will ensure NFWF has the ability to leverage resources
to fund projects that directly benefit diverse species in, around and
outside of national wildlife refuges across the country.
Again, on behalf of the Friends of Blackwater National Wildlife
Refuge Association, Inc., we thank you for your consideration of our
requests. If you have any questions, we would certainly be happy to
help in any way.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Congaree Swamp
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: We enthusiastically
support President Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget request for $1.4
million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the National Park
Service (NPS) to purchase land at Congaree National Park. This funding
will enable the NPS to complete acquisition of the 1,840-acre
Riverstone tract for Congaree National Park.
Congaree Swamp National Monument was authorized as a NPS unit in
1976. In 2003, Public Law 108-108 elevated Congaree to a National
Park--South Carolina's only National Park--and authorized a boundary
expansion of 4,576 acres. Two tracts--the 1,840-acre Riverstone tract
and the 2,395-acre Bates Fork tract--comprise almost 93 percent of the
authorized boundary expansion.
Congaree National Park--on the floodplains of the Congaree and
Wateree rivers--is recognized as an International Biosphere Reserve, a
National Natural Landmark, a Wilderness Area, and an Important Bird
Area. Currently, it is being nominated for recognition as a Wetland of
International Importance. All waters within the park's pre-2003
boundary are designated Outstanding Resource Waters, and much of Cedar
Creek within the park is designated Outstanding National Resource
Waters. Congaree River Blue Trail, bordering the park for more than 25
miles, is a National Recreation Trail.
With more than 75 species of trees, Congaree harbors the Nation's
largest tract of old-growth bottomland hardwood forest. Trees in this
floodplain forest are some of the tallest in the Eastern United States,
and form one of the tallest temperate deciduous forest canopies in the
world.
More than 195 species of birds have been observed within the park.
If the Ivory-billed Woodpecker has survived in the United States,
Congaree National Park is considered prime habitat for recovery of this
species.
Congaree National Park also offers excellent opportunities for
recreation. A 2.5-mile boardwalk loop provides easy access into
Congaree's forest, and more than 20 miles of trails are available for
hiking. Visitors enjoy canoeing and kayaking on Cedar Creek. Outdoors
enthusiasts can also enjoy fishing, camping, birding, and picnicking.
As mentioned above, the 1,840-acre Riverstone tract and the 2,395-
acre Bates Fork tract comprise almost 93 percent of the park boundary
expansion which Congress authorized in 2003. The NPS purchased the
Bates Fork tract in 2005, using a $6 million appropriation in fiscal
year 2005.
Since then, the NPS has focused on acquiring the 1,840-acre
Riverstone tract. This tract is forested floodplain, with frontage on
the Congaree River. Riverstone acquisition will connect a conservation
corridor of more than 42,000 acres of Federal and State lands along the
Congaree, Wateree, and Santee rivers.
In addition to its biological resources, the Riverstone tract has
significant geological and hydrological resources, including Running
Lake, Running Creek, and an oxbow lake known as Bates Old River--the
remnant of a 4-mile-long former channel of the Congaree River. No other
oxbow lake in the Congaree floodplain can compare to Bates Old River in
size, hydrological dynamics, accessibility, or as a recreational
resource. This oxbow is flanked by the best-defined ridge and swale
topography in the Congaree floodplain.
The Riverstone tract also has significant cultural and historical
resources, including a prehistoric mound constructed by Native
Americans during the Woodland Period (1000 B.C. to A.D. 1000). The
history of McCord's Ferry (established before 1750 as Joyner's Ferry)
is intertwined with the Riverstone tract. Patriot and British forces
used McCord's Ferry during the American Revolution.
Accordingly, acquisition of the Riverstone tract for Congaree
National Park will add opportunities for visitor access, education,
recreation, wildlife and habitat protection, and research.
Richland County Council unanimously adopted a resolution in 2007,
endorsing Federal funding to purchase the Riverstone property for
Congaree National Park. The resolution identifies Congaree National
Park as an attraction in the Lower Richland Heritage Corridor--to
promote heritage tourism in the region.
Recognizing the Riverstone tract as a key priority for acquisition,
the NPS identified $500,000 in existing funds in 2008 to purchase
156.25 acres. A $2.69 million appropriation by Congress in fiscal year
2009 enabled the NPS to purchase 837.75 acres. The $1.32 million
appropriation in fiscal year 2010 enabled the NPS to purchase 412.5
acres in March 2010.
Because of its configuration, most of the Riverstone property is
inaccessible to park visitors until the entire tract is acquired. A
fiscal year 2011 appropriation of $1.4 million--requested by President
Obama--will enable the NPS to promptly purchase the final 434 acres,
thereby completing acquisition of the 1,840-acre Riverstone tract at
Congaree National Park.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for your previous support of Congaree
National Park and for your consideration of President Obama's fiscal
year 2011 request for $1.4 million.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of the Columbia Gorge
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written public testimony in
support of the Forest Service land acquisition program in the Columbia
River Gorge National Scenic Area. Friends of the Columbia Gorge is
requesting an appropriation of $1.5 million from the Land Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) to allow the United States Forest Service
(USFS) to purchase land with a high conservation value in the Columbia
River Gorge National Scenic Area. The requested funding will go a long
way to protect a number of identified high-priority properties totaling
more than 400 acres in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.
This project is authorized by the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic
Area Act, Public Law 99-663, section 16(a).
Friends of the Columbia Gorge (Friends) is a nonprofit organization
with approximately 5,000 members who live in the Columbia River Gorge,
the States of Oregon and Washington and across the country. We are
dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the scenic beauty and
natural and cultural heritage of the Columbia River Gorge. Friends
works to promote responsible stewardship of Gorge lands and waters and
encourage public ownership of sensitive areas. Throughout the year,
Friends leads more than 70 hikes and stewardship events that are open
to the public.
Fiscal year 2011 marks the 25th anniversary of the Columbia Gorge
National Scenic Area Act. In honor of the upcoming anniversary, we hope
to secure $1.5 million in Federal LWCF funding for the Forest Service
to purchase and protect landscapes in the Gorge.
Background
The Columbia Gorge, shared and cherished by both Oregon and
Washington, is truly one of America's most stunning natural landscapes.
As the only sea-level passage through the Cascade Mountain range, the
Columbia River Gorge includes five distinct ecosystems. These
ecosystems support more than 800 species of flowering plants, including
16 that are found nowhere else in the world, more than 300 species of
birds and provides critical habitat for threatened fish and wildlife,
such as the western pond turtle, Larch Mountain salamander, western
gray squirrel, steelhead, Chinook, coho, and chum salmon.
The Gorge has been inhabited by humans for at least 11,000 years.
Important cultural resources are found throughout the Gorge, including
a high concentration of Native American rock carvings and paintings,
called petroglyphs and pictographs, in the eastern end of the Gorge.
Several tribes retain treaty rights in the Gorge, including the
preservation of hunting, fishing and gathering rights on the lands
ceded to the United States in their respective treaties. In addition,
the Gorge ranks as the most recognizable natural site along the Lewis &
Clark trail.
In 1986 Congress and the states of Oregon and Washington recognized
the outstanding scenic beauty and natural and cultural heritage of the
Gorge by designating it as a National Scenic Area. The Columbia River
Gorge National Scenic Area Act (Act) was passed ``to protect and
provide for the enhancement of the scenic, cultural, recreational, and
natural resources of the Columbia River Gorge'' and to encourage
economic growth in nearby urban areas.
Last year, Congress recognized the unique geologic resources in the
Gorge when they established the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail
as part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.
Forest Service Land Acquisition
Although The Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area enjoys national
protection, preservation of its outstanding natural and scenic
resources requires proactive management. Section 9(a) of the act,
created a unique regulatory plan, which allowed conservation in
partnership with private landowners. The act recognized that some
landowners would prefer to sell their property rather than fall under
Scenic Area regulations. The desire to conserve key properties and to
provide regulatory relief to landowners led Congress to create a
special land acquisition program with the Forest Service.
When the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area was enacted in
1986, large portions of the designated Scenic Area were held in private
ownership. As properties become available from willing sellers, the
Forest Service is working to piece together properties in priority
areas to protect and enhance resources. Since 2001, over 4,000 acres of
``high-priority'' private land worth an estimated $35 million have been
offered for sale to the Forest Service, yet Congress has only
appropriated $17.5 million to date.
Fiscal Year 2011 Request
In 2011, the Forest Service has the opportunity to purchase over
300 acres in the Major Creek Drainage, a vitally important wildlife
corridor between the Columbia River and the uplands above the Gorge
walls in Washington. It is a wild, undeveloped area of steep canyons,
old growth trees, creeks and springs, and an abundance of wildlife.
Acquisition of this parcel will conserve open space, sustain a healthy
watershed, and link with other National Forest System land.
Funding would also allow the Forest Service complete a key segment
of the stunning Cape Horn Trail. The USFS has now purchased more than
1,000 acres in the Cape Horn area to create a world-class loop trail
with stunning views of the Gorge. This purchase would complete an
essential component of the trail by creating a public trailhead
adjacent to the newly built Skamania County Park and Ride.
The five properties targeted to be acquired in 2011 will: secure a
wildlife corridor, conserve open space, sustain a healthy watershed,
and link National Forest Systems, consolidate an 80 acres in holding,
add management access to the Major Creek bed which is home to
threatened steelhead, and allow termination of a trail easement held by
Columbia Land Trust which will give the Forest Service control over
trail management and use of the surrounding area.
The benefit of the Forest Service land acquisition program extends
to all counties in the Gorge by providing the following:
Economic Benefit.--This project will create more public trails and
recreation opportunities in the Columbia River Gorge and thereby
attract more visitors and tourist dollars to nearby communities.
Increasingly, recreation is becoming a more important pillar of the
Gorge economy. This project is supported by the Skamania County
Commission specifically for its potential to generate revenue from
outdoor recreation.
Expands Recreation.--Public land acquired by the Forest Service
will allow for more official trails and increase opportunities for
outdoor recreation.
Protects Scenic Beauty.--In the National Scenic Area Act, Congress
recognized the Columbia River Gorge as one of the nation's most
spectacular natural treasures. The USFS acquisitions have succeeded in
protecting the beauty of the Gorge.
Protects Habitat.--Habitat destruction is a main factor threatening
the native flora and fauna of the Gorge. This project expands
recreation, protects habitat and scenic landscapes, and bolsters the
emerging recreation-based economies in the Columbia River Gorge.
This project is supported by Columbia River Gorge Commission, Hood
River County Commission, Wasco County Commission, Skamania County
Commission, Trust for Public Land, Columbia Riverkeeper, Hood River
Valley Residents Committee, Columbia Gorge Ecology Institute and
Friends of Clark County.
Conclusion
Columbia Gorge Land Acquisition is funded in the President's fiscal
year 2011 budget at a level of $850,000; however an additional $650,000
is needed to allow the Forest Service to purchase all of the available
land.
Please consider our request of $1.5 million to honor the 25th
anniversary of the National Scenic Area Act and to ensure that the
Gorge remains a place apart for future generations to enjoy. Thank you
for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of the Forest
Service land acquisition program in the Columbia River Gorge National
Scenic Area.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I appreciate the
opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of an important land
acquisition funding need at Virgin Islands National Park. An
appropriation of $4.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) is requested in fiscal year 2011 to complete the acquisition of
the unique Maho Bay property by the National Park Service. We are very
pleased that your subcommittee has already provided a total of $4.5
million to this project in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010.
Additionally we are very pleased this project was included in the
President's budget in fiscal year 2011. However, we respectfully urge
the subcommittee to include the full $4.5 million needed to complete
the project, rather than the $3.75 million President's budget level.
I represent the Friends of VI National Park, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization, dedicated to the protection and preservation of the
natural and cultural resources of Virgin Islands National Park and to
promoting the responsible enjoyment of this national treasure. We have
more than 3,000 members--20 percent of whom live in the Virgin Islands
and the balance represent every State in the Union.
We carry on the rich tradition of using private philanthropy for
the betterment of this park as well as mobilize volunteers and
community participation. In our 20 years of work in support of Virgin
Islands National Park we have been involved in many initiatives,
projects, and activities that help this park be a model of natural
resource protection and cultural preservation--but none have been as
important as our work in support of the acquisition of Estate Maho Bay
and its incorporation within the park.
We have played the important role of informing and motivating the
community about the issues related to the preservation of Estate Maho
Bay. But motivation was hardly needed; the preservation of Estate Maho
Bay and ensuring unimpeded access to this spectacular area enjoys near
unanimous support among native St. Johnians, residents who have moved
here from mainland United States and visitors alike--no easy feat for a
community that prides itself in its diversity of opinions.
Virgin Islands National Park, located on the island of St. John, is
a tropical paradise preserved for the enjoyment and edification of the
public. Beautiful white sand beaches, protected bays of crystal blue-
green waters, coral reefs rich in colorful aquatic life, and an on-
shore environment filled with a breathtaking variety of plants and
birds make St. John a magical place. More than 800 species of trees,
shrubs, and flowers are found in the park, and more than 30 species of
tropical birds breed on the island, which was designated an
international Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations in 1976. St. John
is also home to two species of endangered sea turtles, the hawksbill
and the green. In addition, the park contains archeological sites
indicating settlement as early as 770 B.C. The later colonial history
of St. John is also represented by remnants of the plantations and
sugar mills established by the Danes in the 18th and 19th centuries.
One of St. John's most popular eco-campgrounds sits on a cliff
overlooking Maho Bay and its pristine white sand beaches. The bay's
campgrounds create memorable vacations in the beautiful setting of St.
John without sacrificing the delicate ecosystem of the island. Few
places on earth match the breathtaking beauty of Maho Bay. A lush
forested slope rising nearly 1,000 feet rims its crystal waters and
soft white beaches. Hundreds of tropical plant species and more than 50
species of tropical birds fill these lands on the island of St. John,
at the heart of the American paradise of Virgin Islands National Park.
Just offshore are seagrass beds, green turtles, and magnificent coral
reefs. This fragile area contains large nesting colonies of brown
pelicans, as well as the migratory warblers and terns that winter on
St. John. In addition to its natural treasures, the largest
concentration of historic plantations and ruins on the island is found
within this area.
Available within the Virgin Islands National Park boundaries in
fiscal year 2011 is the third phase of a 207-acre acquisition at Maho
Bay. This Maho Bay property offers spectacular views of the bay and
includes some beachfront. It is extremely important because of their
relationship to the whole undeveloped area and its cultural resources.
Though the park boundaries cover a broad area of St. John, the
National Park Service actually owns two separated blocks of land. A
smaller block covers the northeastern shore of the island, and a
larger, more contiguous block extends from the southern to northwestern
side. The acquisition of the Maho Bay property would be the first link
of these two blocks, ensuring future access, resource connectivity, and
seaside protection.
Wetlands in the lower portion of the watershed provide adequate
sediment retention for the undeveloped nature of this area. As a result
of long-term geological processes, the topography created by these
processes and the historical rise of sea level during the past 5,000
years, a large, rare and complicated freshwater dominated wetland
developed throughout the basin. It represents a natural stage wetland
typical of large watersheds with relatively flat basin topography. The
Maho Bay wetland is the largest of this type on St. John and along with
the Magens Bay wetland on St. Thomas, one of only a few of this type in
the Territory. These wetlands provide habitat to numerous species of
shorebirds, water fowl and other wildlife, several listed as endangered
under the V.I. Endangered and Indigenous Species Act. Others are
protected under various Federal laws and treaties.
The land was historically used during the plantation era for
agricultural activities such as sugar cane, coconut, and cotton
cultivation. The lands include portions of several historic plantation
era sugar estates. The Maho Bay area contains the highest density of
plantation era estates on St. John. Preservation of these sites is
important in reconstructing the history and heritage of St. John. With
increasing growth and investment throughout the Caribbean--including
places not far from the unspoiled beauty of St. John--this vulnerable
land has been the focus of intense development threats. In recent
years, more than one investor envisioned private development along
these shores, which would have jeopardized the unique character of Maho
Bay. Once this land is acquired by the park, future visitors will be
treated to spectacular views of Maho Bay and some of the most
accessible and scenic shoreline and waters on St. John.
The total estimated fair market value of the 207 acres is $18.6
million. This property is being made available to the National Park
Service for a total of $9 million over 2 years, with the balance to be
provided through private donations of cash and land value. As $2.25
million was provided in fiscal year 2009 and another $2.25 million in
fiscal year 2010, this year, an appropriation of $4.5 million is needed
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund toward the purchase of the
remaining 131 acres of these valuable lands.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to
climate change. For all these reasons, the President has included
meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and
I support the administration's commitment to fully funding the program
in the near future. Recognizing the many demands this committee faces,
I also want to thank the committee for its recent effort to restore
much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise investment in
the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to the American
people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
Madam Chairwoman and distinguished subcommittee members, I want to
thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this important
national protection effort in Virgin Islands National Park. On behalf
of the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park and the over one million
visitors to the Park each year, I appreciate your consideration of this
funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Wallkill River National Wildlife
Refuge
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of
acquiring land at Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge in New
Jersey. An appropriation of $1.75 million is needed in fiscal year 2011
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in order for the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to acquire the 156-acre Kenely
property.
The environment and wildlife are enduring catastrophic conditions
as a result of human failures. The BP oil gusher and the White Nose Bat
Syndrome are two man-made catastrophes that are being addressed by the
FWS. When FWS staff have to concentrate their time on these
emergencies, other work falls by the wayside. The FWS needs increases,
not reductions in maintenance and operation funds to manage these
disasters. We are looking at the likely extinction of at least 9
species of cave dwelling bats within a few years, time cannot be
wasted, the bats will be gone forever, if WNS is not addressed now.
The Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1990
to preserve and enhance wildlife habitat in one of the most fertile
valleys and natural areas in all of New Jersey. Located within a 1-hour
drive of New York City, the Wallkill River valley is a resource-rich
part of the New Jersey-New York Highlands area. The extent of its
forested wetlands and undisturbed grasslands makes the Wallkill River
one of the largest high-quality inland waterfowl habitats in the mid-
Atlantic region. The refuge provides critical habitat for migratory
waterfowl on both the Atlantic Flyway and the Hudson-Delaware corridor
and is a major black duck focus area of the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan. Large populations of nesting black ducks, wood ducks,
blue- and green-winged teal, mergansers, mallards, and pintail frequent
the refuge's wetland areas. In addition, the Wallkill River and its
tributaries are home to 19 State-listed threatened and endangered
species.
Wallkill's many forested wetlands, also known as swamps and bogs,
are highly productive and dynamic ecosystems, containing a diverse
array of habitat types. They support high numbers of species by
providing vital breeding, feeding, and resting grounds for waterfowl
and other animal and plant species. Forested wetlands also filter
nutrients, wastes, and sediments from the water flowing within them,
improving water quality while also providing flood control by
stabilizing sediments with their root systems and absorbing excess
water. Within the past 200 years, the State of New Jersey has lost an
estimated 40 percent of its forested wetlands. The Wallkill River NWR
has focused its land acquisition program on protection of the river and
its major tributaries through consolidation of significant forested
wetland, wetland, and associated upland properties. A recently approved
land protection plan expands the refuge boundary to provide greater
habitat protection for the federally listed endangered bog turtle.
Available for acquisition within this new refuge focus area in
fiscal year 2011 is the 165-acre Kenely tract. This highly developable
tract, which abuts refuge-protected lands, encompasses a diversity of
habitats including mixed open fields, woodlands, wetlands, and
brushlands. It is highly threatened by development because it has
significant frontage along Route 284, which now forms the western
boundary of the refuge. Along with its diversity of habitat types, the
property's varied topography of high-gradient hills and deep valleys
support a large number and variety of wildlife species. The emergent
wetlands of the property support a number of reptile and amphibian
species such as spotted turtles. The open fields support breeding of
State-listed species such as Savannah and grasshopper sparrows and
bobolink. This type of habitat is also vital for numerous raptor
species during the winter months such as short-eared owls and northern
harriers.
An allocation of $1.75 million from the LWCF to the Wallkill River
NWR in fiscal year 2011 will ensure the protection of these key 156
acres as part of the refuge's effort to consolidate refuge ownership,
conserve important habitat within the refuge's expansion area, increase
recreational opportunities, and maintain the water quality in the
Highlands region of New Jersey.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to
climate change. For all these reasons, the President has included
meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and
I support the administration's commitment to fully funding the program
in the near future. Recognizing the many demands this subcommittee
faces, I also want to thank the subcommittee for its recent effort to
restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise
investment in the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to
the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in New Jersey, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
Refuges, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of Friends
of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges, Inc. (FTBR) and its 130
members, I want to thank you for your leadership and strong support for
the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and increased funding over
the past few years. I further thank you for the opportunity to offer
comments on the fiscal year 2011 Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill. Specifically, we respectfully request
that the subcommittee support the following:
--An overall funding level of $578 million in fiscal year 2011 for
the operations and maintenance (O&M) budget of the NWRS,
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
--An allocation of $900 million in the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) budget fiscal year 2011 to protect vital habitat
for wildlife and establish key wildlife corridors and
connections. We ask that this includes $300 million for the
NWRS; and
--Funding for the Department of the Interior's Challenge-Cost Share
Program to leverage funding through strategic partnerships to
obtain greater conservation objectives than would be achieved
by the Federal government on its own.
FTBR is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. We are a group of members
and volunteers who support Egmont Key, Passage Key and the Pinellas
National Wildlife Refuges in the Tampa Bay area of Florida.
Contributing thousands of hours of support each year, we help remove
invasive plants, provide support to critical bird nesting sites through
``bird steward'' public outreach each weekend during nesting season,
provide general maintenance of equipment and buildings on the refuges,
and organize island cleanups to ensure wildlife is safe from debris
like monofilament line and plastic bags. We work closely with our FWS
refuge manager to help meet objectives as outlined in each refuge's
Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) has
determined that the NWRS needs $900 million annually to protect and
care for the more than 550 wildlife refuges and monuments and thousands
of prairie wetlands totaling approximately 150 million acres. These
lands and waters provide essential habitat for migratory birds and
other wildlife, safe havens for endangered species, and $1.7 billion
annually to local economies in compatible recreational opportunities
for more than 41 million visitors each year. Our request for $578
million in O&M for fiscal year 2011 represents a $75 million increase
more than fiscal year 2010 and builds on the increases in the past 3
years that have allowed the NWRS to rebound from the dramatic 20
percent staff reductions in the years prior to this. Although some
positions have been refilled, 10 percent of the workforce has been
eliminated. The NWRS needs at least a $15 million increase each year to
prevent reductions in programs and public use. There is still an
operations backlog of $1 billion and a maintenance backlog of $2.7
billion. We respectfully urge the Congress to incrementally increase
funding to restore the NWRS by carefully considering our request for
$578 million in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
While providing adequate funding to operate and maintain the NWRS
is of vital importance, most refuges are too small in size to achieve
their conservation mission and objectives alone. Their integrity
depends on the health of surrounding State, Federal, and private lands
and waters. Consequently, there is a growing need to provide funding to
ensure that lands and waters beyond refuge boundaries are conserved.
FTBR encourages the subcommittee to allocate the full $900 million
funding to assess and purchase high-priority lands and conservation
easements through the LWCF. The NWRS is mandated to be strategically
grown, but years of inadequate funding for land acquisition has
resulted in the loss of many important habitats. More than 8 million
acres are unprotected within existing refuge boundaries and there is an
increasing need to establish key wildlife corridors and connections
between protected areas. The Obama administration has made full funding
for LWCF by fiscal year 14 a top priority and we request Congress to
make this a priority also. We urge the subcommittee to allocate the
full $900 million funding in fiscal year 2011 to allow the NWRS to
acquire lands and easements while they are available and affordable.
In conclusion, FTBR believes the NWRS can meet its important
conservation objectives only with strong and consistent funding
leveraged by the valuable work of refuge staff and volunteers. We
extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing commitment
to our NWRS and encourage you to approve $578 million for the fiscal
year 2011 NWRS O&M budget managed by FWS and to approve $900 millions
for fiscal year 2011 for the LWCF land acquisition budget as well as
funding the Department of the Interior's Challenge-Cost Share Program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of
acquiring land at Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in
Georgia. An appropriation of $3.6 million is needed in fiscal year 2011
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)in order for the
National Park Service (NPS) to acquire two properties totaling 36.5
acres. In a demonstration of the importance of this acquisition, the
$3.62 million needed was included in the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2011.
Flowing in a southwesterly direction from the Appalachian Mountains
in northeastern Georgia, the Chattahoochee River is a significant
recreational and ecological corridor in the Atlanta metropolitan area.
Between Atlanta and Chattanooga a series of mountain ridges separated
by river valleys cross the landscape. The Chattahoochee River valley is
the southernmost in this chain. The river's length and breadth provides
an excellent corridor for river recreation and open space for wildlife
habitat. With substantial headwaters in the forested mountains of
northern Georgia--largely within the Chattahoochee National Forest--the
protection of the river's water quality for drinking water and
recreation is an important regional and national objective.
The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area provides much
needed recreational opportunities for Georgians and visitors in the
Atlanta metropolitan area. The park was created in 1978 to protect the
watershed, provide opportunities for river and land recreation, and
conserve important tracts in the river's floodplain. The park's current
boundaries extend along the river for nearly 50 miles from Buford Dam
at Lake Sidney Lanier to the entrance of Peachtree Creek tributary by
Marietta Boulevard in Atlanta. Annually the park averages about 2.75
million visitors; most are from the burgeoning Atlanta metropolitan
area. In recent years, the population in the State of Georgia has grown
rapidly to 9.5 million residents and more than half of these residents
live in the Atlanta area. The population growth has placed tremendous
pressure on lands important to the region's water quality, recreation,
and historical and agricultural heritage.
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2011 are two properties
totaling 36.5 acres at the northern end of the national recreation area
near Lake Lanier. The Manning and Friedman inholdings are located
directly on the western bank of the Chattahoochee River just north of
the Georgia Route 20 bridge in Forsyth County. The tracts would be
added to the Bowman's Island Unit of the park. The unit is noted for
its hiking and horseback riding trails, and also features river access
for canoes, kayaks, and rafts just below Buford Dam.
The acquisition of the Manning and Friedman properties will enable
the NPS to protect this important riverfront land and water resources
and expand recreational opportunities at the Bowman's Island Unit.
Between Buford Dam and Route 20, NPS already owns a significant amount
of land on the eastern bank and several tracts north of Buford Hatchery
including Bowman's Island. If the Manning and Friedman properties are
acquired, NPS would own land on both sides of the river. For many years
the park has sought to construct a 5-mile loop trail at the Bowman's
Island Unit that would proceed along both banks of the river between
Buford Dam and Route 20. The acquisition of these properties, along
with a planned improvement of pedestrian and bicycle use of the Route
20 bridge, would greatly enhance this objective.
My particular interest lies in the fact that the subject parcels
are immediately adjacent to the Buford Hatchery, operated by the
Wildlife Resources Division of the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, my agency. The hatchery rears stocks of brown and rainbow
trout for State fishing programs in lakes and streams across Georgia.
The hatchery is open to visitors for fishing, education, bird watching,
and hiking. We believe there is a natural synergy in connecting the
State of Georgia's education and recreational facility with the
envisioned NPS trails and amenity area directly to its south, and
creating a larger conservation and recreation system along the banks of
the Chattahoochee River at this location. We certainly would not want
to ever see these properties degraded or developed.
In 1999 Congress passed Public Law 106-154, in which it stated the
intention to ``increase the level of protection of the open spaces
along the Chattahoochee River.'' The acquisition of the Manning and
Friedman tracts represents one of the ``dwindling opportunities to
protect the scenic, recreational, natural, and historic values'' of the
Chattahoochee River corridor. In fiscal year 2011, an appropriation of
$3.6 million from the LWCF is needed to protect these critical
properties.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to
climate change. For all these reasons, the President has included
meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and
I support the administration's commitment to fully funding the program
in the near future. Recognizing the many demands this subcommittee
faces, I also want to thank the committee for its recent effort to
restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise
investment in the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to
the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Georgia, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission
1. BIA Rights Protection Implementation.--At least $30,451,000
(same as fiscal year 2010 appropriation). GLIFWC: At least $5,619,000
(proportionate allocation within RPI program).
Agency/Program Line Item.--Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Operation of Indian Programs, Trust-Natural Resources
Management, Rights Protection Implementation, Great Lakes Area Resource
Management.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The requested BIA funds reflect GLIFWC's allocation of this
line item that also funds the 1854 Treaty Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Authorizations.--Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 13; Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, (Public Law 93-638),
25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 450f and 450h; and the treaties between the United
States and GLIFWC's member Ojibwe Tribes, specifically Treaty of 1836,
7 Stat. 491, Treaty of 1837, 7 Stat. 536, Treaty of 1842, 7 Stat. 591,
and Treaty of 1854, 10 Stat. 1109.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The rights guaranteed by these treaties, and the associated
tribal regulatory and management responsibilities, have been affirmed
by various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. EPA Great Lakes Restoration.--$475,000,000 (same as fiscal year
2010 appropriation). GLIFWC: $1,200,000 (estimated annual need).
Agency/Program Line Item.--Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Programs and Management, Geographic Programs, Great Lakes
Restoration.
Funding Authorizations.--Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1268(c);
and treaties cited above.
GLIFWC'S Goal--A Secure Funding Base to Fulfill Treaty Purposes
As Congress has recognized for more than 25 years, funding for
GLIFWC's conservation, natural resource protection, and law enforcement
programs honors Federal treaty obligations to 11 Ojibwe Tribes and
provides a wide range of associated public benefits. GLIFWC seeks an
inflation-adjusted secure funding base to: (i) implement Federal court
orders and intergovernmental agreements governing the exercise of
treaty-guaranteed hunting, fishing and gathering rights; and (ii)
participate in management partnerships in Wisconsin, Michigan and
Minnesota.
Elements of GLIFWC's Funding Request
1. BIA Rights Protection Implementation: At least $30,451,000.--In
fiscal year 2010, Congress addressed chronic underfunding of the Rights
Protection Implementation (RPI) program by increasing this line item by
$12 million, a welcome increase but still far less than the tribes'
total RPI needs. From this increase, the administration provided GLIFWC
with a much-needed $1.7 million increase in its fiscal year 2010 RPI
funding to the current level of $5,619,000. Unfortunately, in fiscal
year 2011 GLIFWC could lose at least $450,000--more than 26 percent--of
the fiscal year 2010 $1.7 million increase because of a proposed cut to
its RPI funding, the absorption of fixed costs, and contract support
cost shortfalls.
With the full fiscal year 2010 funding amount and full contract
support costs, GLIFWC would be able to create and sustain jobs that
will protect and enhance natural resources and associated habitats.
Specifically, GLIFWC could: (i) fill at least six staff vacancies, (ii)
restore its long-standing fish contaminant and consumption advisory
program; (iii) reinstitute fall juvenile walleye recruitment surveys at
previous levels; (iv) restore tribal court and registration station
funding; (v) restore Lake Superior lamprey control and whitefish
assessment programs; (vi) restore GLIFWC's share in cooperative
wildlife and wild rice enhancement projects; (vii) replace ageing
equipment; (viii) meet expanding harvest monitoring needs and increased
natural resource assessment responsibilities; and (ix) meet
uncontrollable increases in employee benefit costs.
2. EPA Environmental Programs and Management: $475,000,000.--GLIFWC
supports continued funding for the EPA's Great Lakes Geographic Program
(GLGP) and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) at $475
million, the same as the fiscal year 2010 appropriation. It also
recommends that at least $25 million be provided to the BIA for tribes,
to ensure they are able to undertake projects that contribute to the
protection and restoration of the Great Lakes. Funding provided through
the BIA should be made available under the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act.
In fiscal year 2010, GLIFWC is proposing about $1.2 million in
GLGP/GLRI funding. If funding is sustained at this level, GLIFWC will
be able to create jobs that will allow it to fully participate in the
decisionmaking processes that affect the treaty rights of its member
tribes, ensure that decisions are based upon sound science, and
implement specific habitat and human health research projects relevant
to the subsistence, economic and cultural needs of tribal communities.
One particular priority is to undertake projects that evaluate the
potential impacts of climate change on natural resources important to
GLIFWC member tribes.
Ceded Territory Treaty Rights--GLIFWC's Role and Programs
Established in 1984, GLIFWC is a natural resources management
agency for eleven member Ojibwe Tribes regarding their ceded territory
(off-reservation) hunting, fishing and gathering treaty rights. These
ceded territories extend over a 60,000 square mile area in a three
State region. GLIFWC's mission is to: (i) ensure that its member tribes
are able to exercise their rights for the purposes of meeting
subsistence, economic, cultural, medicinal, and spiritual needs; and
(ii) ensure a healthy, sustainable natural resource base that supports
those rights. GLIFWC is a ``tribal organization'' as defined by the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. It is governed
by a Constitution ratified by its member Tribes and by a Board composed
of the Chairs of those Tribes.
GLIFWC operates a comprehensive ceded territory hunting, fishing,
and gathering rights protection/implementation program through its
staff of biologists, scientists, technicians, conservation enforcement
officers, policy specialists, and public information specialists. Its
activities include: (i) natural resource population assessments and
studies; (ii) harvest monitoring and reporting, (iii) enforcement of
tribal conservation codes in tribal courts; (iv) funding for tribal
courts and tribal registration/permit stations; (v) development of
natural resource management plans and tribal regulations; (vi)
negotiation and implementation of agreements with State, Federal, and
local agencies; (vii) invasive species eradication and control
projects; (viii) biological and scientific research, including fish
contaminant testing; and (ix) development and dissemination of public
information materials.
Justification and Use of the Requested Funds
For more than 25 years, Congress has recognized GLIFWC as a cost-
efficient agency that plays a necessary role in: (i) meeting specific
Federal treaty and statutory obligations toward GLIFWC's member Tribes;
(ii) fulfilling conservation, habitat protection, and law enforcement
functions required by Federal court decisions affirming the Tribes'
treaty rights; (iii) effectively regulating harvests of natural
resources shared among the treaty signatory tribes; and (iv) serving as
an active partner with State, Federal, and local governments, with
educational institutions, and with conservation organizations and other
nonprofit agencies.
Particularly relevant to the requested EPA funds, tribal members
rely upon treaty-protected natural resources for religious, cultural,
medicinal, subsistence, and economic purposes. Their treaty rights mean
little if contamination of these resources threatens their health,
safety, and economy, or if the habitats supporting these resources are
degraded.
With the requested stable funding base, GLIFWC will:
1. Maintain the Requisite Capabilities to Meet Legal Obligations,
to Conserve Natural Resources and to Regulate Treaty Harvests.--
Although it does not meet all GLIFWC's needs, sustained funding at
fiscal year 2010 levels would go a long way in facilitating continued
tribal compliance with various court decrees and intergovernmental
agreements governing the tribes' treaty-reserved hunting, fishing and
gathering rights. It also enhances GLIFWC's capability to undertake
work and participate in relevant partnerships to tackle ecosystem
threats, such as invasive species, habitat degradation and climate
change, that harm treaty natural resources.
2. Remain a Trusted Environmental Management Partner and Scientific
Contributor in the Great Lakes Region.--With the requested EPA funding
base, GLIFWC would maintain its role as a trusted environmental
management partner and scientific contributor in the Great Lakes
Region. It would bring a tribal perspective to the interjurisdictional
mix of Great Lakes managers \3\ 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ GLIFWC currently participates on a regular basis in the
Binational Program to Restore and Protect Lake Superior, International
Joint Commission and SOLEC forums, the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative, and the implementation of agreements to regulate water
diversions and withdrawals under the Great Lakes Charter, Annex 2001.
\4\ With the requested fiscal year 2011 funds, GLIFWC would: (i)
continue a ceded territory wild rice enhancement project; (ii)
facilitate tribal review and input on the re-negotiation of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement and any implementing activities; (iii)
continue to participate in the development and implementation of the
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan; (iv) build upon its long-
standing fish contaminant analysis and consumption advisory program by
testing additional species, testing in a wider geographic range, and
testing for chemicals of emerging concern; and (v) enhance its invasive
species and animal disease prevention, monitoring and mitigation
programs, particularly given the potential impacts of climate change,
the recent discovery of viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) in Lake
Superior and the likely migration of the Asian Carp into the Great
Lakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, in emergency services networks,
and in providing accurate information to the public. Because of its
institutional experience and staff expertise, GLIFWC provides
continuity and stability in interagency relationships and among its
member Tribes, and contributes to social stability in the context of
ceded territory treaty rights issues.
For more than 25 years, 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 and achieve public benefits that no one partner could
accomplish alone.
Other Related Appropriations Concerns
Full Funding of BIA Contract Support Costs.--GLIFWC seeks full
funding of its contract support costs. The administration's fiscal year
2011 proposed increase of $21.5 million for these costs is welcomed,
but even that amount only achieves an estimated 94 percent of need
based on fiscal year 2007 funding levels. GLIFWC anticipates its fiscal
year 2010 indirect cost shortfall to be at least $287,000, and this
does not even take into account the shortfall for all of its direct
contract support costs. These shortfalls significantly inhibit GLIFWC's
ability to restore program cuts and service capacity.
BIA Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland and Waterfowl Initiative.--
GLIFWC supports BIA funding of the Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland &
Waterfowl Enhancement Initiative for Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin. The Circle of Flight program is a long-standing tribal
contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan that has
leveraged matching partnership funding on a 3 to 1 ratio. In 2010, this
program was awarded a Department of the Interior ``Partners in
Conservation'' Award.
______
Prepared Statement of the Green Mountain Club
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: As Director
of Conservation for the Green Mountain Club, the nonprofit organization
that maintains Vermont's Long Trail, the Nation's oldest long-distance
hiking trail, I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in
support of the Northern Green Mountains Linkage project in Vermont. An
appropriation of $5.875 million to the U.S. Forest Service for the
Forest Legacy Program is needed in order to protect an assemblage of
6,516 acres. I am thankful that this project was included in the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2011 at a funding level of
$2.3 million. However, the conservation of the assemblage of properties
can be completed this year with an appropriation of $5.875 million.
The Forest Legacy Program in Vermont seeks to achieve significant
conservation goals for the State by protecting the following types of
land: large contiguous and productive forest blocks, wildlife habitat
dependent on large forested tracts, threatened and endangered species
habitat, State fragile areas, undeveloped shoreline, significant
wetlands, and important recreation corridors.
The State's top Forest Legacy Program priority for fiscal year 2011
is the 6,516-acre Northern Green Mountains Linkage. Situated on the
spine of the Northern Green Mountains in Lamoille, Orleans and Franklin
Counties, the Northern Green Mountains Linkage Forest Legacy Project
will conserve 6,516 acres of managed and productive timberland while
protecting 25 undeveloped ponds, 25 miles of streams, several rare
species and natural communities, and high-quality wildlife habitat.
Using fee and easement acquisitions, the project will link 62,200 acres
of conserved lands, including lands the Green Mountain Club has
protected for the Long Trail, providing connectivity from the Champlain
Valley to the Green Mountains, north to Quebec, and east to the
Worcester Range. This project will address the problem of forest
fragmentation and associated impacts on the timber economy, public
access to recreation, and wildlife habitat connectivity in Vermont's
northern region by permanently protecting critically located
properties.
Vermont's Northern Green Mountains are one of the largest and
wildest forested landscapes remaining in all of New England. The
region, which follows the spine of the Green Mountains north from Mount
Mansfield to the Canadian border, encompasses sweeping tracts of forest
where moose, bobcat, black bear, and a myriad of rare and endangered
songbirds make their home. These mountains and their slopes are
remarkably diverse, containing all the major ecosystem types of the
ecoregion, from boreal forests, temperate mixed hardwoods, and alpine
meadows to floodplain forests and marshes. Additionally, there are
State rare and threatened plant species on the properties, including
cliff fern, rose pogonia, lungwort, and smooth musk flower. This area
is also a magnet for hikers, skiers, backpackers, and other outdoor
enthusiasts, particularly those drawn by a 65-mile portion of the Long
Trail, a footpath running the length of Vermont which the Green
Mountain Club built and has maintained for the past 100 years. Also
snaking through the region is the increasingly popular Catamount Trail,
a cross-country ski trail traversing the State.
The Northern Green Mountains have long been recognized as a top
conservation priority by many of the region's small towns, such as
Enosburg, Jay, and Hyde Park, which are now mobilizing to conserve the
places that define and sustain their communities. Two Countries One
Forest (2C1Forest), a Canadian-American coalition of 50 conservation
organizations, public agencies, and researchers, sponsored scientific
research to identify important wildlife corridors in the Northern
Appalachian-Acadian ecoregion. In 2007, 2C1Forest chose the Northern
Green Mountains-to-Sutton Mountains linkage as one of their top five
conservation priorities. The area has also been identified as
significant in the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife's soon-to-
be-completed statewide assessment and ranking of large forested blocks
and associated linkage habitats. The Northern Green Mountains are a
crucial place for regional landscape connectivity because they help tie
together the Adirondacks of New York, the central Appalachians of
Massachusetts, and points south to the Northern Appalachians of Maine
and Canada. In so doing they serve as an important north-south corridor
for wildlife and, because of their large range in elevation, provide
species with flexibility in their movement. This is an important factor
in adaptation strategies aimed at averting species extinctions due to
climate change.
The vast majority of the land in the Northern Greens remains in
private hands, with thousands of acres available on the open market.
Threats from an expanding second-home industry (even in today's
uncertain economy), road construction, and changing forestry and
farming practices put key blocks of forestland at risk and create
barriers to wildlife movement. Such changes also threaten the vibrant
rural culture and economy of the Northern Greens, with its mix of small
farms, forestry, and recreation. A recent explosion of development
pressure in the Northern Green Mountains resulting from expanding ski
resorts and the area's proximity to greater Burlington and other
population centers, has made this a ``now or never'' moment to conserve
key landscapes in this important habitat and recreational area.
According to census data, growth rates in Lamoille, Orleans, and
Franklin counties are more than double the growth rate in Vermont as a
whole. In Vermont, only 21 percent of the Northern Green Mountains is
protected from development, compared to 45 percent of the central and
southern Green Mountains.
In fiscal year 2011, an appropriation of $5.875 million from the
Forest Legacy Program is needed to ensure the protection of critical
forest resources in northern Vermont. This Federal funding will be
matched by $1.98 million of non-Federal contributions and allocated to
19 separate land transactions for the acquisition of full fee and
partial interests through conservation easement. One of the tracts
which will be conserved that the Green Mountain Club is particularly
interested in is Canada View, 1,022 acres of forestland in Jay. A 1.6
mile section of the Long Trail, one of Vermont's premier recreational
resources, is located adjacent to Canada View, in some places within
100 to 500 feet of the parcel's boundary. The northern terminus of the
Long Trail at the Canadian border, a starting or finish point for end-
to-end hikers of the trail, is located beside Canada View.
Please do all that you can to ensure that this worthwhile program
is funded adequately in fiscal year 2011 and that the Northern Green
Mountains Linkage project receives $5.875 million in fiscal year 2011.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Vermont, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America
Summary
The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges Congress to
appropriate at least $1.3 billion for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
in fiscal year 2011. The USGS is one of the Nation's premier science
agencies. It addresses many of society's greatest challenges, including
energy resources, climate change, water resources, and natural hazards.
The devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 12, 2010 and the
eruption of Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland that began on April 14,
2010 emphatically demonstrate the value of robust natural hazards
monitoring and warning systems and the need for increased Federal
investments in the USGS. Nevertheless, funding for USGS has stagnated
in real dollars for more than a decade (see Figure 1).
Figure 1.--USGS funding in constant 2011 dollars, fiscal year 1996-
fiscal year 2011. EI is Enterprise Information and GC is Global Change.
Data from USGS Budget Office.
The Geological Society of America supports strong and growing
investments in earth science research at USGS and other Federal
agencies. Substantial increases in Federal funding for earth science
research are needed to ensure the health, vitality, and security of
society and for stewardship of Earth. The USGS has a unique combination
of biological, geographical, geological, and hydrological programs that
enables it to address interdisciplinary research challenges that are
beyond the capabilities of most other organizations. The USGS benefits
every American every day.
The Geological Society of America, founded in 1888, is a scientific
society with more than 22,000 members from academia, Government, and
industry in all 50 States and more than 90 countries. Through its
meetings, publications, and programs, GSA enhances the professional
growth of its members and promotes the geosciences in the service of
humankind. GSA encourages cooperative research among earth, life,
planetary, and social scientists, fosters public dialogue on geoscience
issues, and supports all levels of earth science education.
Rationale
Science and technology are engines of economic prosperity,
environmental quality, and national security. Federal investments in
research pay substantial dividends. According to the National
Academies' report Rising Above the Gathering Storm (2007), ``Economic
studies conducted even before the information-technology revolution
have shown that as much as 85 percent of measured growth in U.S. income
per capita was due to technological change.''
The earth sciences are critical components of the overall science
and technology enterprise. Growing investments in earth science
research are required to stimulate innovations that fuel the economy,
provide security, and enhance the quality of life. Substantial
increases in Federal funding for earth science research are needed to
ensure the health, vitality, and security of society and for Earth
stewardship. Earth science research provides knowledge and data
essential for developing policies, legislation, and regulations
regarding land, mineral, energy, and water resources at all levels of
government.
Broader Impacts of the Earth Sciences
It is critically important for Congress to provide significant
increases in funding for the USGS to meet challenges posed by human
interactions with Earth's natural systems and to help sustain these
natural systems and the economy. Additional investments in the USGS are
necessary to address such issues as natural hazards, energy, water
resources, and climate change.
--Natural hazards, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions,
floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes, remain a major
cause of fatalities and economic losses world-wide. An improved
scientific understanding of geologic hazards will reduce future
losses through better forecasts of their occurrence and
magnitude. The devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 12,
2010 and the eruption of Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland on
April 14, 2010 emphatically demonstrate the value of robust
natural hazards monitoring and warning systems and the need for
increased Federal investments in the USGS.
--Energy and mineral resources are critical to the functioning of
society and to national security and have positive impacts on
local, national, and international economies and quality of
life. These resources are often costly and difficult to find,
and new generations of geoscientists need the tools and
expertise to discover them. In addition, management of their
extraction, use, and residue disposal requires a scientific
approach that will maximize the derived benefits and minimize
the negative effects. Improved scientific understanding of
these resources will allow for their better management and
utilization, while at the same time considering economic and
environmental issues. This is particularly significant because
shifting resource demands often reframe our knowledge as new
research-enabling technologies become available.
--The availability and quality of surface water and groundwater are
vital to the well being of both society and ecosystems. Greater
scientific understanding of these critical resources-and
communication of new insights by geoscientists in formats
useful to decision makers---is necessary to ensure adequate and
safe water resources for the future.
--Forecasting the outcomes of human interactions with Earth's natural
systems, including climate change, is limited by an incomplete
understanding of geologic and environmental processes. Improved
understanding of these processes in Earth's history can
increase confidence in the ability to predict future states and
enhance the prospects for mitigating or reversing adverse
impacts to the planet and its inhabitants.
--Research in earth science is also fundamental to training and
educating the next generation of earth science professionals.
USGS should be a component of broader initiatives to increase
overall public investments in science and technology. For example,
earth science research should be included in a recommendation by the
National Academies to ``increase the Federal investment in long-term
basic research by 10 percent each year over the next 7 years.'' (Rising
Above the Gathering Storm, 2007). Likewise, when Congress reauthorizes
the America COMPETES Act, it should broaden the act to include a new
title that puts the USGS budget on the same doubling track as other key
science agencies.
Budget Shortfalls
President Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget request for USGS is
$1.133 billion, an increase of $21.6 million of 1.9 percent more than
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The USGS budget request includes
$52 million in program increases, $18.6 million in program decreases,
and $11.7 million in additional decreases made on a Department of the
Interior-wide basis. The budget request also assumes that the USGS will
absorb $13.5 million in uncontrollable cost increases. Underfunding of
uncontrollable cost increases over many years has compromised the
scientific capacity of the USGS. We urge Congress to restore proposed
cuts in the USGS budget request, to provide full funding for
uncontrollable cost increases, to provide new funds to enable the
agency to address a growing backlog of needs for USGS science and
information and undertake new initiatives. Congress should support
proposed USGS budget increases for initiatives including the New Energy
Frontier, Climate Change Adaptation, WaterSMART Program, Treasured
Landscapes (Chesapeake Bay Executive Order), Increasing Resilience to
Natural Hazards, Landsat Data Continuity Mission, and Coastal and
Marine Spatial Planning.
The USGS budget fell in real dollars for 7 consecutive years from
fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2008 (see Figure 1). Despite budget
increases in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010, the USGS budget
request for fiscal year 2011 remains below the USGS budget for fiscal
year 2001 in real dollars. The decline in funding for the USGS during
this time period would have been greater if Congress had not repeatedly
restored proposed budget cuts. Federal funding for non-defense R&D has
increased significantly while funding for the USGS stagnated for more
than a decade.
The Geological Society of America joins with the USGS Coalition and
other organizations in recommending an appropriation of $1.3 billion
for the USGS in fiscal year 2011. This budget would enable the USGS to
address the growing backlog of science needs that has resulted from
stagnant real budgets for more than a decade, accelerate the timetable
for deployment of critical projects, and launch science initiatives
that address new challenges.
The Geological Society of America is grateful to the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Activities for its past leadership in increasing the budget for USGS.
We remain grateful to the subcommittee for its leadership in providing
$143 million in stimulus funds for the USGS under the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Thank you for your thoughtful
consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: On behalf
of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, I appreciate the opportunity to
present this testimony in support of acquiring land in the Shoshone
National Forest in Wyoming. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition is a
conservation organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) and the unique quality of life it
sustains, now and in the future. Central to the Greater Yellowstone
Coalition's mission is the integrity of Yellowstone and Grand Teton
National Parks, which form the core of the GYE. The GYE is the most
intact landscape in the lower 48 States and is internationally
renowned. Formed in 1983, The Greater Yellowstone Coalition has 18,000
members and activists who regularly use and enjoy the Yellowstone area,
including Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.
An appropriation of $2.5 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in order for the Forest
Service (USFS) to acquire the 118-acre Russell Creek Winter Range
inholding. In a demonstration of the importance of this acquisition,
the $2.5 million amount was included in the President's budget request
for fiscal year 2011.
Roughly the same size as West Virginia, the GYE encompasses
approximately 18 million acres in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. The GYE
includes Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, portions of seven
different national forests, and three national wildlife refuges. The
headwaters of the Yellowstone, Missouri, Snake, and Green rivers are
found in its mountains. Its varied topography consists of arid high
plains, verdant river valleys, high-elevation plateaus, and spectacular
mountain ranges, as well as the most diverse and intact collection of
geysers and hot springs in the world. Additionally, the GYE is one of
the largest, relatively intact temperate zone ecosystems remaining in
the world.
Remarkably diverse, the GYE provides some of the best wildlife
habitat in the country, including home for one of the last viable
grizzly bear populations in the lower 48 States. It hosts the largest
elk and free-roaming bison herds in North America, and provides the
only U.S. wintering ground for the rare trumpeter swan. Wolverines,
lynx, fishers, and martens still roam the GYE's mountains, as do
bighorn sheep, black bears, and mountain goats. Other flourishing
species include pronghorn antelope, wolves, moose, mountain lions, mule
deer, beavers, coyotes, osprey, bald eagles, and peregrine falcons. The
GYE hosts a total of 316 bird, 94 mammal, 24 reptile and amphibian, and
more than 1,700 vascular plant species. The rich, biological diversity
of the GYE is truly exceptional--nowhere else in the lower 48 States
can you find a large and relatively intact ecosystem containing nearly
all the living organisms present in pre-Columbian times.
In addition to its impressive wildlife values, the GYE offers some
of the best recreational opportunities in North America. Its fisheries
are world-renowned and attract fly fishermen from all over the globe.
Big game hunting opportunities are abundant. In addition to these
sporting opportunities, the GYE offers a wide range of backcountry
recreational opportunities including skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling,
hiking, camping, whitewater rafting, horseback riding, and wildlife
viewing.
Available for acquisition within the GYE in fiscal year 2011 is the
118-acre Russell Creek Winter Range property in the Shoshone National
Forest in Park County, Wyoming. The tract lies about 1.5 miles off of
Wyoming Route 296 in between Cody and Cooke City and the eastern and
northeastern entrances to Yellowstone National Park. Bounded by Forest
Service land on three sides, the tract is near Windy Mountain and is
adjacent to Dead Indian Pass, where Route 296 drops dramatically into
the valley of the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River, a national wild
and scenic river.
With outstanding scenery, threatened and endangered species
habitat, and riparian resources, the property is the priority
acquisition for the forest and included in the region's GYE program for
fiscal year 2011. The property contains prime riparian habitat and
important wetlands along one-half mile of Russell Creek. Gray wolves
inhabit the area, and the inholding is located within the Yellowstone
Recovery Zone for grizzly bears--a federally listed threatened species.
Furthermore, the tract is within a crucial rearing area for elk and
crucial winter range for elk, mule deer, and bighorn sheep.
Additionally, the parcel contains habitat for sensitive plant species:
shoshonea, Hall's fescue, North Fork Easter daisy, and Absaroka
goldenweed.
The tract is accessible via a private road, offering significant
opportunities and access for the public to hunt, hike, and camp if the
property is acquired--and a significant second-home subdivision and
development risk if it is not. Subdivision into several smaller parcels
is fully authorized under existing county land-use regulations. In
addition to precluding this threat, acquisition also will allow the
USFS to improve fire management, control invasive plant species, and
resolve obstacles to the free movement of grizzlies and other large
game and nongame wildlife.
An appropriation of $2.5 million is needed from the LWCF to secure
these abundant resources, to preserve the important wildlife habitat
along Russell Creek, and prevent development in a scenic section of the
Shoshone National Forest.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to
climate change. For all these reasons, the President has included
meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and
I support the administration's commitment to fully funding the program
in the near future. Recognizing the many demands this subcommittee
faces, I also want to thank the subcommittee for its recent effort to
restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise
investment in the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to
the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Wyoming, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Healing Our Waters--Great Lakes Coalition
Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander. It is an honor to provide
this written testimony regarding one of our Nation's most prized
natural and economic resources--the Great Lakes.
The Healing Our Waters--Great Lakes Coalition asks the subcommittee
to support $475 million for the popular and effective Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative in fiscal year 2011. We appreciate the strong
support the subcommittee provided last year and ask you to provide the
same funding in fiscal year 2011 as you did in fiscal year 2010. We
feel that our request is well justified because:
--Fiscal year 2010 funds are being obligated this year;
--There is an unprecedented need;
--Through public-private partnerships we have the ability to get the
work done implementing our region's restoration plan; and
--The eight State region's economic recovery hinges on a healthy,
restored Great Lakes.
The Healing Our Waters--Great Lakes Coalition is comprised of more
than 110 environmental, conservation, hunting, and fishing
organizations; museums, zoos, and aquariums; and businesses
representing millions of people whose goal is to restore and protect
the Great Lakes. We came together to fight for the Great Lakes, and we
recognize the need for Federal assistance for all great waters,
including San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, the Everglades, and
Chesapeake Bay.
Madam Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, 40 million people rely on
the Great Lakes for their drinking water, and millions more benefit
from the commerce and business that depend on the waters of the Great
Lakes. Unfortunately, the health of the Great Lakes continues to be
seriously threatened by problems such as untreated sewage, toxic
pollution, and invasive species. The eight States that border the Great
Lakes and numerous nongovernmental organizations have invested a
significant amount of resources in preserving these bodies of water.
Additional funding, however, is needed. Unless the Federal Government
continues to invest in the lakes these problems will get worse and the
price we pay will be higher.
While restoration efforts to date have made progress, Federal
funding historically has not kept pace with the enormity of the
problem. More than $26 billion is needed according to the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration Strategy, yet Great Lakes programs over the last
decade have received only a small fraction of that amount. We are now
embarking on more significant restoration activities thanks to
President Obama's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). Cleaning
up the Great Lakes is not only critical for the health and quality of
life of the region, it will also drive economic development--and jobs--
in our Nation for years to come. According to the Brookings
Institution, an investment of $26 billion to restore the Great Lakes
will lead to at least $50 to $80 billion in economic benefit. That's
why the region's chambers of commerce, industry, governors, mayors,
tribes, and conservation organizations have united around the common
goals of restoring the Great Lakes--the largest surface freshwater
resource on the planet--and funding the GLRI at last year's level.
President Obama recognized the importance of a Federal commitment
to the Great Lakes by including a new $475 million Great Lakes
restoration initiative in his inaugural fiscal year 2010 budget. As
already noted, under the leadership of this subcommittee and other key
appropriators like Senator Durbin, Congress fulfilled the President's
request. This support has energized the region like at no other time
and people are responding. Now is not the time to slow down the
progress being made, which is why we were disappointed by the
administration's $300 million request for fiscal year 2011. Although we
acknowledge that senior administration officials may believe that
fiscal year 2010 funding isn't being obligated quickly enough to
justify an additional $475 million for the GLRI, we disagree with their
view. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) has worked hard over the last year with their
sister agencies to ensure that fiscal year 2010 GLRI funding can be put
to good use this year.
A quick snapshot of everything GLNPO has accomplished in 2009:
--GLNPO coordinated 15 different agencies in pulling together a
spending plan for the new $475 million initiative; they wrote a
plan on how to implement the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration's restoration strategy; they held 18 meetings
last summer where they solicited public feedback on that plan;
they prepared and issued a Request for Proposals to award more
than $120 million in grants to non-Federal organizations; they
coordinated and created 13 interagency agreements (see table
above); they began developing a system to establish an
accountability and reporting system for the Initiative; they
began to renegotiate the bi-national Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement; all while continuing to operate the Great Lakes
Legacy Act program and fulfill their other statutory
responsibilities.
glri funds are being obligated
All this work has set the stage for GLRI money to flow this year to
on-the-ground restoration work throughout the region. GLNPO and the
other Federal agencies are obligating GLRI funds. GLNPO will have
obligated more than $247 million through interagency agreements by the
end of May. Other agencies will also have spent their GLRI allocations.
NOAA recently awarded GLRI funds to a land acquisition project in
Michigan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will award habitat
restoration funds later this year under their Great Lakes Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Program. The National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, through a transfer of funds from the FWS, obligated $6
million in GLRI funds for restoration projects in April. The Natural
Resources Conservation Service just committed more than $33 million in
May. EPA will begin awarding $120 million worth of grants this summer
for work that will get underway later this year.
need far outweighs available funding
The preparation for spending the GLRI's allocation has also
revealed that the amount of funding needed for Great Lakes restoration
continues to far outweigh what is available, even with significant new
Federal support.
EPA, NOAA, the FWS and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
all recently closed grant solicitations on how to spend GLRI funds.
Nearly 1,400 proposals were submitted totaling more than $1.1
billion.\1\ Only 13 percent of proposals on average will receive
funding through these solicitations since only $144 million is
currently available (see chart below). We expect additional agency
requests for proposals to be made available throughout the year. It's
important to remember that not all GLRI funds will go to grants and
even if they did, current GLRI funding would still fund less than half
the projects that have been proposed through the most recent four
request for proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current request for proposals; Source: EPA, NOAA, FWS, NFWF
Agency RFP amount available Total amount available Proposals
submitted
NOAA $10 million $61 million 52
FWS $8 million $44 million 167
EPA $120 million $947 million 1,057
NFWF $6 million $72 million 104
getting work done; according to plan
The restoration work being undertaken with GLRI funds is focused on
one goal: to implement the region's restoration plan. Our region
produced the comprehensive, science-based ``Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes'' in
2005, which laid out the steps needed to restore and protect the Great
Lakes. After a series of meetings with the public and two public
comment periods last year, GLNPO subsequently produced a Federal work
plan called the ``Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan'' \2\
to implement that strategy: ``The GLRC Strategy provides a framework
for the Action Plan, and the Action Plan is just that: an action
driver.'' \3\ This plan lays out measurable 5-year restoration goals
for the five most significant issues facing the Great Lakes: toxic
substances and areas of concern; invasive species; nearshore health and
nonpoint source pollution; habitat and wildlife protection and
restoration; accountability, education, monitoring, evaluation,
communication, and partnerships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Released February 21, 2010.
\3\ EPA ``Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan'' 2010.
Page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, with the hope of significant new funds being available
this year, most Great Lakes States and many nongovernmental
organizations worked together closely to develop project proposals that
address both their State and the region's top restoration priorities.
New York's Department of Environmental Conservation facilitated
collaboration between NGOs, State agencies, and other stakeholders in
pulling together a list of projects to be undertaken in the Great Lakes
watershed in New York State. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota also
undertook similar efforts to coordinate project submissions and build
solid public-private partnerships in order to get work done. For work
that could not be undertaken by State agencies because of budgets or
capacity, States supported the application of funds by nongovernmental
organizations that had the expertise and experience to successfully
complete restoration work.
In addition to developing a plan, GLNPO also made progress in
pulling together a project tracking system based on one used by the
Chesapeake Bay program to track progress made in implementing this
plan. These reporting requirements are also being built into the
interagency agreements, which is partially why it has taken them more
time to complete.
Lastly, to ensure that the regional efforts are based on sound
science, GLNPO is also establishing a science advisory board, which
will provide oversight and advice on the region's restoration efforts.
asian carp
One of the biggest threats facing the Great Lakes today is Asian
carp, which swam up the Mississippi River after escaping fish farms in
the 1970s. After years of battling to keep Asian carp out of the Great
Lakes, Asian carp DNA was recently discovered in Lake Michigan. This
startling finding has provoked a serious response from Federal
agencies. Although we are glad that the President had the foresight to
create a GLRI that could respond quickly to this threat, continued use
of GLRI funds for Asian carp management would violate one of the GLRI's
own criteria: support new work or ``enhance (but do not replace)
existing Great Lakes baseline activities.'' \4\ We believe that over
the long term keeping Asian carp out of the Great Lakes must be built
into agencies baseline budgets in order to leave the GLRI free to
supplement other restoration activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Ibid. Page 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
We thank you again for the opportunity to share our views with you.
We recognize the tough choices you face, but we believe that restoring
the Great Lakes is not only good for the environment but also is good
for the national economy as well. In addition to your support for $475
million in GLRI funds, we also hope you will support the following
recommendations in report language or oversight:
--Spend GLRI funds in the Great Lakes Basin.
--Ensure that all stakeholders helping to restore the Great Lakes--in
particular nongovernmental organizations--have a voice in
setting Great Lakes restoration priorities.
--Streamline application procedures so non-Federal stakeholders can
use one application form for multiple agency requests.
--Allow EPA to bundle funding for multiple projects (either by the
same sponsor or multiple sponsors) in targeted areas in order
to more efficiently direct funds to high-priority areas and on
multiple issues (either concurrently or consecutively) and to
minimize administrative costs for smaller nongovernmental
groups that have the expertise to do restoration work but may
be too small to manage large Federal grants.
--Reduce the number of Federal programs receiving GLRI funding to
better target these investments.
______
Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States, Humane
Society Legislative Fund, and Doris Day Animal League
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on items of importance
to our organizations with a combined membership of more than 11 million
supporters nationwide. We urge the subcommittee to address these
priority issues in the fiscal year 2011 Department of Interior
appropriation.
Bureau of Land Management--Wild Horse and Burro Program
The BLM is charged with the management of approximately 33,000 wild
horses in 10 Western States, but the current program is grossly
underfunded. While we support a reduction in the number of annual
roundups, depending on rounding up horses without implementing any
active program for preventative herd growth is an unsupportable wild
horse management approach because it leads to a continual cycle of
roundups and removals rather than the use of long-term, cost-efficient
and humane management strategies.The BLM should focus on five
mechanisms for managing wild horses and burros; (1) preserving free-
roaming wild horse and burro populations through the use of humane
birth control; (2) recolonizing any of the more than 19 million acres
of zeroed-out habitat with wild horses and burros from the short and
long-term holding facilities; (3) identifying new, appropriate
rangelands and establishing sanctuaries for wild horses and burros; (4)
continuing long-term, humane pasturing for equines that must be removed
from the range utilizing birth control on these captive animals; and
(5) implementing creative and more aggressive marketing strategies to
increase adoption rates for captured equines.
The BLM's current focus on roundup and adoption tools has resulted
in an increasing number of wild horses being permanently warehoused in
BLM sponsored holding centers, at a cost of $27 million annually
(representing almost 75 percent of the BLM's $36.2 million wild horse
management budget). Peer reviewed studies have shown that costs to
manage the herd could decrease significantly by treating more mares
with the immunocontraceptive PZP (porcine zona pellucida) and returning
them to the range, rather than detaining them indefinitely in holding
centers, and through the wide-scale marketing of the BLM's Adopt-a-
Horse program. According to a paper published in the Journal of
Wildlife Management in 2007, contraception on-the-range could reduce
total wild horse and burro management costs by 14 percent, saving $6.1
million per year (Bartholow, J. 2007. Economic benefit of fertility
control in wild horse populations. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 71(8):2811-2819.).
This study demonstrates conclusively that the use of
immunocontraception could easily result in a reduction in the
continuing long-term expenses associated with the BLM's current wild
horse management program.
In October 2006, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and
the BLM signed a Memorandum of Understanding to facilitate the use of
contraceptive vaccines as a key component for managing wild horses on
public lands. In 2007, the Annenberg Foundation pledged $1.8 million to
a project launched by The HSUS and the BLM to promote the use and
application of contraceptives to manage wild horses throughout the
west. The BLM and The HSUS have an opportunity to revolutionize the
course of wild horse population control from a standard that is often
inefficient, costly, and cruel to one which is technologically
advanced, cost effective and humane. We urge the subcommittee to take
advantage of the demonstrated cost savings associated with the use of
immunocontraceptives by directing BLM and EPA to take action to
facilitate the implementation of The HSUS/BLM Research Project, and by
increasing BLM's budget for PZP research and development programs by
$1.5 million.
The subcommittee's support would encourage greater cooperation
between the BLM, the EPA and The HSUS in the implementation of a
program that we believe will be of great benefit not only to our
Nation's beloved wild horse populations, but also to the American
taxpayer. While we are pleased with the stated intent in BLM's budget
justification, we hope this new direction will be implemented in fiscal
year 2011.
Law Enforcement Division of the Fish and Wildlife Service
The illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife parts amounts to
billions of dollars, second only to the smuggling of drugs and arms.
The United States remains one of the largest markets for legal and
illegal trade of wildlife and wildlife products. New technology and a
full complement of special agents and wildlife inspectors are essential
to enforce the Nation's endangered species and other wildlife laws. We
are concerned that there are 71 special agent vacancies. We encourage
the Subcommittee to fully fund the Law Enforcement Division.
Large Constrictor Snakes
The HSUS commends the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for proposing
to list nine species of large constrictor snakes as ``injurious,''
which will prohibit importation and interstate movement of animals as
pets. A recent, comprehensive report by the U.S. Geological Survey
showed these snakes all pose medium or high risk to our environment;
none are low risk. While Burmese pythons and, to a lesser extent, boa
constrictors have been established in Florida for some time, it appears
that northern African pythons are now breeding there as well. The
Service must have the resources to respond quickly to prevent the
spread of these species and establishment of new ones.
Environmental Protection Agency
Toxicity Pathways
Research focused on molecular screening the potential to
revolutionize toxicity testing improving both its efficiency as well as
the quality of information available for human safety assessment.
However, there is a need for more focus on toxicity pathways, as
recommended by the National Research Council's report ``Toxicity
Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy.'' Such toxicity
pathway research is best accomplished by EPA through contracts, grants
and collaborations of EPA's National Center for Computational
Toxicology with researchers in academia and other institutions. We urge
the Committee to incorporate the following report language:
The subcommittee strongly supports and has increased funding for
the efforts of EPA's Office of Research and Development and its
National Center for Computational Toxicology to apply computational
chemistry, high-throughput screening and toxicogenomic technologies to
predict potential for toxicity. The Center shall focus additional
activity to address the issues of metabolism and exposure science in
order to overcome these limitations within the current ToxCast program.
In addition to the correlative computational profiling research
currently being conducted by the Center and its Federal partners, the
subcommittee directs EPA, through its Science and Technology budget, to
increase its allocation of resources to the National Center for
Computational Toxicology to expand its collaborations with other
research organizations outside the Federal government engaged with
proof of concept investigations of specific toxicological pathways.
Review and Upgrading of the Test Methods Used in EPA's Endocrine
Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).--EPA's budget request for 2011
acknowledges that the additional resources appropriated for 2011 will
fund ``next generation tools'' which will speed up EDSP and reduce
animal use. ``In fiscal year 2011, the Computational Toxicology
Research program will play a critical role in coordinating and
implementing research across the EPA. In addition, greater emphasis
will be placed on using systems biology based approaches to advance
health-based assessments. In fiscal year 2011, EPA is requesting $21.9
million, an increase of $1.9 million, to support application of
mathematical and computer models to help assess chemical risk to human
health and the environment. Funds for next-generation tools will speed
and facilitate implementation of EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening
Program (EDSP).''http://www.epa.gov/budget/2011/
fy_2011_congressional_justification.pdf.
Multinational Species Conservation Fund
The HSUS joins a broad coalition of organizations in requesting an
increase over the administration's request for the Multinational
Species Conservation Fund (MNSCF) and Wildlife Without Borders. The
MNSCF was established by Congress to benefit African and Asian
elephants, rhinos, tigers, great apes, neotropical migratory birds and
marine turtles. Congress has been very supportive of these programs in
the past. Unfortunately in past years, the funding has been
considerably less than the amounts necessary to carry out these
valuable missions. We ask that you continue to support these highly
threatened mammals and birds in fiscal year 2011 by appropriating $3
million each for the Asian Elephant, African Elephant, Marine Turtle,
and Great Ape Conservation Funds, $6 million for the combined
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, and $6.5 million for the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. We also request $10.4
million for the Wildlife Without Borders regional program.
While we wholeheartedly support increased funding for the MNSCF, we
are concerned about past incidents and future opportunities for funds
from these conservation programs to be allocated to promote trophy
hunting, trade in animal parts, and other consumptive uses-including
live capture for trade, captive breeding, and entertainment for public
display industry-under the guise of conservation for these animals.
Grants made to projects under the MNSCF must be consistent with the
spirit of the law.
Protection for Walruses
We urge this subcommittee to appropriate $500,000 in fiscal year
2011 to fund the continuation of much-needed research on the Pacific
walrus. Recently developed methodologies for surveying walrus
populations have been used successfully and require sustained funding
support to produce reliable population estimates. A comprehensive
walrus survey was begun in 2005 and produced preliminary results in
2009--the effort must receive continued support to maximize the utility
of its results. Walruses are targeted by Native hunters for
subsistence, despite a paucity of data regarding their current
population status or population structure. Hundreds of walruses are
killed annually; in some years this number has climbed to as many as
7,000. Moreover, in some hunting villages, females and their calves are
preferentially killed, against the recommendation of the USFWS and
standard management practice. A portion of the research funds could
also be used to improve the Walrus Harvest Monitor Project, which
collects basic management data.
White Nose Syndrome
The devastating impact of White Nose Syndrome (WNS) continues to
spread across the country affecting bat populations in at least 11
States. A consensus statement issued by scientists and wildlife
managers in May of last year calls WNS ``the most precipitous decline
of North American wildlife in recorded history''. We are grateful that
Congress provided the USFWS with additional funding to combat the
problem of WNS, but the spread of disease is simply outpacing efforts
to control it.
We respectfully ask Congress to: (1) Support the $4 million
increase the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requested for Declining
Species; (2) Approve the 2 additional FTEs FWS requested, which we
understand are to be the WNS coordinators for Regions 3 and 4; (3)
Support the $3 million increase the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
requested for science support for FWS and National Park Service
priority research, monitoring, and technical assistance needs; (4)
Support the $600,000 increase USGS requested for wildlife: terrestrial
and endangered resources; and (5) Include an additional $5 million in
FWS' Endangered Species: Recovery of Listed Species programming funds.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hoopa Tribal Police Department
On behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Hoopa Valley Tribal
Police Department, we are submitting testimony in support of an
appropriations request for the Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department.
The amount of the request is $1,225,234 for base funding for the tribal
police department. The agency involved is the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and the program involved is Public Safety and Justice--Law Enforcement.
The Request and Justification
We are requesting $1,225,234 to provide base funding for our police
department so it may continue to provide law enforcement services to
the tribe and its surrounding community. Although the reservation is in
a Public Law 280 State, services provided by county law enforcement are
minimal. Given future budget concerns with the county, any county
service provided to the Hoopa Reservation and surrounding communities
may be cut significantly. The tribal police department is located on
the Hoopa Reservation and it is routinely, the first and sometimes the
only responders to calls for service on the reservation. The request
for base funding would assist the tribal police department with further
development and enhancement of services provided to the Hoopa
community. The Hoopa Tribe has borne the financial burden for the
police department, but can no longer afford to do so without harming
other necessary services to its membership and community. However, the
tribe feels a responsibility to protect the community, and its members.
The Hoopa Valley Tribal Council feels that the tribal police
department is deserving of the opportunity to receive base funding from
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and/or the Department of Justice, since
services, and the quality of services are those of any other law
enforcement agency. We do not believe that because we are a Public Law
280 State we should be hindered in carrying out our duties due to lack
of funds, when the level of services and funding provided to non-Public
Law 280 tribes is greater. Additionally, the Hoopa Valley Tribe is one
of the first and only tribal police departments in the State of
California to have a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)/MOU and a
deputization agreement with their neighboring county.
The subcommittee's support in providing base funding would be an
enhancement to our department, tribe, community, and surrounding areas.
These funds would be used to provide a 24-hour police force, something
desperately needed on and around our reservation. The funds would also
be used to increase officers' salaries in order to be competitive with
State and county agencies. Historically, the department has been able
to recruit officers in entry level positions; however, retainment of
these officers has been problematic as we have not been able to compete
by offering salaries comparable to the State and county agencies. Thus,
once an officer has been trained, and attained more experience they
leave for those agencies offering better salary and benefit packages.
An increase in funding will alleviate this problem.
The base funding would also be used for: recruiting local tribal
members and paying for sending them to the POST Certified Academy; an
increase in dispatch personal and salaries once again trying to keep
competitive with State and local agency's; advance officer training,
uniforms and basic issue equipment; meeting the rising cost of
gasoline/vehicle maintenance and repair; the Hoopa Valley Tribal Police
Department building i.e., repairs and maintenance, rising utilities,
and other related costs to maintain the building to keep it functional;
and office equipment/supplies for efficient administrative operations
of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department.
Background on the Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department and
Intergovernmental Cooperation between the tribe and the County.
The Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department was officially formed in
1984. Prior to 1984, the department operated as hoopa tribal security.
As tribal security, the primary function was to patrol and check all
tribal resources, buildings and property to prevent vandalism and
theft. As the department became more familiar in the community they
were routinely called upon to provide other services. As a result, the
Hoopa Valley Tribal Council determined that is was necessary for the
department to evolve. This was the beginning of the Hoopa Department of
Public Safety/Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department. The tribe then
began training their personnel as police officers.
The determination was made that personnel would be trained in
compliance with California Peace Officers Standards and Training
(P.O.S.T.) guidelines in order to better serve the Hoopa Valley Tribe
and its community. The primary function of the police department was to
enforce tribal law, i.e., fishing, wood cutting, and other natural
resource protection functions. The Hoopa Valley Tribal Council funded
the department from tribal funds. The tribal council funded officers
training at the College of the Redwoods Police Academy, and conducted
thorough background investigations, again using P.O.S.T. guidelines.
Since the officers were trained at the same level as local law
enforcement personnel, and since tribal police officers live on the
reservation, where local county officers do not, tribal police were
routinely called upon to provide other law enforcement services to the
tribe and adjacent communities. In order to address jurisdictional
problems with Public Law 280, the tribal council and county entered
into an agreement whereby officers were individually cross-deputized by
the county sheriff, provided the appropriate standards and training
were met by the individual officer.
On May 30, 1995, the County of Humboldt and the Hoopa Valley Tribal
Council entered into a JPA for the purpose of sharing responsibility
for law enforcement services on the Hoopa Indian Reservation. That
agreement, a first in California (a Public Law 280 State), specified
that the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office (HCSO) and the Hoopa Valley
Tribal Police (HVTP) would: (1) work together to provide law
enforcement services to the community; (2) cross-deputize the other
agency's law enforcement officers; (3) share information and resources;
and (4) share facilities (the sharing of facilities never came to
pass). On October 7, 1996, the respective areas of responsibility of
the HCSO and HVTP under the JPA were more specifically defined in a
memorandum prepared by Lt. Greg Busey, the Hoopa Sheriff's Substation
Commander. This memorandum became essentially, a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), under which both agencies have operated to the
present day. Under this MOU, tribal police handle most noncriminal and
misdemeanor criminal investigations, felony property crimes, and
domestic violence cases, and the HCSO deputies handle part 1 felony
crimes against persons. In actuality and in a spirit of cooperation
each agency has taken responsibility for cases that were the primary
responsibility of the other when it was expedient to do so.
As the department progresses so does the need for additional
officers, support personnel, equipment. and technology. In essence, the
tribal police department has become the primary law enforcement agency
on the reservation enforcing tribal, Federal, and State law, as well as
providing other service related functions. Since, California is a
Public Law 280 State, the tribe has been unable to utilize State funds
even though the tribal police department is providing the primary law
enforcement services on the Hoopa reservation. The tribe has funded the
department since its inception using tribal, compact, and grant funds
in an effort to ensure that the tribe, its members, and the Hoopa
community are adequately protected.
Conclusion
The Hoopa Valley Tribe needs $1.225 million in its base budget for
its police department for adequate and effective law enforcement and
police protection on the Hoopa Valley Reservation to keep the residents
and visitors of the reservation and surrounding communities safe.
The tribe's police officers are trained and maintain compliance
with the California Commission on P.O.S.T. at the same level as local
law enforcement personnel and are deputized by the Humboldt County
Sheriff pursuant to a deputization agreement. This agreement along with
the Joint Powers Agreement and MOU between the Tribe and the County as
well as the tribe's concurrent jurisdiction and remote location has
resulted in the tribe providing the primary law enforcement services on
the reservation.
The tribe receives very limited Federal funding which can be used
for law enforcement services and does not receive any State funds. The
tribe has been covering the costs of its tribal police department, but
it can no longer afford to do so, risking inadequate law enforcement
and police protection in the face of significant community policing
challenges, including rampant illegal drug use and trafficking in the
area.
The appropriation of $1.225 million for our police department will
benefit the residents and visitors of the Hoopa Reservation and
surrounding communities. The Hoopa Tribal Police Department is
routinely the first and only responder to calls for police on the
reservation, responding to all calls on the full range of law
enforcement matters. The funding will allow for 24-hour police coverage
for the reservation, the ability of the tribe to retain trained
officers, and use up-to-date equipment and technology for the provision
of police services.
The appropriation will promote the safety of the residents and
visitors on the reservation and in surrounding communities. This is
extremely important given the reservation's remote area and significant
police challenges arising from the rampant illegal drug use and trade
in the area. The funding will also further the extraordinary
intergovernmental cooperation between the Tribe and Humboldt County.
Not only will the reservation and surrounding communities benefit from
this funding, but Humboldt County, itself, will as well. Humboldt
County would certainly benefit from the Tribe having a 24-hour police
department to respond to calls on the reservation.
We ask the subcommittee to appropriate $1.225 million for the Hoopa
Valley Tribal Police Department. Please do not hesitate to contact us
if you need additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hoopa Valley Tribe
This written testimony in support of appropriations for the Hoopa
Valley Tribe, K'ima:w Medical Center in the amount of $1,166,715. The
agency involved is the Indian Health Services and the programs involved
include Health Services and Equipment.
K'ima:w Medical Center, (KMC) is an entity of the Hoopa Valley
Tribe located in far northern California. The Hoopa Valley Indian
Reservation is in a rural and remote area, 55 miles from the larger
populated areas of Eureka and Arcata. Hoopa is the largest land based
tribe in California and is often referred to as a ``12 mile square''.
The reservation encompasses approximately 144 square miles (98,355
acres) including the valley floor.
KMC is a Joint Commission accredited ambulatory clinic with
operational hours between 8 a.m.-6 p.m. on weekdays. As an ambulatory
clinic, KMC offers a comprehensive set of services that include
medical, dental, community health, nutrition, social services, senior
nutrition, full laboratory, and radiology services as well as specialty
clinics for vision, podiatry, and telemedicine.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (Census 2000), there are
approximately 2,633 people living on the Hoopa Valley Indian
Reservation. Eighty-four point seven percent of Hoopa residents are
American Indian. KMC's service area encompasses the surrounding area of
Willow Creek, Salyer, and Johnson's. Thirty-two percent of Hoopa
residents are living in poverty (2.3 times the statewide figure of 14.2
percent and 2.6 times the nationwide figure of 12.4 percent). During
the past year KMC has served 4,966 users.
Poverty, struggling and inadequate education, discrimination, high
rates of unemployment, and limited access to health services are
creating significant and alarming health disparities among our people.
Our people are in desperate need of help to improve the quality of
care, access for services, technological advancement, and job
opportunities.
Three focus areas have been identified as priorities in addressing
the disparities and increasing the quality of care and access for
services: Emergency Medical Services, Electronic Health Record, and
Radiology Digital Equipment.
Emergency Medical Services
Imagine driving in a mountainous area, on a very windy, two-lane
road with very steep embankments and no shoulders to speak of, when
suddenly your car hits black ice, you spin out of control and roll down
the bank 300 feet. The closet Level Four hospital is an hour and a half
away and the nearest trauma center is 3 hours away. Critically injured,
the only thing standing between you and death is the swift and
competent actions of the ambulance crew responding to the emergency.
Ambulance personnel must begin medical treatment immediately, knowing
that delaying treatment until you are transferred to the nearest
hospital will significantly decrease the likelihood of surviving these
injuries.
Residents in this area, all too often face these types of scenarios
and it is vital to the Hoopa community and surrounding area to have
Advanced Life Support emergency services available. The Tribe's KMC
ambulance service provides the only basic and advanced life support
emergency service in the area and responds to 1,100 emergency calls per
year. Staffed 24 hours per day/7 days per week, paramedic level of
support is necessary because of the length of time it takes to reach
the nearest hospital, ranging from 50 minutes to 2.5 hours. KMC's
ambulance crew not only provides emergency medical services, but also
conducts white water rescue and over the bank rescue.
KMC's ambulance service, not only provides emergency medical
services to the Hoopa community but also provides services to a three-
county service area covering northeastern Humboldt County and portions
of Trinity and Siskiyou Counties. As the only ambulance service for
this whole area, services are not only provided for American Indians
but for non-Indians as well. The ambulance service area covers the
towns of Willow Creek, Salyer, Hoopa, Weitchpec, Orleans, Somes Bar,
and Johnsons. The area is vast between towns and communities with two
lane roads in a mountainous area. At times because of slides and
unfavorable weather conditions (i.e., snow, ice, fog) our ambulances
must drive over and through treacherous conditions to transport
patients to coastal hospitals.
While this service is so vital to those who live in this area,
unfortunately inadequate reimbursements from Medicare and Medi-Cal are
severely impacting KMC's ability to provide this service. The Tribe can
no longer subsidize the operation of the ambulance and funding is
needed to continue the current level of emergency medical services
provided not only in Hoopa, but in surrounding areas as well.
Funding in the amount of $362,315 is requested for our Ambulance
Program to ensure that our area has continued Advanced Life Support
emergency services.
Electronic Health Record
KMC is in the process of converting to an Electronic Health Record
(EHR) system. To date the Tribe has provided 32 percent of the
necessary funding in the amount of $250,000, but needs assistance with
the remaining 68 percent, $539,000 to purchase EHR software and
hardware technology along with related infrastructure.
The benefits of converting to an EHR system include reducing
healthcare costs, improving efficiency, increasing patient safety and
improving the overall delivery of health services to our tribe and
community. Additionally, incentives offered for providers using EHR
will help the Medical Center overall with increased third-party
revenue.
For providers, EHR allows patient care activities and access to the
records simultaneously and at multiple locations without depending on
the availability of a paper chart. Data entries can be entered at
point-of-service which ensures that the record is always up to date for
all users.
Because KMC is a rural health clinic, specialty clinics come to our
area and offer services needed by our patients. Specialty clinics
offered here include obstetrics, pediatrics, ophthalmology, and
podiatry. Additionally KMC offers telemedicine services for psychiatry,
endocrinology, nutrition, pain management and hepatology. EHR allows
easier access to patient records, referrals, medication lists, etc. for
visiting providers and telemedicine providers and allows more efficient
treatment for our patients while increasing safety for patients with
multiple medical problems.
Funding in the amount of $539,000 is requested for implementing an
EHR system.
Radiology Digital Equipment
Along with converting to an EHR system is the need to purchase
radiology digital equipment and related infrastructure which will
reduce healthcare costs, improve efficiency, increase patient safety,
and improve the overall delivery of health services to our families.
Currently, KMC Radiology Department must send its films to Mad
River Hospital (an hour drive away) using two different couriers. This
creates significant delays in diagnoses and treatment. At times, x-rays
may have to be repeated, causing even longer delays in diagnoses and
treatment. In combination with EHR, radiology digital equipment will
improve the timeliness of diagnosis for our patients, allow us to cut
costs, decrease the storage space necessary to store films and improve
the service that we provide to our patients.
Radiology Digital Equipment will allow information sharing between
doctors who can simultaneously open the exam and compare impressions
without having to send hard copy films back and forth between
providers, hospitals, etc.
Funding in the amount of $265,400 requested for radiology digital
equipment.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ice Age Floods Institute
Because it has been determined that the President's proposed fiscal
year 2011 budget does not provide enough funding for NPS to move ahead
on the development of the Trail, the Senators from the region have
received formal appropriation requests for this item from constituents.
At this time, of course, it is not known if this requested item
will be accepted for inclusion in the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill at any of the steps as the bill
moves from the subcommittee, to the full Committee, and then is
considered on the floor in the Senate. It is that uncertainty that
prompts the submission of this testimony.
However, it is an established fact that all 25 members of the
region's current congressional delegations (House and Senate, Montana,
Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Republican and Democrat) are on record as
supporting the authorization of the Trail, either in the form of the
identical bills introduced by Representative Doc Hastings and Senator
Maria Cantwell, beginning in the 108th Congress, or as a part of Public
Law 111-11, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, signed into
law by the President over a year ago.
It is not my purpose here to recount the reasons for recognizing
the Floods as a truly significant part of the Nation's natural
heritage. The justification has been well-documented in earlier studies
and hearings, and in the language of the authorizing act itself. What
now must be faced are questions and objections that will be raised,
with respect to actually appropriating the funds that are needed to go
forward with the Trail project.
These are undeniably difficult times, and careful consideration
must be given to all public expenditures and sources of revenue, and to
the effect of public measures on the economic circumstances of the
population. With that very much in mind, I am here recommending that
this requested item would be a sound investment of public funds, and
would have a positive effect on the economy.
The funding now being requested is for the start-up and operation
of a small Trail office. The first tasks will be related to the
collaborative development of the management and interpretive plan
required by Public Law 111-11. It certainly could be remarked that the
small size of the request bears no relationship to the awesome scale
and power of the Floods themselves, or the dramatic effects they
wrought on a huge part of the Pacific Northwest.
Distribution of $250,000 being requested: $200,000 for salary and
benefits (two employees in fiscal year 2011--the Trail Superintendent
and an Interpretive/Education Specialist); $20,000 for two leased
vehicles; $15,000 for travel (extensive travel in the four-State area);
$10,000 for office equipment (computing, copying, phones, etc.); and
$5,000 for office supplies.
Objections may be raised that this item would add to the deficit
and do nothing to add jobs and help with economic recovery. It is more
likely that the dollars are already being recovered, without special
promotion of the Trail.
This is not to suggest that the request and the Trail project can
now be ignored, but to point out that this appropriation request
responds to the opportunity that there is now to make significant, but
not instantaneously obvious, increases in employment, small business
profits, and tax revenues, largely to the benefit of rural communities
that regrettably have had to contend with economic distress and decline
for many years.
There clearly has been increased media attention to the Ice Age
Floods and their effects, and to the theme of eco-tourism. It
definitely is reasonable to believe that hotels, motels, RV parks,
restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores, etc., are directly
benefiting from growing interest in the Trail project, even before it
is begun. We can expect that more people are right now coming to the
region, or are extending their visits, in order to explore the
landscape left by the Floods. And local residents are probably spending
more of their tourism and recreation dollars in the region, as they
deal with restricted incomes and high fuel costs. Particularly in the
case of local residents, many will discover reasons to make repeated
visits to the Floods area.
But anyone who does visit the region, or is considering doing so,
is likely to ask, Why is there no coherent interpretive program to
explain these amazing floods and their remarkable legacy? That question
has been under discussion for at least 20 years. The basic concepts of
how to proceed are now stated in the authorizing act, but the remaining
impediment is that the funding has not yet been provided for NPS to
coordinate the activities and resources of many partners, in telling
the story.
With some justification, earmarks have come under close scrutiny in
discussions of the Federal budget and the budgeting process. However,
it now appears that the term may be being applied too broadly, and some
sound expenditures may be disallowed ``on principle''. With respect to
any meaningful criteria, the Trail project fails to qualify as an
``earmark''. In all stages of study and discussion, the Trail proposal
has involved four States. The NPS Special Resource Study, in response
to widespread interest and with public participation, was launched in
1999 and presented to Congress in 2001. Authorizing legislation has
been considered in every Congress, from the 108th on. And there has
been consistent bi-partisan support from the start, from across the
four-State region. Funding for the Trail project deserves attention on
its merits, in a straightforward consideration of proposals that have
an honorable history and justification, have been authorized by
statute, and have good prospects for a real return on investment.
There is one particular aspect of the Trail proposal that offers
surprising economy in achieving the project's objectives. The Trail
will be based on existing public land holdings, which are adequate to
offer a very good presentation of Flood features and phenomena. There
is no authorization for Federal land acquisition or new land-use
regulation or change of jurisdiction, to develop the Trail. However,
the existing management agencies already have their respective
responsibilities and funding related to research, interpretation and
recreation based on their holdings. In fact, much of the interest in
the Trail grew out of a shared concern for those responsibilities and
the opportunity there might be to collaborate in performing their work
as it related to effectively presenting the Floods story. This accounts
for the involvement of the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest
Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Army Corps of Engineers in the ongoing discussions that led to the
Trail proposal. It will largely be through these agencies'
participation that economic benefit will be derived from the
conservationally sound use of public lands as the basis for the Trail.
In any interpretive effort involving several partners, it is
important to make a determined effort to provide a consistent,
authoritative and honest presentation of the current state of
knowledge.
From the perspective of the general public, noticeable differences
will lead to calling all of the presentations in question, to no one's
benefit or credit. This is particularly challenging in the case of the
Ice Age Floods, where the basic story is well understood, but some
details are difficult to determine. However, to claim that all the
answers have been found is to misrepresent all scientific inquiry. Here
again, there may be a fortunate circumstance in the Trail situation, in
that some form of expert peer review is already acknowledged to be a
necessary component of the Trail project, and is being applied to
review text and illustrations for a Washington State Parks project that
is currently under way. The concern of all parties is that the WSP
project should be consonant with what comes later, when the Trail is
actually under development. Because of the longstanding involvement of
staff of the U.S. Geological Survey, as well as state geological
agencies and academic earth science departments, a high but achievable
standard has been set for the Trail.
It might seem unlikely, but an honest presentation of scientific
uncertainty should in itself have a tangible benefit. There are a
number of issues under discussion in our society that have some
connection with the Floods phenomenon, and which call for skills and
interests that are under-represented in our scientific and technical
workforce. Inquisitive youngsters who become interested in unresolved
questions regarding the Floods are likely candidates for careers in the
specialties that will help us in understanding major cycles in climate
change, in preparing for visits to Mars, and, perhaps most urgently, in
dealing with issues of water supply and water quality, and the
sustainability of agriculture and fisheries.
The Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail would be a new kind of
National Trail, fitted to the scale and special nature of the Floods
phenomenon, and to the availability of suitable public land resources,
which are under the management of a wide variety of agencies. The
National Park Service would primarily be responsible to coordinate the
large collaborative interpretive Trail project that would be organized
to make a unified, ``branded'', consistent and authoritative
presentation of these Floods that affected a huge area in the Pacific
Northwest.
The basic elements of the Trail would be designated auto touring
routes on public roads, with strategically located interpretive
facilities, some of which already exist, plus other related
recreational and educational activities, utilizing public lands. Other
public agencies, not just Federal, would be voluntarily involved, in
line with their established responsibilities and funding for land
management and conservation, education and recreation, roads,
scientific assessment of geology and hydrology, etc. Private
institutions and organizations, including the Ice Age Floods Institute,
will voluntarily be working on the project, too. In addition, there
would be opportunities for associated services to be provided by
businesses such as outdoor guides and outfitters, cruise and tour
operators, and charter flightseeing services.
The authorizing bill does allow for the development of major
capital projects, but only in partnership with other public or private
organizations and in conformity with the overall Trail plan. To quote
from section 5203 of the authorizing act: ``Interpretive facilities--
The Secretary may plan, design, and construct interpretive facilities
for sites associated with the Trail if the facilities are constructed
in partnership with State, local, tribal, or non-profit entities and
are consistent with the plan.''
In the presentations and facilities related to the Trail, the
participation of all the kinds of public and nonprofit entities that I
have mentioned would be prominently recognized with appropriate signs
and credits. The Trail will be a significant model of what can be
accomplished in a structure of partnership and coordinated
collaboration.
An organizational scheme for the Trail is eagerly awaited by the
many potential partners. For years, what had been lacking was (1) the
appropriate ``national'' designation of this major interpretive
project, (2) the critical element of assigning coordinating authority
and responsibility, and (3) the provision of funding to accomplish the
coordination. With the designation and assignment now accomplished,
what immediately needs to be done is to provide the relatively modest
start-up funding to the National Park Service, for it to begin to
function as the agency that will enable a unified project to go
forward.
No benefit will be gained by delaying the start-up work on the Ice
Age Floods National Geologic Trail. The requested funds will be a good
investment of scarce Federal dollars, because the Trail will present a
significant and fascinating chapter in Earth's history, contribute to
general public understanding of natural processes and their effect on
our ways of life, attract more workers to currently important fields
related to the natural sciences, and bring substantial on-going
benefits to the large region that was the setting for the story.
Consequently, I urge that the item requested here be approved by
the subcommittee and included in the bill that is forwarded by the full
Appropriations Committee to the floor of the Senate.
And I want to thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to
present testimony for this small but critical budget item. Please
contact me if further information would be helpful.
______
Letter From the Idaho Conservation League
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: I am writing in support of an appropriation
of $2.2 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Idaho
Wild and Scenic Rivers program to protect the 160-acre Morgan Ranch
property. The fiscal year 2011 President's budget request included $1
million for this project, but the full $2.2 million appropriation is
needed to complete the protection of the property this year.
Over the past few years, the Forest Service has been working to
protect natural and recreational resources along the Salmon River and
its tributaries by securing interests in critical inholdings from
willing sellers via fee ownership or conservation easements. In many
cases, the Salmon River program has reduced the cost of Forest Service
management by eliminating inholding boundaries or assisting fire-
fighting efforts.
The Morgan Ranch property is a 160-acre wilderness inholding within
the Salmon-Challis National Forest that lies along the Middle Fork of
the Salmon Wild & Scenic River corridor in Valley County. Half of the
property consists of valuable wetlands and riparian habitat, including
Prospect Creek and Sulphur Creek drainages. The tract is also located
just downstream from the Boundary Creek campground and river access
point, of two sites along the Middle Fork of the Salmon. The landowner
is interested in working with the Forest Service to conserve the
property, while retaining private structures and uses on a portion of
the property.
The protection of this inholding will secure for the public
recreational access to the Middle Fork of the Salmon, prevent
incompatible development, and protect important riparian habitat. Thank
you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
John Robison,
Public Lands Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission
My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I am Executive Director of the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC). I appreciate the
opportunity to present this statement to the subcommittee regarding the
views of the Compact's member States on the fiscal year 2011 budget
request for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM) within the U.S. Department of the Interior. In its proposed
budget, OSM is requesting $60.3 million to fund title V grants to
States and Indian tribes for the implementation of their regulatory
programs, a reduction of $11 million or 15 percent below the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level. OSM also proposes to cut discretionary
spending for the title IV abandoned mine land (AML) program by
approximately $174 million, including the elimination of funding for
the emergency program and a proposal to eliminate all AML funding for
certified States and tribes. Our statement will address each of these
proposals.
The Compact is comprised of 24 States that together produce some 95
percent of the Nation's coal as well as important noncoal minerals. The
Compact's purposes are to advance the protection and restoration of
land, water, and other resources affected by mining through the
encouragement of programs in each of the party States that will achieve
comparable results in protecting, conserving, and improving the
usefulness of natural resources and to assist in achieving and
maintaining an efficient, productive, and economically viable mining
industry.
OSM has projected an amount of $60.3 million for title V grants to
States and tribes in fiscal year 2011, an amount which is matched by
the States each year. These grants support the implementation of State
and tribal regulatory programs under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and as such are essential to the full and
effective operation of those programs.
In fiscal year 2010, Congress approved an additional $5.8 million
increase for State title V grants over the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level, for a total of $71.3 million. For the first time in many years,
the amount appropriated for these regulatory grants aligned with the
demonstrated needs of the States and tribes. The States are greatly
encouraged by the significant increases in title V funding approved by
Congress over the past 3 fiscal years. Even with mandated rescissions
and the allocations for tribal primacy programs, the States saw a $12
million increase for our regulatory programs over fiscal year 2007
levels. As we noted in our statement on last year's budget, State title
V grants had been stagnant for more than 12 years and the gap between
the States' requests and what they received was widening. This
debilitating trend was compounding the problems caused by inflation and
uncontrollable costs, thus undermining our efforts to realize needed
program improvements and enhancements and jeopardizing our efforts to
minimize the potential adverse impacts of coal extraction operations on
people and the environment.
In its fiscal year 2011 budget, OSM has unilaterally and
drastically reversed course and essentially unraveled and undermined
the progress made by Congress in supporting State programs with
adequate funding. This comes at precisely the wrong time. The States
are still in the process of putting the recent improvements in funding
to work in their programs through the filling of vacant positions and
the purchase of much needed equipment. As States prepare their future
budgets, we trust that the recent increases approved by Congress will
remain the new base on which we build our programs. Otherwise we find
ourselves backpedaling and creating a situation where those who were
just hired face layoffs and purchases are canceled or delayed.
The States continue to face significant cost increases in their
programs due to inflation, especially increased fuel and equipment
costs. Health insurance premiums and cost of living adjustments are
also significant factors in the annual operation of State programs,
especially with personnel expenses representing some 80 percent of
total program costs. A new challenge has come in the form of
retirements, where States are faced with buy-outs, paying for unused
annual leave, and replacing an aging work force. These are substantial,
often unanticipated, costs that are wreaking havoc on State budgets.
It is essential that we maintain consistent, inflation-adjusted
funding from year to year in order to deploy resources for our
programs. This is especially true with regard to hiring new staff to
fill vacancies or to supplement understaffed areas of the programs. We
cannot afford to invest money in these positions and then face
potential layoffs the next year because funding is not maintained. As
it is, State agencies are continually faced with making the case to
State legislatures and budget officers to support their regulatory
programs through matching State funds, particularly given the difficult
fiscal climate facing the States. A clear message from Congress that
reliable, consistent funding will continue into the future will do much
to stimulate support for these programs. In this regard, it should be
kept in mind that a 15 percent cut in Federal funding translates to a
30 percent cut for overall program funding for many States, especially
those without Federal lands, since these States can only match what
they receive in Federal money.
OSM's solution to the drastic cuts for State regulatory programs
comes in the way of an unrealistic assumption that the States can
simply increase user fees in an effort to ``reduce the level of Federal
funding required to regulate, and to an extent subsidize, the coal
industry.'' No specifics on how the States are to accomplish this far-
reaching proposal are set forth, other than an ``encouragement'' to do
so in the course of a single fiscal year. Aside from the debate about
whether the coal industry is truly being ``subsidized'' and how the
adoption of user fees impacts the working relationship between the
regulator and the regulated, OSM's proposal is completely out of touch
(some would say ``out of line'') with the realities associated with
establishing or enhancing user fees. IMCC's recent polling of its
member States confirmed that, given the current fiscal and political
implications of such an initiative, it will be difficult, if not
impossible, for most States to accomplish this feat at all, let alone
in less than 1 year. OSM is well aware of this, and yet, without input
from or consultation with the States and tribes, has pushed forward
with a proposal that was poorly conceived from its inception. We
strongly urge the subcommittee to reject this approach and mandate that
OSM work through the complexities associated with any future user fees
proposal in close cooperation with the States and tribes.
With regard to funding for State regulatory grants in fiscal year
2011, there continues to be no disagreement about the need demonstrated
by the States. In fact, in OSM's budget justification document, the
agency states that: ``the states have the unique capabilities and
knowledge to regulate the lands within their borders. Providing up to a
50 percent match of Federal funds to primacy States in the form of A &
E grants results in the highest benefit and the lowest cost to the
Federal Government. If a State were to relinquish primacy, OSM would
have to hire sufficient numbers and types of Federal employees to
implement the program. The cost to the Federal Government would be
significantly higher.'' (Page 60 of OSM's Budget Justification) For all
the above reasons, we urge the subcommittee to approve not less than
$71 million for State and tribal title V regulatory grants, as fully
documented in the States' and tribes' estimates for actual program
operating costs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding for State title V grants will become increasingly
important as OSM moves forward with a recent initiative to adjust
Federal oversight of State programs pursuant to the June 11 Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) between the Interior Department, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Several action items under this initiative have significant resource
implications for the States in the way of followup to increased Federal
inspections, data collection and analysis, and State responses to the
reflexive use of Ten-Day Notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to funding for State title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
program grants, congressional action in 2006 to reauthorize title IV of
SMCRA has significantly changed the method by which State reclamation
grants are funded. Beginning with fiscal year 2008, State title IV
grants are funded primarily by permanent appropriations. As a result,
the States should have received a total of $413.2 million in fiscal
year 2011. Instead, OSM has budgeted an amount of $259.5 million based
on an ill-conceived proposal to eliminate mandatory AML funding to
States and tribes that have been certified as completing their
abandoned coal reclamation programs. This $153.7 million reduction
flies in the face of the comprehensive restructuring of the AML program
that was passed by Congress in 2006, following more than 10 years of
congressional debate and hard fought compromise among the affected
parties. While we have not seen the details of the proposal, which will
require adjustments to SMCRA, it will clearly undermine the delicate
balance of interests and objectives achieved by the 2006 amendments. It
is also inconsistent with many of the goals and objectives set forth in
the recent jobs bill and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We
urge the subcommittee to reject this unjustified proposal, delete it
from the budget and restore the full mandatory funding amount of $413.2
million.
We also urge the subcommittee to approve continued funding for the
AML emergency program. In a continuing effort to ignore congressional
direction, OSM's budget would completely eliminate funding for State-
run emergency programs and also for Federal emergency projects (in
those States that do not administer their own emergency programs). When
combined with the great uncertainty about the availability of remaining
carryover funds, it appears that the program has been decimated.
Funding the OSM emergency program should be a top priority for
OSM's discretionary spending. This funding has allowed the States and
OSM to address the unanticipated AML emergencies that inevitably occur
each year. In States that have federally operated emergency programs,
the State AML programs are not structured or staffed to move quickly to
address these dangers and safeguard the coalfield citizens whose lives
and property are threatened by these unforeseen and often debilitating
events. And for minimum program States, emergency funding is critical
to preserve the limited resources available to them under the current
funding formula.
Section 410 of SMCRA establishes an emergency reclamation procedure
for AML sites that pose a ``sudden danger with a high probability of
substantial physical harm to the health, safety or general welfare of
people before it can be abated under normal program operation
procedures''. The funding for the emergency program is separate from
the State and tribal nonemergency AML grant funding since it comes from
the Secretary's ``discretionary share''. Section 402(g)(1)(C)
specifically requires that the nonemergency State share be used only
for annual reclamation project construction and administration costs.
The nonemergency Federal share allocated to the States in section
402(g)(5) is used to supplement the State share received under
402(g)(1) until the priorities set forth in section 403(a)(1) and (2)
are met. Emergencies do not fall under section 403, but are provided
for only in section 410.
While there were several significant changes to the AML program
under SMCRA as a result of the 2006 amendments, there were absolutely
no changes to the emergency program under section 410 of the act. In
fact, significant funding increases were approved by Congress that
would allow the States to address long-overdue reclamation problems
including landslides, contaminated drinking water, refuse piles,
dangerous highwalls, mine fires, and exposed mine portals. Diverting
these monies to the emergency program, as mandated under OSM's proposed
budget, would impede the progress the States are now making to address
AML problems that have been awaiting funding for years. In this regard,
new section 402(g)(1)(D)(2) requires that the Secretary ensure ``strict
compliance'' by the States in their use of nonemergency grant funds for
the priorities listed in section 403(a). For the States to do otherwise
would require at the least a rulemaking by OSM, if not legislative
adjustment. It would also reverse 30 years of official guidance and
practice by OSM. We therefore request that the subcommittee restore $20
million for the AML emergency program in OSM's fiscal year 2011 budget.
One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML
restoration work is through leveraging or matching other grant
programs, such as EPA's 319 program. Until fiscal year 2009, language
was always included in OSM's appropriation that encouraged the use of
these types of matching funds, particularly for the purpose of
environmental restoration related to treatment or abatement of acid
mind drainage (AMD) from abandoned mines. This is a perennial, and
often expensive, problem, especially in Appalachia. IMCC therefore
requests the subcommittee to once again include language in the fiscal
year 2011 appropriations bill that would allow the use of AML funds for
any required non-Federal share of the cost of projects by the Federal
Government for AMD treatment or abatement.
We also ask the subcommittee to support funding for OSM's training
program, including monies for State travel. These programs are central
to the effective implementation of State regulatory programs as they
provide necessary training and continuing education for State agency
personnel. IMCC also urges the subcommittee to support funding for
TIPS, a program that directly benefits States by providing critical
technical assistance. In this regard, we also request that the
subcommittee restore the $303,000 for these two programs that has been
proposed for reduction. We also request that the subcommittee direct
OSM not to make any further adjustments to these programs in order to
focus resources on other regulatory program activities related to the
June 11 MOU, as suggested in OSM's budget justification document.
Finally, we support funding for the Watershed Cooperative Agreements in
the amount of $1.55 million.
______
Prepared Statement of the Independent Review Team
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on
serious funding needs that have limited and continue to hinder the
operations of tribal judicial systems in Indian country. I am the
leader of the Independent Tribal Court Review Team. I am here today to
request that this subcommittee increases funding for tribal courts by
at least $50 million in fiscal year 2011 and maintain the tribal courts
set-aside.
budget priorities, request, and recommendations
+$58.4 million authorized under the Indian Tribal Justice Act of
1993, Public Law 103-176, 25 U.S.C. 3601 and re-authorized in year 2000
Public Law 106-559 (no funds appropriated to date)
--Increase funding for tribal courts by 50 percent; and
--Maintain the set-aside for tribal courts.
We support an increase in funding for:
--Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.--Tribal Courts make do with
underpaid staff, underexperienced staff, and minimal training.
(We have determined that hiring tribal members limits the
inclination of staff to move away; a poor excuse to underpay
staff.)
--Salary Increases for Existing Judges and Court Personnel.--Salaries
should be comparable to local and State court personnel to keep
pace with the nontribal judicial systems and be competitive to
maintain existing personnel.
--Tribal Courts Need State-of-the-Art Technology (Software,
Computers, Phone Systems, Tape Recording Machines).--Many
tribes cannot afford to purchase or upgrade existing court
equipment unless they are awarded a grant. This is accompanied
by training expenses and licensing fees which do not last after
the grant ends.
--Security and Security Systems To Protect Court Records and Privacy
of Case Information.--Most tribal courts do not even have a
full-time bailiff, much less a state-of-the-art security system
that uses locked doors and camera surveillance. This is a
tragedy waiting to happen.
--Tribal Court Code Development.--Tribes cannot afford legal
consultation. A small number of tribes hire on-site staff
attorneys. These staff attorneys generally become enmeshed in
economic development and code development does not take
priority. Tribes make do with underdeveloped codes. The Adam
Walsh Act created a hardship for tribes who were forced to
develop codes, without funding, or have the State assume
jurisdiction. (States have never properly overseen law
enforcement in a tribal jurisdiction.)
--Financial Code Development.--We have rarely seen tribes with
developed financial policies. The process of paying a bond, for
example, varies greatly from tribe to tribe. The usual process
of who collects it, where it is collected and how much it is,
is never consistent among tribes.
For the past 4 years, the Independent Court Review Team has been
traveling throughout Indian country assessing how tribal courts are
operating. During this time, we have completed some 60 court reviews.
There is no one with more hands-on experience and knowledge regarding
the current status of tribal courts than our Review Team.
We have come into contact with every imaginable type of tribe;
large and small, urban and rural, wealthy, and poor. What we have not
come into contact with is any tribe whose court system is operating
with financial resources comparable to local and State jurisdictions.
There are many positive aspects about tribal courts. It is clear
that tribal courts and justice systems are vital and important to the
communities where they are located. Tribes value and want to be proud
of their court systems. Tribes with even modest resources tend to send
additional funding to courts before other costs. After decades of
existence, many tribal courts, despite minimal funding, have achieved a
level of experience and sophistication approaching, and in some cases
surpassing, local non-Indian courts.
Tribal courts, through the Indian Child Welfare Act, have mostly
stopped the wholesale removal of Indian children from their families.
Indian and non-Indian courts have developed formal and informal
agreements regarding jurisdiction. Tribal governments have recognized
the benefit of having law-trained Judges, without doing away with
Judges who have cultural/traditional experience. Tribal court systems
have appellate courts, jury trials, well-cared-for courthouses (even
the poorer tribes), and tribal bar listings and fees. Perhaps most
importantly, tribes recognize the benefit of an independent judiciary
and have taken steps to insulate courts and judges from political
pressure. No longer in Indian country are judges automatically fired
for decisions against the legislature.
Our research indicates tribal courts are at a critical stage in
terms of need. Nationwide, there are 156 tribes with courts that
receive Federal funding. These tribes divided a mere $11.9 million in
Federal funds throughout fiscal year 09. It is the strong
recommendation of the Independent Tribal Courts Review Team that the
Federal tribal courts budget be substantially increased above what is
in the President's budget.
Assessments have indicated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs only
funds tribal courts at 26 percent of the funding needed to operate. The
remainder is funded by the tribes. Tribes who have economic development
generally subsidize their tribal courts. On the flip side, tribes who
cannot afford to assist in the financial operations of the court are
tasked with doing the best they can with what they have even at the
expense of decreasing or eliminating services elsewhere. This while
operating at a disadvantage with already overstrained resources and
underserved needs of the tribal members. The assessment suggests that
the smaller courts are both the busiest and most underfunded.
We thank this subcommittee for the additional $5 million funding,
and the Senate's additional $5 million ($10 million) in fiscal year
2010. This will be a big asset once the funding trickles down to the
tribal courts. These funds will be added to the base funding of the
tribal justice systems.
The grant funding in the Department of Justice is intended to be
temporary, but instead it is used for permanent needs; such as funding
a drug court clerk who then is used as a court clerk with drug court
duties. When the funding runs out, so does the permanent position. We
have witnessed many failed drug courts, failed court management
software projects (due to training costs) and incomplete code
development projects. When the justice funding runs out, so does the
project.
As a directive from the Office of Management and Budget, our
reviews specifically examined how tribes were using Federal funding. In
the last 4 fiscal years there was only one isolated incident of a 3
percent questionable expenditure of Federal funds (fiscal year 2009).
It is speculated that because of our limited resources, we compromise a
defendant's due process and invoke ``speedy trials'' violations to save
tribal courts money. Everyone who is processed through the tribal
judicial system is afforded their constitutional civil liberties and
civil rights.
We do not wish to leave an entirely negative impression about
tribal courts. True, tribal courts need an immediate, sustained, and
increased level of funding and there are strong indications that the
courts will put such funding to good use.
There are tribes like the Fort Belknap Tribe of Montana whose chief
judge manages both offices and holds court in an old dormitory that
can't be used when it rains because water leaks into the building and
the mold has consumed one wall. Their need exceeds 100 percent.
And, there are tribes like the isolated Havasupai, located in the
bottom of the Grand Canyon. They can only afford a judge 1 day a month.
Their computers only work sporadically because of the fine layer of
dust that appears to cover everything. They have a single, underpaid
clerk, who remains dedicated to her job, even though her employment
experience means she could make twice as much working out of the Canyon
away from home. When she goes to pick up her children at school, the
court must close, because she is the only one there. The flooding of
the Canyon has not helped. Their need exceeds 100 percent.
Tribal courts have other serious needs. Tribal appellate court
judges are mostly attorneys who dedicate their services for modest fees
that barely cover costs for copying and transcription fees. Tribal
courts offer jury trials. In many courts, one sustained jury trial will
deplete the available budget. The only place to minimize expenses is to
fire staff. Many tribal courts have defense advocates. These advocates
are generally law trained and do a good job protecting an individual's
rights (including assuring speedy trial limitations are not violated.)
However, this is a large item in court budgets and if the defense
advocate, or Prosecutor, should leave, the replacement process is slow.
I come here today to tell Congress these things. We feel it is our
duty to come here on behalf of tribes to advocate for better funding
for tribal justice systems. Tribes ask us to tell their stories. They
open their files and records to us and say, ``We have nothing to
hide.'' Tell Congress we need better facilities, more detention
facilities, more legal advice, better codes. the list goes on and on.
But, as we have indicated, it all involves more funding. This Congress
and this new administration can do something great. Put your money
where your promises have been.
We support the requests and recommendations of the National
Congress of American Indians.
______
Prepared Statement of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative
Introduction and Background
As a member of the Blackfeet Nation and President of the
InterTribal Buffalo Council (ITBC), I appreciate the opportunity to
submit written testimony to the honorable members of the Senate
Committee on Appropriations; Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies. ITBC, recently reorganized from a nonprofit
corporation to a federally chartered Indian organization under section
17 of the Indian Reorganization Act is headquartered in Rapid City,
South Dakota. ITBC is comprised of 56 federally recognized Indian
tribes in 18 States that are committed to the restoration, preservation
and protection of buffalo in Indian Country and beyond. In this
testimony, I will address: (1) ITBC's request for a $3,000,000
appropriation for fiscal year 2011, from the Department of Interior to
continue buffalo restoration efforts, provide expert technical
assistance, implement a marketing initiative, develop faculties to
accommodate buffalo released from the Yellowstone quarantine facility
and continue the viable health initiative to prevent and treat diet
related diseases among Native Americans; and (2) convey to the
subcommittee the unmet needs of the ITBC membership.
Historically, Native Americans, particularly in the Plains regions
of North America, relied heavily on buffalo for survival. This
dependence on buffalo cultivated the strong spiritual and cultural
relationship between Native Americans and buffalo that has not
diminished with the passage of time. In the 1800's, buffalo were
needlessly slaughtered to a point of near extinction during the period
Native Americans were moved onto reservations. While Tribe's long
desired sufficient lands, financing and capacity to protect buffalo,
this desire did not come to fruition until the early 1990's with the
formation of the ITBC. ITBC was established to promote the mission of
preserving the sacred relationship between Indian people and buffalo
through the restoration of buffalo to tribal lands. ITBC envisioned the
restoration of buffalo to tribal lands could foster sustainable
economic development that would be compatible with Tribal culture. ITBC
first received Federal funding through the Department of the Interior
in 1992 to commence restoration efforts.
Federal appropriations have allowed ITBC to successfully restore
buffalo to more than 50 Reservations, thereby re-establishing the
sacred relationship between Indian people and buffalo. With healthy,
viable buffalo herds, opportunities now exist for tribes to utilize
buffalo for economic development and for the prevention and treatment
of the diet related diseases that gravely impact Native American
populations such as diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.
Economically sustainable herds will allow tribes to utilize a
culturally relevant resource in a manner that is compatible with their
spiritual and cultural beliefs.
Funding Request
The InterTribal Bison Cooperative respectfully requests an
appropriation for fiscal year 2011 in the amount of $3,000,000. This
amount would restore ITBC Federal funding to the fiscal year 2006
appropriation level and would allow ITBC to successfully accomplish its
goals and objectives. This request will help balance ITBC's continuing
growth in membership with its funding level. A $3,000,000 appropriation
would restore vital funding that was cut from the administration's
fiscal year 2007, fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 budgets.
$3,000,000 in appropriated funding will allow ITBC Tribes to continue
successful buffalo restoration efforts, to implement ITBC's marketing
and infrastructure development initiative, to restore the health
initiative for the prevention and treatment of diet related diseases
among Native American populations, and develop faculties to accommodate
buffalo released from the Yellowstone National Park quarantine program.
Funding Shortfall and Unmet Need
In fiscal year 2006, ITBC and it member tribes were funded through
appropriations at $4,150,000. The Presidents budget in fiscal year 2007
and fiscal year 2008 eliminated funding for ITBC. ITBC was funded
$1,000,000 in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 through a
Congressional appropriation. In fiscal year 2009 ITBC was funded
$1,000,000 through a congressional appropriation and $421,000 from
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) carryover funds from fiscal year 2008.
In 2009 and 2010, ITBC has been funded $1,000,000 from the BIA's
Wildlife Management line item. ITBC had started a successful Marketing
Program and Health Initiative that addressed diet related health
problems that are epidemic on most of our Reservations when ITBC's
funding had been drastically reduced.
Without the restoration of funding close to the fiscal year 2006
level, new member Tribes will not receive adequate funding to begin
buffalo restoration efforts. Tribes that have successfully restored
buffalo to tribal lands will not receive adequate technical assistance
and resource development funds to ensure the sustainability of existing
herds. Furthermore, the investment made by Congress in fiscal year 2006
towards ITBC's healthcare initiative has been cut to the point of
almost being nonexistent.
ITBC funding benefits member tribes via direct awards of Herd
Development Grants for restoration or herd maintenance and also
provides critical technical assistance for herd health needs, range
management and herd management training. ITBC surveys member Tribes
annually to determine unmet project needs and currently the total unmet
needs for ITBC member tribe's projects is approximately $7,000,000.
These needs include infrastructure (fencing and corrals) needs,
equipment, water development, range development, marketing, and a
processing facility.
ITBC Goals and Initiatives
The goal of ITBC is restoration of buffalo to Indian lands for
Tribes to utilize as sustainable economic development efforts. ITBC's
ultimate goal is for tribal buffalo herds to achieve economic
sustainability and become integrated, on a daily basis, into the diets
of reservation populations.
Tribal Buffalo Marketing to Achieve Viable Economic
Development
In 1991, seven Indian tribes had small buffalo herds that
collectively comprised less than 1,600 animals. The buffalo provided
little or no economic benefit to the tribal owners. ITBC has proven
extremely successful at buffalo restoration in its 15 years of
existence. Today, with the support and technical assistance of ITBC and
its fellow member tribes, 56 Indian tribes are engaged in raising
buffalo or developing plans to raise buffalo with a goal of achieving
economically sustainable herds. ITBC and the member tribes have
restored approximately 15,000 buffalo back to tribal lands for use by
the tribes and their members. Collectively, tribes raise the largest
buffalo herd in the United States.
Many of these tribal buffalo programs have developed herds large
enough to justify plans for marketing products as a step towards self
sufficiency. However, tribes must have the resources to build solid
foundations for this new industry and viable marketing options to
achieve economic development efforts. ITBC's marketing initiative is in
an infancy stage and renewed funding is critical to achieve meaningful
economic opportunities for tribes. ITBC had launched efforts to develop
viable markets for tribal buffalo both in the private sector and
through coordination with Federal agencies. However, ITBC has been
unable to compete for large-scale buffalo meat contracts due to its
inability to maintain a constant, cost-effective supply chain. To re-
initiate these efforts, provide critical marketing training for
individual tribes, and to acquire sufficient pasture lands to maintain
a significant supply of buffalo to accommodate large-scale product
orders, ITBC requests $1,000,000 in funding.
ITBC member tribes face a multitude of obstacles when trying to get
their buffalo to market. The remoteness of the reservations requires
the transportation of buffalo over long distances to processing plants
resulting in higher operating costs. Some processing plants are
reluctant to process range fed buffalo while others require that
animals be corn finished in a feedlot which compromises ITBC's
objective to deliver natural, range-fed, low-fat buffalo products. To
remedy this obstacle, ITBC seeks funding in the amount of $500,000 to
purchase an USDA approved mobile slaughter unit and equipment for
transportation and/or storage of live and processed buffalo.
Additionally, funds will be utilized to train ITBC member tribes on use
of the mobile slaughter facility. Presently, at least three USDA
approved mobile slaughter units process buffalo in the United States.
ITBC would like to acquire a unit for use by the member tribes to
maintain the integrity of ITBC's natural range-fed buffalo. ITBC has
discussed this request with the BIA Economic Development Office
although no funding has been allocated.
Yellowstone National Park Bison Quarantine Facility
ITBC has long been considered the ``informal protectors'' of
buffalo in the United States and in this capacity, ITBC has long been
at the table with other Federal and State agencies surrounding the
Yellowstone National Park to address the brucellosis concerns of
Yellowstone Park buffalo. The slaughter of buffalo that forage outside
the Park in Montana as well as the recent transfer of treated buffalo
to private ownership has resulting in public outcry. ITBC proposes to
develop faculties to accommodate the buffalo coming out of the
Yellowstone National Park quarantine facilities to ensure animals are
going to tribal lands as the Greater Yellowstone Area initial
management plans intended. ITBC tribes desire acquiring the buffalo but
have been limited by the required infrastructure to accommodate the
animals. ITBC requests funding in an amount of $500,000 to coordinate
with the National Park Service and other Federal agencies to develop a
program to accommodate buffalo released from the Yellowstone quarantine
facility that ensures continued protection of buffalo while minimizing
disease concerns for livestock industries. The funding request will
accommodate transportation, testing, adequate pasture with required
fencing, and maintenance costs with a goal of eventually transferring
the animals to tribes and other public entities.
Preventive Health Care Initiative
ITBC is committed to providing buffalo meat to Indian Reservation
families both as an economic development effort for Native American
producers and, more critically, as a healthy food to reintroduce into
the diets of Native American populations. Current research indicates
that the diet of most Indian Reservation families includes large
amounts of high cholesterol, processed meats that contribute to
diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease and other diet related
illnesses.
ITBC member tribes were just beginning to implement a preventive
healthcare initiative with fiscal year 2006 funding that provided easy
access to buffalo meat on Indian Reservations and educated Indian
families on the health benefits of range fed buffalo meat. A
restoration of the funds in the amount of $1,000,000 will allow the
program to operate at the fiscal year 2006 level. This funding will
allow ITBC to provide buffalo meat in family sized quantities to
Reservation markets and interact with the Federal Food programs to make
buffalo meat available in reservation schools and local community
health networks to address diabetes and other health issues.
Conclusion
The projects detailed above total $3 million which when added to
the allocation in the President's budget request will restore ITBC to
its fiscal year 2006 funding level of $4.1 million. ITBC anticipates
that funding of all the projects above will create 150 temporary jobs
and 50 permanent positions.
I would like to thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to
present testimony and the members of ITBC invite the honorable members
of the subcommittee to visit our tribal buffalo projects and experience
first hand their successes.
______
Prepared Statement of the Izaak Walton League of America
The Izaak Walton League of America appreciates the opportunity to
submit testimony concerning appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for
various agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of the
subcommittee. The League is a national, nonprofit organization founded
in 1922. We have nearly 38,000 members and more than 260 local chapters
nationwide. Our members are committed to advancing common sense
policies that safeguard wildlife and habitat, support community-based
conservation, and address pressing environmental issues. The following
pertains to programs administered by the Departments of Agriculture and
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Environmental Protection
Agency.
Departments of Agriculture and Interior, Land and Water Conservation
Fund
The League is very encouraged by the President's proposal to
increase funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to
approximately $620 million in fiscal year 2011 with the goal of fully
funding LWCF at $900 million by 2014. The League strongly supports full
funding and its members reaffirmed this commitment in 2008 by adopting
a resolution during our National Convention endorsing this goal. It is
important to begin to reinvest in strategic land acquisition to protect
critical habitat, provide recreational access, and to buffer against
the likely impacts of climate change.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS)
The League joins other members of the Cooperative Alliance for
Refuge Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 22 wildlife,
sporting, conservation, and scientific organizations representing more
than 14 million members and supporters, in requesting $578 million in
fiscal year 2011 for operations and maintenance of the NWRS. We urge
the subcommittee to reject the administration's proposal to cut the
operations and maintenance budget by more than $3 million compared to
the fiscal year 2010 appropriation.
We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's leadership in boosting
NWRS funding to approximately $503 million in the fiscal year 2010. We
are concerned that the president's proposal would stall momentum the
Congress has created over the past 3 years. Moreover, if a funding
freeze or cuts are continued over multiple fiscal years, this could
force the Fish and Wildlife Service to curtail visitor services,
eliminate staff, and further delay essential maintenance projects.
It is important to note that the cut proposed by the administration
is greater than $3.3 million because the Department is proposing that
agencies absorb fixed costs. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates
that NWRS requires at least $15 million annually to keep pace with
inflation, including rising fuel, rental, and utility costs and cost-
of-living adjustments for staff. Therefore, the effective budget cut
would exceed $18 million. NWRS has a $2.7 billion maintenance backlog
today, in part, because the Service has been forced to continuously
defer essential maintenance when base funding fell short of basic
operational needs. The administration's proposal would only exacerbate
this problem.
Furthermore, the administration proposes specific cuts within the
operations and maintenance budget that we oppose and consider
counterproductive. For example, it recommends cutting the visitor
services account by nearly $4 million. Last year, 42 million Americans
visited wildlife refuges across the country to hunt and fish, observe
wildlife, learn from Service professionals, or simply take a walk in
the woods. And these visitors have a direct, positive impact on local
economies. The Service estimates that refuge visitors generate $1.7
billion in sales and support 27,000 private-sector jobs. If visitor
services decline due to budget cuts and visitation is negatively
impacted, our shared goal of reviving the economy and creating jobs
could be undermined.
In addition, the administration proposes to cut the law enforcement
budget. We believe this fails to reflect an urgent need across wildlife
refuges. The analysis of NWRS performance issued in 2008 by Management
Systems International (MSI) concluded that ``[A]t many refuges, law
enforcement coverage is insufficient to ensure protection of resources
and the safety of visitors and refuge staff.'' This analysis
recommended that the Service double the number of refuge law
enforcement staff from 200 to ``at least 400 full-time officers.'' In
fiscal year 2010, NWRS has approximately 210 full-time law enforcement
personnel. Moreover, the analysis tied the law enforcement problem
directly to funding stating ``[I]t is highly unlikely that any
meaningful progress towards improving the Refuge System's law
enforcement capability (will occur) under current and expected budget
allocation levels.'' Increasing funding for operations--rather than
cutting it--will allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to begin to boost
law enforcement capability, which is important to protecting visitors,
fish, wildlife, and habitat.
Fish and Wildlife Service, State Wildlife Grants
As a member of the Teaming with Wildlife National Steering
Committee, the League urges the subcommittee to provide $100 million
for the State Wildlife Grants Program in fiscal year 2011.
The State Wildlife Grants Program supports proactive conservation
projects aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered.
Experience shows that efforts to restore imperiled wildlife can be
particularly contentious and costly when action is taken only after
species are formally listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act. State Wildlife Grants support State and
community-based efforts to safeguard habitat and wildlife before either
reaches the tipping point. This program also provides States with an
important source of Federal funds to address nongame species. Finally,
the Federal investment leverages significant funding from private,
State, and local sources.
Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Water State Revolving Fund
The League supports the request for $2 billion for the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (SRF). Nationwide, broken sewer pipes and
overflows spill more than 1 trillion gallons of untreated sewage into
our waterways every year costing more than $50 billion for cleanup.
These overflows pose serious risks to fish, wildlife, and human health.
The SRF is a highly successful program that provides the funds needed
to reduce sewage contamination and improve water quality. However, the
Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water and Drinking Water
Infrastructure Gap Analysis found a $535 billion gap between current
spending and projected needs for drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure over the next 20 years. Investing $2 billion in the
Clean Water SRF is essential to improving water quality, protecting
public health, and supporting jobs across the country.
Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes Restoration
The League is also very encouraged by the President's on-going
commitment to Great Lakes restoration. We support providing at least
$300 million as requested to build on the funding Congress provided in
fiscal year 2010 and to support implementation of the recently released
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan. The Great Lakes provide
drinking water to 35 million people and support jobs and recreational
opportunities for millions more. However, the health of the Great Lakes
is seriously threatened by untreated sewage, toxic pollution, invasive
species, and other problems. The eight States that border the Lakes and
many nongovernmental organizations have invested significant resources
to safeguard these national treasures. Significant Federal investment
is also needed or the problems will only get worse and cost even more
to fix. Cleaning up the Great Lakes will provide many benefits,
including economic development in the region.
The League urges the subcommittee to provide at least $300 million
to advance this critical initiative, especially when numerous studies
estimate that $5 billion is required to restore the Great Lakes
ecosystem. In addition, we believe it will be important to appropriate
$475 million for Great Lakes restoration in fiscal year 2012 and
beyond. In the Action Plan, the administration states its intention to
request this amount in the future and the Great Lakes Ecosystem
Protection Act (H.R. 4755/S. 3073) authorizes this amount between
fiscal year 2011 and 2016.
Environmental Protection Agency, Non-point Source Management Program
(Clean Water Act Section 319)
The League urges the subcommittee to appropriate at least $200
million for section 319, the Non-point Source Management Program, as
requested by the president. This program provides grants to States,
territories and tribes for nonpoint source pollution reduction
activities. EPA and many States report that nonpoint source pollution
is the leading cause of water quality problems, including harmful
effects on drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries and wildlife.
The Non-point Source Management Program provides critical funding for
restoration. For example, 172 water bodies in 44 States have been
restored with section 319 funding. Continued investment in this program
will help restore our waterways for people and wildlife.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program
The League strongly supports the administration's request for $63
million in fiscal year 2011 for the Chesapeake Bay Program.
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary on the Atlantic coast and
one of the largest in the world. EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office
(CBPO) is the primary facilitator of restoration activities by partners
throughout the watershed. Although the Chesapeake Bay Program has made
significant progress toward pollution reduction, habitat restoration,
fisheries management, and watershed protection goals, much more work is
needed to restore the Bay. For example, habitat restoration efforts are
collectively less than half way to Program goals and there is concern
about the overall quality of habitat that remains.
Although the request is positive, the League believes it is
important for the administration and the subcommittee to prepare to
make substantial additional investments in Bay restoration. According
to the Chesapeake Bay Commission's report The Cost of a Clean Bay
(2003), $19 billion is needed to meet the restoration goals outlined in
the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. Additional investment will be necessary
to fulfill new goals being developed following the President's 2009
Chesapeake Bay Executive order. The executive order establishes the
framework for a comprehensive Federal effort, in partnership with
States, local governments, and many others, to tackle persistent
problems that negatively impact water quality, habitat, recreation, and
important sectors of the regional economy. The EPA is completing a
total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the Bay that will be a key tool in
improving water quality. At the same time, it must be coupled with
proactive technical assistance and funding to assist local governments,
farmers, and others with compliance. Achieving the President's goals,
successfully implementing new pollution reduction measures, and
restoring habitat, streams, and wetlands will depend, in part, on
significant new investment in future fiscal years.
The League appreciates the opportunity to testify about these
important issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
My name is W. Ron Allen. On behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam
Tribe, I want to thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to submit
this written testimony on our funding priorities and requests on the
fiscal year 2011 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health
Service (IHS) budgets. We have long appreciated this subcommittee's
support of our funding requests.
tribal-specific appropriation priorities
$600,000 land purchase for Tamanowas Rock Sanctuary Project; and an
$200,000 increase to BIA tribal base budget for fish and wildlife
management.
local/regional requests and recommendations
We support all requests and recommendations of Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Indians; Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board; and the
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
national requests and recommendations
BIA Requests
Provide $82.9 million general increase to BIA Tribal Priority
Allocation (TPA) for inflationary and fixed costs; provide $64 million
increase for BIA Contract Support Cost (CSC), including Direct CSC; and
provide a $5 million increase in the Indian Self-Determination (ISD)
Fund; and provide 100 percent of fixed costs (uncontrollable),
including tribal pay costs.
IHS Requests
Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory inflation and population
growth increase to maintain existing healthcare services; $330 million
increase for Contract Health Services (CHS); $122 million increase for
the IHS to fully fund CSC, including Direct CSC; and increase $5
million to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG).
We support all requests and recommendations of the National
Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the National Indian Health
Board (NIHB). The leadership of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe remains
actively involved in both NCAI and NIHB and has participated in
numerous national forums to discuss and prioritize program funding and
budgets. We are extremely supportive of the requests from these
organizations.
tribal-specific appropriation justification
$600,000 Land Purchase for Tamanowas Rock Sanctuary Project
The purpose of the project is to preserve tribal cultural and
ceremonial access to an important archaeological site of the S'Klallam
American Indian people. Tamanowas Rock, located in eastern Jefferson
County on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, is of great
cultural and spiritual significance to the tribes in the region, and
also holds special significance for the local non-Indian community. As
a geological formation, the estimated age of the Rock is 43 million
years. More importantly, the oral history associated with the Rock
among the local tribes includes the era of the mastodons (extinct for
8,000 years), when it was used as a perch by tribal hunters and a story
of a great flood (assumed to be a tsunami from around 3,000 years ago)
when people tied themselves to the Rock to avoid being swept away.
In 1976, the Rock was listed in the Washington Heritage Register as
having significant archaeological interest. The tribes and local
community have been working for more than 10 years to try to protect
the property where the Rock is located from development. In February
2005, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, acting on behalf of all the
S'Klallam Tribes, obtained loans to purchase a 20-acre parcel and a
group of platted properties totaling 66.32 acres (if dedicated roads
are vacated, the acreage is closer to 100 acres for the platted
properties). This property was in imminent threat of development in the
vicinity of the Rock. The local community and the tribes now seek funds
to purchase the land temporarily secured by the loan and purchase the
remaining 80 acres directly surrounding Tamanowas Rock, all of which
would be protected in perpetuity.
$200,000 Increase to BIA Tribal Base Budget for Fish and Wildlife
Management
The U.S. Government formally recognized the Jamestown S'Klallam
Tribe in 1981. Jamestown is 1 of 4 tribes that signed the Point No
Point Treaty with the U.S. Government in 1855. The BIA began
contracting with the tribe to provide fisheries management services.
The Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) was serving as the fisheries
management agency for the other Klallam and Skokomish Tribes. In its
efforts to contract with Jamestown for basic fisheries management
services, the BIA decided to provide only enough funding to slightly
expand PNPTC rather than providing funding of sufficient quantity for
Jamestown to operate a fisheries program of the same size as the other
three tribes. Following the implementation of the Self-Governance (SG)
statute, the distribution of contracted funds to each PNPTC member
tribe was based on funding history, thus Jamestown received a
significantly smaller portion of the PNPTC base funding than received
by the other three tribes. The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is nonetheless
required to meet the basic fisheries and wildlife management
responsibilities of U.S. v. Washington including planning, negotiation,
regulation, technical expertise and enforcement. The $200,000 increase
to our fiscal year 2011 SG base is needed to implement these essential
treaty fish and wildlife management services.
local/regional requests and recommendations
The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is a direct beneficiary of the
collective tribal efforts and continues to support the requests and
recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians,
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission.
national requests and priorities
BIA Requests
Overall, funding for BIA in fiscal year 2011 would be ``level
funded'' at $2.6 billion under the President's proposed budget. Total
funding represents a $53.6 million reduction below the enacted fiscal
year 2010 level. The President has committed to support and advance ISD
and SG for the Nation's 567 federally recognized tribes. Consistent
with that commitment, the fiscal year 2011 budget should include the
following critical increases:
TPA General Increase.--Provide $82.9 million (10 percent increase
over fiscal year 2010) for general increase to BIA TPA for inflationary
and fixed costs
TPA is one of the most important funding areas for tribal
governments. It covers such needs as scholarships and higher education
funding, human services, economic development, and natural resources
management. This funding has steadily eroded due to inflation and
population growth. The effects of rising costs of travel, equipment,
supplies, and purchased services have been compounding for years while
the Native American population has increased at 1.6 percent per year.
Since tribes have the flexibility to use TPA funds to meet the unique
needs of their individual communities, they are the main resources for
tribes to exercise their powers of ISD and SG. We respectfully urge the
subcommittee to provide at least a 10 percent ($82.9 million) increase
over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level for TPA in order to maintain
these programs and services.
CSC.--Provide $64 million increase for BIA to fully fund CSC,
including Direct CSC; and provide $5 million for the ISD Fund.
Excluding the President's requested increase in CSC for fiscal year
2011, it is anticipated that there will be a shortfall in CSC of $64
million for fiscal year 2011. Additionally, $5 million is needed
annually for administrative costs for new and expanded programs (ISD
Fund). CSC are the key to ISD for tribes. Full funding of CSC covers
the fixed overhead costs that a tribe must incur to operate a BIA
program or facility as required under the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act. When CSC is not fully funded, tribes are
forced to utilize limited direct program services dollars or tribal
resources to cover these shortfalls. Further, CSC directly funds jobs--
and those jobs directly enhance services for education, law enforcement
and other essential governmental services across Indian country. We
respectfully urge the subcommittee to fund these essential services and
not permit Indian agreements to remain the only government contracts
that are not fully funded.
Fixed Costs.--Provide 100 percent of tribal fixed costs
(uncontrollable), including pay costs.
The 2011 President's budget does not include an increase for
anticipated fixed costs, including pay and benefit costs. Without this
funding, tribal programs will be forced to absorb these uncontrollable
fixed costs. We respectfully urge the subcommittee to provide annual
increases for tribal pay and fixed costs to avoid progressive program
declines.
IHS Requests
The President's proposed increase for the IHS is projected to be
$354.1 million (8.7 percent increase) more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level. This marks the second year of the Obama administration's
support to Indian health programs and it represents the first step
toward meeting the overwhelming $21.8 billion needed to bring parity in
healthcare for American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Mandatories.--Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and
population growth increase to maintain existing health care services.
Mandatory costs increases are necessary to maintain the current
level of services. These ``mandatories'' are unavoidable and include
medical and general inflation, pay costs, and population growth.
Maintaining current services is a fundamental budget principle. Failure
to do so would result in cuts in healthcare and delivery. We estimate
the current services need in fiscal year 2011 is $474 million.
Contract Health Services (CHS).--Provide $330 million Increase for
CHS.
Tribes have recommended that an increase of $330 million is needed
for CHS funding. At present, less than one-half of the CHS need is
being met, leaving too many Indian people without access to necessary
medical services. This level will allow those tribes who are not served
by an IHS hospital to provide healthcare services at the same level as
those tribes who are served by an IHS hospital.
CSC.--Provide $122 million for IHS to fully fund CSC, including
Direct CSC.
This year's fiscal year 2011 request of a $45.8 million increase
for CSC continues a sad chapter of neglect for ISD. Last year the
President requested a $107 million increase for CSC with Congress
providing an additional $9 million. For fiscal year 2011, the estimated
shortfall is $122 million. The present shortfall creates a disincentive
for tribes to pursue SG compacts, and diminishes available healthcare
funding as tribal budgets must absorb the shortfall amounts. Adequate
CSC funding assures that tribes have the ability to deliver the
highest-quality healthcare services to their members.
OTSG.--Increase $5 million to the IHS OTSG.
In 2003, Congress reduced funding for this office by $4.5 million,
a loss of 43 percent from the previous year. In each subsequent year,
this budget was further reduced due to the applied congressional
rescissions. As of 2010, there are 330 SG tribes managing approximately
$1.2 billion in funding. This represents 57 percent of all federally
recognized tribes and 33 percent of the overall IHS funding. The OTSG
supports tribes operating programs under the Tribal Self-Governance
Amendments of 2000. The SG process serves as a model program for
Federal Government outsourcing, which builds tribal infrastructures and
provides quality services to Indian people.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony to
present the budget priorities of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.
______
Prepared Statement of Keep Valley Forge Safe
Gentlemen/Ladies: We request that you cut funds from fiscal year
2011 and beyond from the Operations of the National Park System (ONPS)
so the implementation of the white-tailed deer management plan at
Valley Forge National Historic Park (VFNHP) cannot be implemented.
VFNHP officials do not have an accurate count of the number of deer
which inhabit VFNHP. Their population counts vary as much as 825
individuals.
By one method, fall spotlighting, there are about 375 deer. This
number shows a reduction of 150 deer in the 3 preceding years
indicating the population is regulating itself. Wildlife communities
self-regulate their numbers based on the availability of shelter and
food. According to VFNHP's other method of counting, spring
compartment, there are about 1,200 individuals, a decline of 400 deer
from the previous year. The spring compartment count is based on
dubious methodology which multiplies sighted deer by an index of 0.58
percent which assumes an inflation of about 60 percent in the sighted
deer. (see Final/EIS, pg. 3-17 and 3-18)
VFNHP needs to determine an exact count by conducting infrared,
flyover photography of VFNHP before taxpayers are charged about $3
million to implement this deer management plan (see Final/EIS, 2.8.3,
pg. 2-46)
Sharpshooting is dangerous especially in a suburban area like
Valley Forge which is located 2 miles from Phoenixville, 2\1/2\ miles
from the Mainline, and about 2 miles from King of Prussia, a major
commercial center. Rt. 23 and Rt. 422 (a four-lane highway connecting
Reading and Philadelphia) run through VFNHP and are used by motorists
24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Park officials admit sharpshooting will probably increase deer
vehicle collisions (Final/EIS, pg. 4-89) During the public hearing
about the plan on January 15, 2008, Michele Batcheller, national park
Service (NPS) wildlife biologist, stated sharpshooters would push deer
across roads out of VFNHP into surrounding neighborhoods. It is a well
known fact deer run away in panic from anything shot at them. Both Erie
Insurance, which studies the subject for the industry, and Penndot draw
a direct correlation between shooting at deer and wildlife vehicle
crashes.
Deer can run at 35 mph (Bauer, ``Whitetails'' Voyageur Press, 1993,
pg. 25). At that speed they can run from one end of the 5 square mile
VFNHP to the other in 8.6 minutes crossing Rt. 23 and Rt. 422 in 6-8
minutes or less. They can also run to Conestoga Road, Tredyffrin
Township, about 2 miles way in 3-4 minutes. The plan calls for using
sharpshooters for at least 4 years, and perhaps as many as 15 years,
i.e., the life of the plan thus subjecting residents, the public and
motorists to being shot or killed in a deer vehicle crash for 4-15
years. This risk is totally unacceptable.
Nothing can protect residents, the public or motorists from
misfired or stray bullets as victims like 2-year-old Giana De Campos
knows (see Courier News, December. 5, 2008); or the Swan Lake, NY
toddler who was killed when a bullet 400 feet away pierced the walls of
her home (see Times-Herald, Nov. 17, 2008); or Casey Kantner, 18 years
old, and scores of other victims. The plan at VFNHP will permit
sharpshooters with high powered rifles to be as close as 300 feet from
roads; at that distance bullets could overshoot highways.
Chances are neither the sharpshooters nor NPS will be held
accountable; the accident victim will likely bear the consequences
including the cost of medical care for their injury, loss of wages,
etc. Any court awards as a result of lawsuits will be paid by the
American taxpayer.
In addition to the serious risks to public safety posed by this
Plan it also misuses the Impairment Standard of the Organic Act which
pertains to the public's use of VFNHP, not wildlife. According to 16
U.S.C. 3 the only reason under which the Secretary of the Interior can
kill wildlife is if the animals are detrimental to the public's use of
VFNHP, i.e., the situation where grizzly bears mauled park visitors,
and the black bears who became a risk to public safety by foraging for
food near motor vehicles.
The plan also violates NEPA because NPS failed to include a forest
management plan which is integral to the deer management plan because
VFNHPis basing the success of the deer management plan on forest
regeneration.
We send our elected representatives to Washington to provide
oversight over Federal bureaucracies. Our Senators are failing us if
they can't stop the NPS from implementing a deer management plan a
VFNHP which NPS admits risks killing and seriously injuring people. We
are asking you to cut appropriation funding from the fiscal year 2011
and beyond to the NPS so it cannot implement its white-tailed deer
management plan at VFNHP. I understand funds to implement the Plan
represent VFNHP base funds.
______
Prepared Statement of the League of American Orchestras
The League of American Orchestras urges the subcommittee to approve
fiscal year 2011 funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
at a level of $180 million. After suffering a 40 percent budget cut in
the mid-90s, funding has been gradually climbing for the agency, but
still falls short of its 1992 appropriations level. We urge Congress to
continue supporting the important work of this agency and to increase
its capacity to improve public access to the arts, nurture cultural
diversity, foster new artistic works, and support jobs in communities
nationwide.
Founded in 1942, the League of American Orchestras is the national
service organization for symphony, chamber, youth, and collegiate
orchestras. The League strives to stimulate the exchange of ideas and
practices, promote innovation, and foster unity across the orchestra
field. We estimate that there are approximately 1,800 orchestras in the
United States, with annual budgets ranging from less than $12,000 to
more than $88 million. Orchestras exist in all 50 States, in virtually
every community, and are supported by a network of citizens including
instrumentalists, conductors, managers, board members, volunteers,
staff members, and business partners.
The experience of live orchestral music is an important part of a
community's fabric, and the presence of orchestras is often an
indicator of a community's economic and cultural strength. In addition
to fueling local economies, attracting new business development, and
educating young people, the power of music also unites individuals and
cultures in good times and bad. Furthermore, amidst today's economic
turmoil, the need for understanding the changing context around us and
effectively adapting is greater than ever. The League is committed to
help orchestras in this work by bringing new knowledge and perspectives
concerning the shifting priorities in our communities to our members.
Likewise, the NEA plays an incredibly valuable leadership role through
its direct grants to organizations, national research, and strategic
initiatives.
More than 40 years of support from the NEA has increased the
capacity of orchestras to serve and strengthen communities across our
country. Federal arts support has an exponential impact: because the
competition for Federal dollars is extremely intense, the awarding of
an NEA grant greatly enhances and strengthens an orchestra's
application for funding from other sources. Furthermore, an NEA grant
serves as an emblem of public value and national artistic significance,
and communities large and small partake in the distinction of
presenting nationally recognized NEA-supported programs.
NEA grants support music education for children and adults,
preserve great classical works, foster the creative endeavors of
contemporary classical musicians, composers, and conductors, and expand
public access to performances. In fiscal year 2009, the NEA's Grants to
Organizations included 119 grants to orchestras, and an increase in
funding will expand the NEA's ability to serve the American public
through grants supporting and promoting the creation, preservation, and
presentation of the arts in America through the NEA's core programs--
Access to Artistic Excellence, Challenge America: Reaching Every
Community, Learning in the Arts for Children and Youth, and Federal/
State partnerships.
The NEA also provides leadership supporting the value of the arts
through national research and initiatives such as Our Town, which was
proposed in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget. This initiative
will seek to improve the cultural health of communities in order to
improve their livability, which in turn restores and enhances the civic
pride of their citizens. Investing in the arts by supporting innovative
approaches to maximize the economic growth potential of the creative
sector has a demonstrated impact in helping to reverse economic
decline. Orchestras look forward to participating in this new effort,
as well as continuing to learn from the NEA's ongoing national research
projects that illuminate trends in public participation, workforce
development, and other key areas of the American arts infrastructure.
nea funding leads to increased public access to the arts
The NEA, together with the arts organizations that receive Federal
support, is committed to improving public access to the arts. NEA
grants reach every congressional district in the country. Grants
awarded to orchestras through the Access to Artistic Excellence program
support educational activities, concerts, festivals, professional
development, and residencies in communities across the country. The
Vermont Symphony Orchestra's ``Made in Vermont Music Festival'' tour
will bring orchestral concerts to remote areas of the State, offering
audiences that are traditionally underserved by the professional
performing arts exposure to classical and contemporary music in their
own communities. Many of these towns are in economically challenged
areas that host few concerts of any kind, so community outreach is key
to the tour's success.
The Challenge America: Reaching Every Community Fast-Track Review
Grants offer support to small and mid-sized organizations for projects
that extend the reach of the arts to underserved populations. The Great
Falls Symphony will use its fiscal year 2010 Challenge America grant to
present a performance of opera arias, choral workshops for high school
students, and an open dress rehearsal for area choral and orchestra
students, as well as for residents of homes for the developmentally
disabled. The South Dakota Symphony's Lakota Music Project received an
fiscal year 2010 Challenge America grant to enable guest artists from
Sioux tribes to perform with the orchestra in Sioux Falls, Rapid City,
and on several American Indian reservations. Because of this Federal
funding, the orchestra was able to accept an invitation to present this
moving musical event to more than 750 people at the South Dakota
Governor's Tourism Banquet, which then led to an invitation for the
orchestra to present the program in 2011 on Native American Day at the
Crazy Horse Monument. With Federal support, orchestra grantees are
extending the reach of their activities beyond their home cities and
towns, bringing unique musical experiences to communities in
surrounding regions.
nea-funded arts programs nurture cultural diversity
Americans enjoy a rich and diverse cultural heritage in the arts,
and NEA grants to orchestras allow for creative expression to overcome
cultural divides in order to help improve our ability to understand and
honor our history. Orchestra programming increasingly reflects the
cultural diversity that distinguishes our country, such as a project of
the Fargo-Moorhead Symphony Orchestra, which received an fiscal year
2010 Challenge America grant to support performances of Peter Boyer's
Ellis Island--Dreams of America. Through a collaborative effort with
Theatre B, local immigrants provided oral histories, received drama
lessons and presented their stories in the orchestra's season finale
concert. The program resonated so powerfully that as a result, a
collaborative, community-wide project has spun off titled ``My Journey,
My Story: Oral Histories of New Americans in Fargo-Moorhead.'' The
Fargo-Moorhead Symphony once again is the lead partner in this effort,
engaging its citizens that speak more than 50 native languages to
capture and share their oral histories with one another. Likewise, the
San Francisco Chamber Orchestra will explore its unique cultural
influences in performances of a new violin concerto titled Hailli
Lirico. Orchestra musicians will partner with Andean folk specialists
for the series, introducing classical music and its cultural parallels
to South American traditional music to Latino audiences in San
Francisco's Mission District, Berkeley, and Vallejo. NEA grants are a
vital part of the support system that enables orchestras to showcase
our society's rich array of cultures and provide a vehicle to engage
and connect with diverse audiences across our country.
nea funding supports education for children and youth
Arts education is proven to boost the capacity of young people to
succeed in school, work, and life. Children gain the ``arts advantage''
through NEA-funded projects that engage them in the creative process,
spark their skills of imagination, and develop their capacity for self-
discipline, perseverance, and teamwork. Orchestras are essential and
active partners in increasing access to lifelong music education,
improving the quality of life in their communities by collaborating
with school systems and other local partners to deliver a wide array of
education and community programs. The Baltimore Symphony Orchestra will
utilize NEA assistance to support a young artists concert series
celebrating youth and illuminating the life of the prolific composer,
Gustav Mahler. Throughout the season, local students will perform
alongside young ``up-and-coming'' artists in programs that celebrate
Mahler and feature works specifically written for or about young
people. Also engaging its young citizens, the Anchorage Symphony
Orchestra will use NEA Access to Artistic Excellence funding to support
its annual Young People's Concert series. This program serves
approximately 7,000 elementary students in the school district, as well
as students from south central Alaska. The concert series provides
teachers with numerous activities and lessons plan developed by music
educators, and each activity demonstrates how it meets education
standards. With a grant in the Learning in the Arts for Children and
Youth program, the Nashville Symphony will expand its One Note, One
Neighborhood program, which provides comprehensive music education
resources to underserved children and youth. This initiative represents
a close partnership between the symphony, Metro Nashville Public
Schools and W.O. Smith/Nashville Community Music School. It offers,
without cost to students, classroom curriculum materials, music
lessons, instruments, concerts and other learning opportunities at
Schermerhorn Symphony Center. The NEA is a vital partner in helping to
sustain and grow valuable programs such as these, allowing music to
continue to be a positive force for teaching young people to work
creatively together.
nea grants support jobs in communities nationwide
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 allocated
Federal funding to support economic recovery in communities nationwide,
including $50 million to the NEA to provide direct grants and block
grants to State and regional arts councils to fund arts projects and
activities vital to communities nationwide. The NEA was one of the
first Federal agencies to disseminate stimulus funding in support of
local economies and on July 7, 2009, it announced 631 awards of nearly
$30 million in ARRA funding to arts organizations, including 64 direct
grants to orchestras. Orchestra grantees across the United States
helped stabilize local economies by putting Federal funds to use to
preserve full and part-time administrative and artistic positions that
were in jeopardy of being eliminated due to the struggling economy.
A $50,000 NEA stimulus grant enabled the Memphis Symphony Orchestra
to pay two weeks of paid work for 35 full-time musicians over the next
year, and ensure that the community continues to be enriched by the
orchestra's services and programs. This valuable support enabled the
Memphis Symphony to continue providing music education, for in addition
to the concert season, musicians present a nationally recognized
corporate leadership training program; present an educational series at
a residential program for troubled children; work with local librarians
to present a Saturday morning performance series based on children's
literature; and mentor students at the Soulsville Charter School. The
Wheeling Symphony also used its $50,000 NEA stimulus grant to help
restore the loss of income suffered by its principal musicians due to
forced reductions in season programming. The grant funded the ``Music
In the Neighborhoods'' chamber series, which presented 40 free ensemble
performances in schools, libraries and other public locations. Not only
did the NEA grant help the orchestra through the economic downturn, but
it also provided a means for the orchestra to seek additional funding
sources, and as a result, it will be able to maintain the series into
fiscal year 2011.
Thank you for this opportunity to illustrate the value of NEA
support for orchestras and communities across the Nation. The
Endowment's unique ability to provide a national forum to promote
excellence, both through high standards for artistic products and the
highest expectation of accessibility, remains one of the strongest
arguments for a Federal role in support of the arts. We urge you to
support creativity and access to the arts by approving $180 million in
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians
This testimony is respectfully submitted on behalf of the Lac du
Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, located in Wisconsin,
and reflects the needs, concerns and issues of the tribe's membership
regarding the proposed fiscal year 2011 budget. We believe that the
fiscal year 2011 budget reflects the administration's dedication to
addressing funding shortfalls that have plagued Indian country and its
continuing dedication to building a nation-to-nation relationship with
tribes. However, while we support much of the budget's proposals, we do
have concerns.
Because the tribe embraces the Seventh Generation concept and
believes that without a healthy Mother Earth we cannot have healthy
people now or in future generations, we are very supportive of the
inclusion of the Circle of Flight program in the base budget. The
proposed fiscal year 2011 budget provides $600,000 in the Tribal
Management/Development Program account for this important program after
years of its exclusion from the base budget. Circle of Flight provides
critical resources necessary to restore and preserve wetlands and
waterfowl populations, which are vital to the culture and economy of
the Great Lakes region. Improved tribal wetland habitats supports
waterfowl and other bird species especially in the spring and fall
migrations, provide expanded hunting opportunities for tribal members
and the general public, and offer enhanced wild rice gathering
opportunities. In addition to protecting these natural resources,
returning this funding to the base budget will support economic
development in this region and assist the tribe in the hiring of 1.5
FTE employees--specifically a wildlife biologist and wildlife
technician--to implement and support these programs.
We also support the overall budget for the Environmental Protection
Agency. Specifically, we support the $8.5 million in GAP grant funding
and the $30 million for the new multimedia grant program to assist
tribes with implementing environmental compliance programs on tribal
lands, such as those under the Clean Air Act or RCRA. It is important
for tribes to protect their members by ensuring that their lands are
healthy and sustainable--just as important as it is for Federal and
State governments to protect their citizens. While we are concerned
that funding for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds were decreased by $93 million, we fully support the increased
Tribal set-aside. We support the continued funding for the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative, but ask that funding for the Initiative be
returned to fiscal year 2010 levels of $475 million to provide the
opportunity for the restored funds to allow the tribe to maintain our
Great Lakes Restoration Specialist and continue to restore habitats on
the reservation.
The Lac du Flambeau Tribe supports the proposed increase to the
Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) budget for indirect costs to 94 percent
of the fiscal year 2007 level. However, the tribe is concerned with the
proposed $19.4 million absorption of fixed costs. It is anticipated
this absorption would amount to a reduction of funding for fixed costs,
such as for salary and fringe, by $12.4 million in Indian country. This
is money we just cannot absorb at this time. Healthcare costs are still
rising at an alarming rate, which continues to compound the problem.
Therefore, the Lac du Flambeau Tribe requests Congress restore the
$19.4 million to the BIA budget.
Our support for and concerns regarding the proposed fiscal year
2011 budget for natural resources, law enforcement and higher education
are below.
natural resources
Tribes are leaders in natural resource protection and BIA natural
resource funding is essential for maintaining our programs. Lac du
Flambeau has a comprehensive Natural Resources Department and dedicated
staff with considerable expertise in natural resource and emergency and
land management. Among other activities, our Department raises fish for
stocking, collects data on water and air quality, develops well head
protection plans, conducts wildlife surveys and administers timber
stand improvement projects on our 86,000-acre Reservation. All of these
activities speak directly to our tribe's economic, environmental, and
physical health. Unfortunately, natural resource programs have been cut
or flat-funded for many years now, and tribes have been forced to lay
off staff and shut down programs, leaving critical resources in
jeopardy.
Conservation Law Enforcement Officers.--One of the critical
elements of our Natural Resource Program is our Conservation Law
Enforcement Officers. These officers are primarily responsible for
enforcing hunting and fishing regulations related to the exercise of
treaty rights, but they also have a much larger role in law
enforcement. They are often the first to respond to emergency
situations, handle the management of environmental emergencies, such as
forest fires or tornado damage, and are the first line of defense for
illegal activity on the reservation. The lack of adequate law
enforcement resources on reservations is a well-known problem that
plagues the public safety of tribal communities. Conservation Law
Enforcement Officers are an incredibly important part of protecting our
treaty rights and enabling us to protect our communities by
supplementing our law enforcement presence.
Unfortunately, our Conservation Officers are now 100 percent
dependent on tribal funds. This costs the tribe $248,000 annually, in
addition to the $682,700 the tribe pays for its nonconservation law
enforcement programs. The BIA does not provide any resources for this
activity, which plays a significant role in protecting our community
and is critical to maintaining and protecting our treaty rights.
Protection of our natural resources is the protection of our treaty
rights. The tribe's funding can only support two conservation officers
on duty at a time to patrol a 144 square mile reservation that includes
260 lakes, 24,000 acres of wetland and 46,000 acres of forested land.
If the BIA is unable to provide money to allow our Conservation
Officers to continue their important mission, Federal officers will
have to step up to take over and uphold the United States' binding
obligations toward these treaty rights. We request that money be
provided in the budget for conservation law enforcement programs.
Forestry.--The tribe continues to request that the subcommittee
increase funding for BIA Forestry Programs. Our reservation contains
46,000 acres of forested land that supports hunting, gathering, and
employment opportunities for tribal members. Proper management of the
forest is essential not only to sustain our subsistence lifestyle, but
also to provide economic growth for the tribe. We recognize that in
this tough economic time, the administration and Congress must make
tough choices. However, it would be more costly if sensible resource
management is sacrificed. Forest management not only provides a
mechanism for economic development for tribes, it is a fundamental
activity that protects forested communities from wildfire, enhances
resource conservation and combats climate change.
Commercial forestry provides tribes with an important source of
economic revenue and job creation. In our tribe, two foresters and one
technician undertake a broad range of management activities, including
tree planting, prescribed burning, forest road design and maintenance
and timber sale establishment and administration. If properly funded,
timber sales could provide a source of tribal revenue. Forest
management activities provide important wildfire suppression functions
and manage invasive species. If forest management programs go unfunded,
the future costs of destruction due to wildfires or invasives could be
devastating.
The total cost of operating the forestry program is approximately
$217,000. In the last several years the level of funding from the BIA
has been less than half of this, and the program has not received
substantial funding increases since fiscal year 1991. The proposed
budget reflects a decrease of $156,000 in funding for BIA Forestry
Projects. We request that Congress reject the decrease to this already
underfunded program and begin to fully invest in protecting our
forested lands.
Fish Hatchery.--The Lac du Flambeau support the $3.6 million
provided for fish hatchery operations and the $2.8 million provided for
fish hatchery maintenance. This is equal to the funding provided in the
fiscal year 2010 budget and is an amount triple that provided in fiscal
year 2009.
Historic Preservation.--In 1995, Congress began encouraging tribes
to assume historic preservation responsibilities as part of self-
determination activities. It is estimated that in fiscal year 2011
there will be 100 tribes approved by the Secretary of the Interior to
administer historic preservation programs. These programs conserve
fragile places, objects and traditions crucial to tribal culture,
history and sovereignty. As was envisioned by Congress, more tribes
qualify for funding every year. In fiscal year 2001, there were 27
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) with an average award of
$154,000 per tribe. Currently, while the number of tribes operating
THPO programs has increased, Lac du Flambeau now only receives $74,145.
Paradoxically, the more successful the program becomes overall, the
less each tribe receives to maintain professional services, ultimately
crippling the programs. To provide a minimum level of services, these
offices require at least $120,000. Therefore, we request that the
budget provide the minimum $120,000 for each tribe operating a THPO
program.
law enforcement
We commend the focus the administration and Congress has placed on
improving public safety in Indian country. As we all know, tribal
communities experience a highly disproportionate level of crime and
adequate law enforcement resources have been woefully underfunded for
decades. The rate of violent crime for Native Americans is more than
twice the national average. The administration has shown its commitment
to addressing public safety issues by holding a series of listening
sessions throughout Indian country. We believe that these listening
sessions have led to the repackaging of tribal criminal justice
programs in the fiscal year 2011 budget for the Department of Justice
in an attempt to create a more flexible tribal criminal justice
program. Unfortunately, we believe that some funds provided to the BIA
for public safety are misdirected.
Specifically, we do not support the $19 million to be used for the
BIA to reimburse the Department of Justice for 45 additional FBI agents
dedicated to Indian country. While we greatly appreciate the intent to
increase law enforcement presence in Indian country, we do not believe
$19 million for only 45 FBI agents is the most efficient or effective
way to increase public safety in tribal communities. While 45
additional FBI agents would significantly increase law enforcement
presence if they were dedicated to only a handful of communities, the
reality is that it is too small of a number for all of Indian country
to feel the affect. Essentially, approximately 365 federally recognized
tribes would not see the effects of this increase in FBI presence.
Instead of overspending on a few FBI agents and their support
staff, we believe that the $19 million would be of better use if it
were put towards Conservation Law Enforcement Officers. As was
mentioned earlier in our testimony, these officers provide the first
line of defense for many tribal law enforcement departments. They
perform the same public safety functions as do law enforcement
officers, and protect our natural resources. We feel that staffing
Conservation Law Enforcement Officers is a more efficient use of the
money and will put more boots on the ground in Indian country.
higher education
To continue the progress Indian country has made in participation
and control of education programs and schools, it is imperative that
funding for tribal higher education programs be increased. The tribe's
high school graduation rates are improving, but are still far below
national standards. President Obama has repeatedly expressed his
commitment to national education programs, and in his address to Indian
country he made a commitment to honor ``obligations to Native Americans
by providing tribes with the educational resources promised by treaty
and Federal law.'' We embrace that commitment, but we want to remind
you that the need for support does not lie only with high schools. Our
students who want to pursue higher education need our continued
support.
The budget proposes $2.164 million for Special Higher Education
Scholarships (SHEP) to support Indian students working for graduate
degrees. We strongly support the SHEP program, but are concerned that
funding for it has remained flat over the last couple of years. Tribal
communities have made great strides in educating their youth. Those
strides are evident in the fact that more Indian students are attending
and graduating from colleges and other post-secondary institutions.
However, tribal communities must continue to evolve with other
communities. The national and global economy has changed--students must
earn graduate degrees to remain competitive. After making progress in
Indian education, Indian students cannot be allowed to fall behind
again because of lack of access to higher education programs.
______
Prepared Statement the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
My name is Frances Charles, chairwoman of the Lower Elwha Klallam
Tribe. Thank you Chairwoman Feinstein for the opportunity to submit
written testimony on priority funding for the delivery of basic
services to the Elwha people, and in support of increased
appropriations for native programs in the fiscal year 2011 budgets for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS)
budgets.
tribal specific requests
Fifteen million dollars for Lower Elwha Klallam land acquisition
and economic development and $458,000 for Lower Elwha Klallam tribal
historic preservation
regional support requests
Support the request of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest
Washington; support the request of the Northwest Portland Indian Health
Board; and support the request of the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission.
national and self-governance (sg) support requests
BIA.--Provide $82.9 million general increase to BIA Tribal Priority
Allocation (TPA) for inflationary and fixed costs.
BIA.--Provide $64 million increase for BIA Contract Support Cost
(CSC), including direct CSC.
BIA.--Provide $5 million increase in the ISD fund.
BIA.--Provide 100 percent of fixed costs (uncontrollable),
including tribal pay costs.
BIA.--$12 million for National Historic Preservation Officer
Program.
Increase OTSG budget to fully staff to meet the needs of the
increase in tribes entering SG;
IHS.--Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory, inflation, and
population growth increase to maintain existing healthcare services.
IHS.--$330 million increase for Contract Health Services (CHS)
IHS.--$122 million increase for IHS to fully fund CSC, including
Direct CSC.
IHS.--Increase $5 million to the IHS OTSG.
The Elwha Klallam Tribe supports the fiscal year 2011 budget
requests National Congress of Indians and National Indian Health Board.
tribal specific request narrative
Fifteen Million Dollars for Lower Elwha Klallam Land Acquisition
and Economic Development.--In 1992, Congress enacted the Elwha River
Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (Public Law 102-495). The law
mandated the removal of the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams from the Elwha
River. Since then, the U.S. Government has committed itself to Elwha
River restoration and to addressing the public health and safety,
environmental, and economic development issues associated with the dam
removal. Dam removal is scheduled to begin in 2011. The law states:
``SEC. 7. TRIBAL LAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT.
(a) After the Secretary makes the determination to remove the dams
and actually acquires the Projects and funds are appropriated for such
conveyance and removal, the Secretary is authorized to acquire by
purchase, and hold in trust in reservation status for the benefit of
the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, lands in Clallam County, Washington, for
housing, economic development, and moorage for the Tribal commercial
fishing fleet.
(b) There is authorized to be appropriated an amount not to exceed
$4,000,000 to carry out the land acquisition purposes of this
section.''
Congress authorized $4 million for land purchases for the tribe to
make amends for damages to tribal fisheries. The National Park Service
(NPS), acting as the lead agency for the Federal dam-removal project,
decided that its mandate did not include addressing any appropriation
to the tribe. In the 18 years since the act was passed the project has
moved forward, but without any appropriations for tribal land
acquisition. There has been a significant increase in property prices
since 1992. For this reason, and to affect the intended purposes of the
1992 act, the tribe has repeatedly requested that Congress increase the
initial $4 million authorization to $15 million so that the tribe could
begin the necessary activities identified in the act before dam removal
commences next year.
Acquisition of land was part of the broader Elwha River Ecosystem
and Fisheries Restoration Act which will restore Elwha River fisheries
and permit the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe to resume its historic
livelihood of salmon fishing in the Elwha River, which the two 100-
year-old dams had rendered impossible. The provision of the law for
land acquisition was and is necessary to mitigate the disruptive
effects of the dam removal process and to provide the tribe with land
for much needed housing and to pursue economic development that will
generate funding to build upon the tribal infrastructure and strengthen
the economy of the reservation.
Of the $15 million request, the tribe would immediately use $2
million to purchase and improve 12 acres centrally located on Highway
101 on the east shore of Lake Aldwell, thereby gaining a timely
opportunity to develop land that is contiguous to the Project Lands
that the tribe also seeks to acquire.
Improvements would facilitate conversion of the parcel from private
to public use, including: road access development, potable water,
wastewater treatment, parking, utilities, trail development and
facility upgrades. Acquisition and development of this site provide the
unique setting for a world-class interpretative center to foster
research, educational outreach, and a showcase for ecosystem
restoration that will follow removal of the Elwha Dams.
--$458,000 for Tribal Historic Preservation.--The Lower Elwha Tribe
is located in an area that is extremely rich in cultural
resources and significant sites. We have been involved in the
protection and restoration of the Tse-whit-zen village and
cemetery site in downtown Port Angeles, where we have re-
interred the remains of more than 300 of our Klallam ancestors,
the largest single site that has been unearthed west of the
Mississippi River. Other sites of equal or greater significance
exist in Port Angeles and surrounding areas. One such site is
the Y'innis village site on Ennis Creek, which flows through
the site of an abandoned lumber mill that is currently
undergoing cleanup. The tribe is involved in overseeing the
cleanup of that site, the restoration of Ennis Creek, and the
protection of the village site.
The tribe must also spend ever-increasing time responding to
Federal agency requests for consultation under section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. As you know, the
NHPA declared that the preservation of our irreplaceable heritage was
in the Nation's interest and agencies must consider the effects of
their undertakings on historic properties in consultation with affected
tribes. This consultation is at the heart of the Federal-tribal
relationship, but without adequate funding support for a Tribal
Historic Preservation Office (THPO), the consultation requirement
functions as an unfunded mandate. In addition, the tribe's activities
associated with its rights under the 1990 Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) have intensified in a number
of areas, including the completion of summaries and inventories of
remains and objects. In order to protect its cultural heritage and its
rights and opportunities under NHPA and NAGPRA, and to ensure that the
major sites in the Port Angeles area are protected from development and
natural resources restoration activities, the tribe needs a basic THPO
program. Such a program requires at a minimum a qualified staff that
meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards as an Archeologist or
Cultural Resource Director that can review the projects scheduled for
implementation and provide tribal comment. This funding request will
provide the tribe with that basic program and assist in averting
another disaster like the one that occurred at the Tse-whit-zen site.
national and self-governance support requests narrative
BIA.--Provide $82.9 million more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level for general increase to BIA TPA for inflationary and fixed costs:
This funding has steadily eroded due to inflation and population
growth. The effects of rising costs of travel, equipment, supplies, and
purchased services have been compounding for years while the Native
American population has increased at 1.6 percent per year. Since tribes
have the flexibility to use TPA funds to meet the unique needs of their
individual communities, they are the main resources for tribes to
exercise their powers of Indian Self-Determination (ISD)and SG.
BIA.--Provide $64 million increase for BIA CSC, including Direct
CSC: Full funding of CSC covers the fixed overhead costs that a tribe
must incur to operate a BIA program or facility as required under the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. When CSC is not
fully funded, tribes are forced to utilize limited direct program
services dollars or tribal resources to cover these shortfalls. We
respectfully urge the subcommittee to fund these essential services and
not permit Indian agreements to remain the only Government contracts
that are not fully funded.
BIA.--Provide $5 million increase in the ISD fund.
BIA.--Provide 100 Percent of Fixed Costs (Uncontrollable),
Including Tribal Pay Costs.--The 2011 President's budget does not
include an increase for anticipated fixed costs, including pay and
benefit costs. Without this funding, tribal programs will be forced to
absorb these uncontrollable fixed costs. We respectfully urge the
Subcommittee to provide annual increases for tribal pay and fixed costs
to avoid progressive program declines.
BIA: $12 Million for THPO Program.--The President's proposed level
of $8 million in fiscal year 2011 will continue to increase the
shortfall that THPOs are experiencing, yet the program continues to
expand. We further recommend that future program expansion be funded
with increased appropriations for the program in order not to impact
the funding of existing THPO programs.
IHS.--Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory, inflation, and
population growth increase to maintain existing healthcare services.--
Mandatory costs increases are necessary to maintain the current level
of services. These ``mandatories'' are unavoidable and include medical
and general inflation, pay costs, and population growth. Maintaining
current services is a fundamental budget principle. Failure to do so
would result in cuts in healthcare and delivery. We estimate the
current services need in fiscal year 2011 is $474 million.
Increase OTSG Budget To Fully Staff To Meet the Needs of the Increase
In Tribes Entering SG
IHS: $330 Million Increase for Contract Health Services (CHS).--
Tribes have recommended that an increase of $330 million is needed for
CHS funding. At present, less than one-half of the CHS need is being
met, leaving too many Indian people without access to necessary medical
services. This level will allow those tribes who are not served by an
IHS hospital to provide healthcare services at the same level as those
tribes who are served by an IHS hospital.
IHS: $122 Million Increase for IHS to Fully Fund CSC, Including
Direct CSC.--This year's fiscal year 2011 request of a $45.8 million
increase for CSC continues a sad chapter of neglect for ISD. For fiscal
year 2011, the estimated shortfall is $122 million. The present
shortfall creates a disincentive for tribes to pursue SG compacts, and
diminishes available healthcare funding as tribal budgets must absorb
the shortfall amounts.
IHS: Increase $5 million to the IHS OTSG.--As of 2010, there are
330 SG tribes managing approximately $1.2 billion in funding. This
represents 57 percent of all federally recognized tribes and 33 percent
of the overall IHS funding. The OTSG supports tribes operating programs
under the Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of 2000. The SG process
serves as a model program for Federal Government outsourcing, which
builds tribal infrastructures and provides quality services to Indian
people.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lummi Indian Business Council
I want to thank Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and the subcommittee
members for the opportunity to submit written testimony on financial
and legislative priorities of the Lummi Nation for 2011 for the
Department of the Interior; Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the
Indian Health Services (IHS).
The Lummi Nation is located on the northern coast of Washington
State, and is the third-largest tribe in Washington State serving a
population of more than 5,200. The Lummi Nation is a fishing nation. We
have drawn our physical and spiritual sustenance from the marine
tidelands and waters that surround us for hundreds of thousands of
years. Now the abundance of wild salmon is gone. The remaining salmon
stocks do not support commercial fisheries. Our fishers have trying to
survive with shellfish products. In 1999, we had 700 licensed fishers
who supported nearly 3,000 tribal members. Today, we have about 523
remaining. This means that more than 200 small businesses in our
community have gone bankrupt in the past 11 years. This is the basic
inescapable reality of the Lummi Nation. We are the last hunter/fisher/
gatherer society surviving within the contiguous United States. We can
no longer survive as fishers, without assistance.
lummi nation appropriation requests--bia
+$12 Million.--Increase in funding for hatchery construction,
operation and maintenance funding directed to meet the needs of
fisheries needs consistent with declared disasters.
+$5 Million (Nationally).--Increase the funding for the BIA general
assistance for emergency services for tribes operating under emergency
declarations.
ihs
Increased Contract Health Services (CHS) funding be available to
Northwest Regional Tribes, which are not served by IHS hospitals.
+$200,000.--To support direct intervention with the Lummi Nation to
support rapid HIV testing and diagnosis and treatment.
subcommittee direction requests
Direct the BIA to recognize fisheries economic disaster
declarations and work with the Lummi Nation to insure that direct
relief needs of its fishers covered under the Department of Commerce
Disaster Declaration are met through general assistance emergency
assistance funding.
Direct the BIA to work with Lummi Nation to ensure that its needs
related to the Salomon disaster are met through increased hatchery
construction, operations and maintenance funding.
Direct the BIA Branch of Roads to support the subcommittee request
that the Federal Lands High Way Project reserve $6 million for the
Lummi Nation Slater Road Elevation Project.
Direct the Department of the Interior to fully fund the Office of
Indian Energy and Economic Development, Workforce Development Division
to continue its job training/development work that has results in jobs.
Our people have problems and needs but we also have solutions.
Today, I am presenting a coordinated set of proposals to address the
prolonged economic and cultural disaster imparting our people through
the loss of our sockeye salmon. Starting more than 10 years ago in
1999. In 2008, the Department of Commerce reissued the disaster
declaration (See also--Congressional Research Services--CRS Report to
Congress, Commercial Fishery Disaster Assistance, (RL-34209) May 2,
2008), and we now seek ways to turn this scenario around to have a more
positive outcome.
Our strategy is to consolidate our native and scientific knowledge
of fish biology, behavior, and management into the Northwest Indian
Marine Education and Research Center for Excellence. Collecting our
professionals and traditional practitioners and field worker into a
team to plan, design, finance, and construct and operates create
aquaculture and hatcheries facilities and programs. The same group
would instruct and train aquaculture and hatcheries workers needed by
theses facilities, through Northwest Indian College. Aquaculture/
hatcheries facilities and operations are the only way to ensure the
salmon fisheries that was solemnly secured in 1855 by our fathers and
yours, large enough to support our families and our way of life.
Our goal is to increase fish returns by improving aquaculture and
hatchery production and creates a reliable, sustainable resource to
salmon fishers by increasing enhancement. Additionally, we seek to
raise the value of these harvests through advanced marketing, the
introduction of a fisher's co-operative, and grow-out operations for
shellfish products.
lummi nation specific requests--bia
+$5 Million (Nationally) Fisher's Disaster Assistance Funding.--
Lummi Nation is requesting funding to support emergency relief services
for our fishers. This assistance is needed to help fishers make the
transition from sockeye salmon to other salmon species and other
commercial fishery resources. Lummi Nation is requesting the
subcommittee provide the BIA Welfare Assistance Program an additional
funding to address the Lummi Nation Fishers and West Coast Fisherman
impacted by economic fisheries disaster.
+$12 Million--Salmon/Shellfish Hatchery.--The Lummi Nation
currently operates three salmon hatcheries and one shellfish hatchery
that support tribal and other fisheries in the region. The tribal
hatchery facilities were originally constructed in the early 1970's.
Predictably some of the original infrastructure needs to be repaired or
replaced as it approaches the end of its useful life and other
infrastructure needs to be developed or modified to ensure compliance
with the Clean Water Act and/or the Endangered Species Act. Lummi
Nation fish biologists estimate that these facilities are now operating
at 40 percent of their productive capacity. While the Lummi Nation
recognizes and appreciates the $2 million provided in 2010 for expanded
hatchery funding these funds were distributed nationally without regard
to the extreme need of the Lummi Nation and other tribes impacted by
the West Coast Salmon disaster. The 2010 funding must be maintained and
expand further consistent with the needs of tribes covered by existing
disaster declarations.
lummi salmon hatchery--$2,200,000
$720,000: Hatchery Intake.--South Fork Nooksack Chinook Recovery
program replace intake system that has high O&M and often fails.
$625,000: Large Pond Improvement.--Increase annual production
capacity.
$855,000: New Raceways.--Replace originally constructed
infrastructure that is deteriorating and falling apart.
lummi salmon hatchery--$5,360,000
Nooksack River Pump Station.--This will increase the production
capacity of Lummi Bay hatchery by improving water pumping capacity and
resource.
lummi shellfish hatchery--$570,000
Multiple operation and maintenance issues for increasing production
capacity in areas of feed, building insulation, heating and cooling
systems, increase grows out tank space, results in increased seed
production.
lummi pond tide gates improvements--$3,510,000
This project rehabilitates current shellfish hatchery to optimize
production capabilities. Increased shellfish seed production increases
enhancement activities on Lummi tidelands to create jobs for tribal
shellfish harvesters and increase sales to the West Coast shellfish
industry to create jobs for growers and businesses.
planning/transportation--bridge--project
+$6 Million.--Slater Elevated Road Project reserved for the Lummi
Nation through the Federal Land Highway Programs funneled through the
BIA's Indian Reservation Roads Program
Project Description.--The Lummi Nation is partnering with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and Whatcom County to elevate the
eastern approach to the Slater Road Bridge over the Nooksack River.
This section of Slater Road is frequently flooded by Silver Creek,
which runs parallel to the Nooksack River. The project is an extension
of the Slater Road Bridge over Sliver Creek, which is a salmon spawning
stream.
Need for the Project.--When this section of Slater Road is flooded,
access to the Lummi Reservation, Lummi Island, the Cherry Point heavy
impact industrial zone, and the City of Ferndale are severely limited.
Most years these limitations last for days at a time. The impact
threatens public health and safety and has substantial negative
economic impacts for the retail, commercial and manufacturing
businesses in the area.
Matching Funding.--Lummi Nation has secured a $3 million in project
matching funds for the project through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Program (the maximum grant allowable).
lummi nation specific requests--ihs
Request for Contract Health Funds Allocation Formula Methodology
Lummi Nation and all tribes located in the Portland area are not
served by IHS hospitals. We are totally dependent on the IHS Contract
Health Care Program to support hospitalization and any healthcare
measure performed outside of our limited ambulatory healthcare clinic.
The Lummi Nation has endured a shortage of contract healthcare funds
for many years due to constantly increasing healthcare and healthcare
administrative costs and a budget that does not keep pace. The Lummi
Nation is requesting that the subcommittee direct the IHS to develop an
allocation plan for contract healthcare funds that recognizes that
tribes, not served by an IHS hospital incur greater contract health
costs than those tribes who have an IHS hospital.
+$200,000.--Direct funding to support Community-based AIDS/HIV
Rapid Testing Lummi Nation is experiencing an epidemic of black tar
heroin among its addicted members. This has increased the risk in our
community for contracting HIV. We are seeking this funding on an
emergency basis.
national and self-governance requests and recommendations
BIA Requests
+ $21.4 million for Johnson O'Malley Program; + $13.6 million for
Housing Improvement Program added to tribal base programs; +$9 million
general increase to BIA Tribal Priority Allocation for inflationary and
fixed costs; provide $64 million increase for BIA CSC, including Direct
CSC; provide $5 million increase in the Indian Self-Determination Fund;
provide 100 percent of fixed costs (uncontrollable), including tribal
pay costs; and increase Office of Self-Governance budget to fully staff
to meet the needs of the increase in tribes entering Self-Governance.
IHS Requests
Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory inflation and population
growth increase to maintain existing healthcare services; $330 million
increase for CHS; $122 million increase for IHS to fully fund Contract
Support Cost (CSC), including Direct CSC; and increase $5 million to
the IHS Office of Tribal Self-Governance
Local/Regional Requests and Recommendations
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; Northwest Portland Area
Indian Health Board; and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
natural resources
In closing the Lummi Nation fully supports the Hatchery Reform
Committee that is being set up in cooperation with University of
Washington through the efforts of the Native American Fish and Wild
life Society. We ask the subcommittee to become aware and supportive of
this effort to increase our technical knowledge of hatchery
development, operations, which is critical to the survival of our
fishing communities.
I appreciate the opportunity to share the fiscal year 2011
budgetary priorities of the Lummi Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of Ludlow's Island Resort
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of
acquiring land along in the Superior and Chippewa National Forests as
part of the Minnesota Wilderness program. An appropriation of $3.1
million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) in order for the Forest Service (USFS) to
acquire an assemblage of forestlands totaling 220 acres. I am thankful
that Minnesota's national forests were recognized in the President's
budget, which reserved $1.4 million for the Minnesota Wilderness
program. However, in order to protect all four tracts in fiscal year
2011, an appropriation of $3.1 million is needed.
The Minnesota Wilderness land acquisition program includes the
Superior and Chippewa National Forests in Minnesota and is focused on
protecting public access to lakes and streams as well as ensuring
critical habitat protection for fish and wildlife. These forests offer
Minnesotans and other visitors abundant opportunities for outdoor
recreation and are an integral part of the Northwoods economy.
Located in the northeasternmost tip of Minnesota, the Superior
National Forest spans 150 miles along the United States-Canadian border
and is one of the wettest, wildest forests in the entire national
forest system. The deep pine woods of the Superior play host to a
landscape of lakes, bogs, and rocky outcrops that are remnants of the
glacial period and create the only thriving boreal or northern forest
in the continental United States. More than 10 percent of the forest
consists of surface water, and another 1,300 miles of cold-water
streams and 950 miles of warm-water streams flow within the forest's
boundaries. Visitors to the Superior National Forest are attracted by
its abundance of outdoor recreational opportunities. For wilderness
devotees, there are few areas in the United States that can rival the
solitude and timelessness of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
(BWCAW), a maze of lakes, rivers, and rocks at the northern edge of the
Superior, offering 12,000 miles of canoe trails. Here and elsewhere in
the forest, outdoor enthusiasts can enjoy camping, biking, canoeing,
fishing, hiking, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, and dog sledding.
The deep foliage and plentiful water also attract a wide variety of
wildlife, including bald eagle, common loon, moose, timber wolf, black
bear, lynx, and migratory birds. The BWCAW draws more than 200,000
campers and canoeists annually, following in the wake of Native
Americans and the voyageurs--those French-Canadian fur traders who
canoed these waters 200 years ago.
The Chippewa National Forest is located in the heart of northern
Minnesota, combining elements of western prairies and northern boreal
forests. Within the forest, elements of these two ecosystems are found
side by side: red oak next to white pine, wild ginger alongside wild
rice, and Canada lynx habitat abutting sandhill crane territory. The
Chippewa National Forest shares borders with the Leech Lake Band of
Ojibwe. More than 400,000 acres of the Chippewa National Forest are
actually lakes and wetlands. The Chippewa contains two of Minnesota's
five largest lakes, and eight different types of wetlands each with
distinct plant and animal life. Sixty-seven of the 314 wildlife species
that make their home on the Chippewa National Forest are dependent on
lakes and wetlands. More than 230 species use wetlands and only 20
percent of Minnesota's original wetland remain today. The first
national forest west of the Mississippi River, the Chippewa National
Forest is one of the few areas with wetlands essentially unchanged
since settlement. This area is unique in that it contains some 40 wild
rice producing lakes.
Through USFS's Minnesota Wilderness acquisition program, four
properties are available for acquisition in fiscal year 2011 in the
Superior and Chippewa National Forests.
Wolf Island Phase II
The 60-acre Wolf Island property in the Superior National Forest is
located in Lake Vermilion and is a high priority for protection this
year by USFS. Twenty-four miles long, Lake Vermilion is one of
Minnesota's largest vacation destination lakes. It is home to healthy
populations of walleye, northern pike, muskie, bass, and bluegill, and
was once named by National Geographic as one of the Nation's 10 most
scenic lakes. Wolf Island's location affords scenic views of the
beloved lake as well as the national forest. Its 60 acres are mostly
high rolling land that is densely forested with mature aspen, pine, and
maple. Its rich history is well documented by John Jaeger, a prominent
Minneapolis architect who homesteaded the island after first visiting
in 1906. Jaeger's drawings identified cultural resources, including
burial mounds and a canoe-building workshop plaza.
Wolf Island is at risk of being lost to development. In order to
ensure the protection of the island and access to quality resources in
areas of second-home development pressure, The Trust for Public Land
stepped in at the request of USFS to secure the island in March 2007,
and $900,000 from the LWCF was appropriated in fiscal year 2010 to
protect half the island. The acquisition of the entire island by the
Superior National Forest will bring into public ownership an
outstanding scenic resource and access for paddlers, boaters, and other
recreational users who follow in the footprints of both Native
Americans and voyageurs of years gone by.
Stony Point
The 40-acre Stony Point property is located on a prominent point on
the shores of Leech Lake in the Chippewa National Forest. Home to
thousands of acres of waterfowl and other wildlife habitat, Leech Lake
has one of the largest nesting populations of bald eagles in the lower
48 States--almost 200 pairs. The Stony Point bald eagle nesting site
contains a half-mile of Leech Lake frontage. The pristine parcel is
completely surrounded by national forest ownership and likely contains
Native American artifacts. Acquisition by the Chippewa National Forest
would eliminate the need for road access that would otherwise impact
over a one-half mile of undisturbed wetlands. The property was
purchased by a developer who intended to develop it into several
homesites, thus depriving forest visitors of significant scenic and
recreational values.
Kremer Lake/Spider Lake
Located on the eastern boundary of the Chippewa National Forest,
the 120-acre Kremer Lake and Spider Lake properties offer substantial
lakeshore protection along the Edge of the Wilderness National Scenic
Byway (Rte. 38) near Grand Rapids in Itasca County. The Kremer Lake
parcel is located along the north shore of this more than 80-foot deep
small lake, which lies along the west side of the byway. The property
has more than 3,000 feet of riparian shoreline and is adjacent to the
Suomi Hills Semi-Primitive Recreation Area. The Spider Lake property is
located along the west side of larger Spider Lake, which is mostly in
USFS ownership. The tract contains more than 5,000 feet of shoreline
and many acres of associated riparian and wetland habitat. Both
properties, which are under a single ownership, are located within the
Upper Mississippi River watershed. They contain wildlife habitat for
the endangered gray wolf and the Canadian lynx, as well as for the
sensitive bald eagle. Both tracts also offer substantial recreational
opportunities, such as fishing, hiking and cross country skiing, and
their acquisition would improve public access to the lakes for these
purposes.
Demand for summer recreational residences and hunting cabins is
present in the area near Grand Rapids, and portions of the Kremer Lake
and Spider Lake properties could be developed for this purpose. The
acquisition of both tracts would eliminate any development threat and
ensure permanent protection of critical water resources.
Public acquisition of the remainder of Wolf Island and the entirety
of the Stony Point, Kremer Lake, and Spider Lake properties will ensure
that the attributes of the Northwoods region so treasured by its many
visitors--the solitary sound of the common loon, the serenity of an
evening paddle, the call of the wild--will be protected in perpetuity.
An appropriation of $3.1 million from the LWCF in fiscal year 2011 will
secure these properties and provide greater access for current and
future generations of visitors to both secluded lakes and popular lakes
within the forests that are such critical natural resources for the
public.
LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and protect
lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at
State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to
climate change. For all these reasons, the President has included
meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and
I support the administration's commitment to fully funding the program
in the near future. Recognizing the many demands this committee faces,
I also want to thank the subcommittee for its recent effort to restore
much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise investment in
the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to the American
people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
My resort, located on Lake Vermilion relies on visitors to the
great Northwoods of Minnesota. Protection of key places, such as Wolf
Island, Stony Point, and Kremer Lake/Spider Lake are critical to insure
that future generations can continue to enjoy these valued resources as
well as contribute to the tourism economy in the area.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Minnesota, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition
Chairwoman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander and other members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.
We begin this statement by applauding the subcommittee for the
increases in the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and Forest
Legacy Program (FLP) funding contained in the fiscal year 2010
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill,
reversing almost a decade in dramatic program declines. We are equally
delighted by increases for these programs proposed in the President's
fiscal year 2011 Obama budget request--a great step towards the
administration's stated goal of fully funding the LWCF by the year
2014. We urge the subcommittee to set the course towards this goal by
including substantial funding increases in the fiscal year 2011
Interior, Environment, and Related AGencies appropriations bill for
these two important programs. We recommend increasing the funding of
Federal LWCF to $384 million, stateside LWCF to $50 million, and the
allocation of $100 million for the FLP.
Over the LWCF program's 44-year history only once has it been fully
funded at the congressionally authorized level of $900 million
annually. Today, we face an extensive and growing backlog of land
acquisition needs in our national parks, national wildlife refuges,
national forests, National Landscape Conservation System, and other
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) units, wild and scenic rivers, and
national trails. Critical natural, historical and recreational
properties are being lost to inappropriate development that compromises
management objectives and undermines resource protection across our
Federal lands. Willing-seller landowners with conservation intent,
wishing to see their property protected, wait years with no measurable
prospect for Federal acquisition of their property. America's
irreplaceable wildlands, woodlands, farmlands, fish and wildlife
habitats, scenic areas, historic sites, trails and neighborhood parks
are being developed, fragmented, and otherwise sacrificed because there
is simply not enough LWCF money to go around.
The State grants component of the LWCF is in equal distress from
insufficient funding. This program supports the protection of
recreation lands and the development of parks at the State and local
level to provide accessible, close-to-home recreation. These matching
grants enable communities, counties, and States to acquire land and to
build or improve recreational facilities. Despite low funding levels,
the program has distributed funds to almost every county in the country
for more than 41,000 projects including creating parks, playgrounds,
recreation facilities, trails, and preserving forests and wildlife
habitat. Across the Nation more than 6,600 State parks and countless
local parks depend on this Federal partnership to help meet land
acquisition and park infrastructure needs. Forty-four States recently
reported that less than 5 percent of park funding needs are currently
being met. The Federal partnership is largely missing from the funding
equation and the social and economic benefits of these parks cannot be
overstated. With soaring child obesity rates, spending time with
children out-of-doors can inspire a lifetime of healthy exercise and
outdoor activity, preventing disease and saving millions in healthcare
costs. Today, we better understand that outdoor play also contributes
to a child's development on many levels including their capacity to be
creative and problem solve, as well as their emotional and intellectual
development.
The LWCF is a vital funding mechanism creating significant
environmental, economic, and cultural benefits. Lands protected through
the program include wilderness access points, river corridors popular
with paddlers and anglers, endangered species habitat, beaches and
coastal areas, campgrounds, historic battlefields, and pristine
mountain forests. Eighty percent of the lands acquired with LWCF funds
lie within the existing boundaries of Federal parks, refuges, forests,
or recreation areas. Within our national parks alone, 1.9 million acres
of inholdings identified for protection remain to be acquired and may
be developed if they are not conserved.
In 1990, Congress created another important tool to help protect
forests. The FLP, administered by the USDA Forest Service (USFS), helps
to preserve working forestlands threatened by conversion and
development. This program leverages Federal funds with State and
private monies to permanently protect forested properties by direct fee
title purchase or through conservation easements. FLP enables
landowners and communities to retain ownership of forestland and to
continue to earn income from these resources through sustainable timber
harvesting. This program also conserves open space, wildlife habitat,
and clean water, and ensures continued opportunities for public
recreation.
To date, the FLP has protected almost 2 million acres in 42 States
and Puerto Rico. Over the history of this highly successful program, a
total of $456 million of Federal funds have been matched by more than
$1 billion in non-Federal funds and donations, making the Federal share
less than 50 percent of overall project costs. FLP program funding of
$76 million in fiscal year 2010 reversed a funding decline of the
previous 7 years. For fiscal year 2011, 63 conservation projects were
submitted to the USFS by 41 States; the requests total more than $200
million in the FLP need to protect 361,604 acres of forestlands valued
at more than $437 million. We applaud the President's budget
recommendation to provide a significant increase for the FLP program.
However, additional funding is needed to meet pressing project needs
and provide adequate project funding levels. To respond to this
significant demand, we urge the subcommittee to support a funding level
of $100 million in fiscal year 2011.
In the face of the current economic downturn, we cannot
underestimate the power public lands can have in turning the tide.
Tourism dollars and visitation to our parks and public lands can serve
as an economic engine for local and regional economies. For example,
the National Association of State Park Directors reports that America's
State park system contributes $20 billion to local and State economies.
Each year millions of Americans visit our public lands to enjoy hiking,
wildlife watching, hunting, fishing, climbing, camping, mountain
bicycling, horseback riding, photography, paddling and boating, cross-
country and backcountry skiing, snowmobiling, and outdoor education and
interpretation. The Outdoor Industry Association reports that active
outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion annually to the U.S.
economy, supporting 6.5 million jobs across the country. Investment by
the Congress in the LWCF will yield greater public dividends now, than
perhaps in any time in recent history. With property values
significantly down from just a year ago, timely acquisition funding
will make a real difference in addressing the backlog of Federal
agencies' land acquisition needs. In this market, public agencies can
better compete with private buyers and developers, and can stretch LWCF
dollars even further. In addition, LWCF and FLP funding can help
landowners achieve their economic objectives through the sale of their
land.
A 2006 economic assessment of the National Park System produced by
the National Parks Conservation Association determined that national
park visitors spend more than $13 billion annually in communities
surrounding parks supporting 267,000 jobs. Similarly, a recent Fish and
Wildlife Service report, Banking on Nature, revealed that the 40
million annual visitors to national wildlife refuges generate more than
$1.7 billion in annual sales to local economies, resulting in the
creation of 27,000 jobs.
The LWCF and FLP are needed now more than ever to protect
watershed, wildlife, and support local economies. Fighting wildfires
along the wildland-urban interface is costing the American taxpayer
billions of dollars annually. Using the LWCF for strategic land
purchases in and adjacent to public lands to prevent private
development in the most fire prone areas will allow agencies to
implement better fire prevention management in these critical zones.
Furthermore, the FLP provides States and private landowners with a tool
to maintain key areas as working forests and to prevent inappropriate
development.
Drinking water quality and quantity greatly depend on the
protection of forestlands, grasslands, and wetlands ranging from high
elevation watersheds to coastlines. These acres filter pollutants,
prevent erosion along rivers, and decrease the costs and damage from
floods and storms. Headwaters, river corridors, lakeshores, and
estuaries also provide critical natural habitat and migratory corridors
for fish and wildlife. The American public deeply values the protection
of water resources. A 2008 summary of local and statewide polls
conducted nationwide ranked clean water as the top conservation concern
for 88 percent of the people polled. Protection of land and water
through LWCF purchases in and around our national forests, parks,
refuges and other conservation areas helps maintain the long-term
integrity of our Nation's water quality and water supplies. Maintaining
working forests with FLP dollars provides a critical tool to protect
valuable community watersheds.
Today, our Federal, State, and private conservation lands and
waterways provide a critical opportunity to address the unprecedented
challenges that climate change poses to our forests, fish and wildlife,
and riparian resources. The strategic protection of key inholdings,
buffer areas, and wildlife migration corridors within and adjacent to
existing public lands enhances adaptation efforts and fosters intact
landscapes. These natural areas also store carbon, buffer flooding,
conserve water, and support healthy fisheries and wildlife populations.
Hand-in-hand with mitigating the deleterious impacts of our environment
from burning fossil fuels is the need to respond to climate change with
a foresighted investment in land protection and natural resource
adaptation across the Federal public lands.
In closing, we thank the subcommittee for your continuing
leadership on Federal land conservation and meeting the environmental
and recreation needs of citizens at the State and community levels
through programs such as LWCF. The LWCF Coalition stands ready to work
with you to secure full and consistent funding for the LWCF and FLP.
Thank you.
the undersigned organizations
The Access Fund; American Canoe Association; American Hiking
Society; American Land Conservancy; American Rivers; American
Whitewater; Appalachian Mountain Club; Appalachian Trail Conservancy;
California State Parks Foundation; Choose Outdoors; City Parks
Alliance.
Civil War Preservation Trust; The Conservation Fund; Conservation
Trust for North Carolina; Defenders of Wildlife; Eastern Forest
Partnership; Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge;
Highlands Coalition; International Mountain Bicycling Association; Land
Trust Alliance; Land Trust for the Little Tennessee.
National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers;
National Association of State Park Directors; National Audubon Society;
National Park Trust National Parks Conservation Association; National
Recreation and Park Association; National Wildlife Federation; National
Wildlife Refuge Association; The Nature Conservancy; New Mexico
Wildlife Federation; New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation.
North Country Trail Association; Northern Forest Alliance; Northern
Sierra Partnership; Outdoor Alliance; Outdoor Industry Association;
Outdoors America; Pacific Crest Trail Association; The Pacific Forest
Trust; Pacolet Area Conservancy; Partnership for the National Trails
System.
Sierra Business Council; Sierra Club; Society for the Protection of
New Hampshire Forests; Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition; Southern
Appalachian Highlands Conservancy; Tennessee Parks and Greenways
Foundation Trout Unlimited; The Trust for Public Land; Western Rivers
Conservancy; The Wilderness Society; Wildlife Forever; Winter Wildlands
Alliance World Wildlife Fund.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mother Lode Chapter, Sierra Club
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of the
Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club in support of acquiring land at
Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests in California. An appropriation of
$5.5 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund in order for the Forest Service to acquire an
assemblage of properties totaling 3,187 acres.
The Mother Lode Chapter members are very concerned about the
wildlife and other amenities of these neighboring forests. The
irrational checkerboard ownership pattern in the central Sierra Nevada
is one of the most significant challenges facing Forest Service land
management. Incompatible uses on private parcels interspersed with
public lands degrade wildlife habitat, water quality, recreational
access, and scenic views on the public lands and complicate forest
management and fire control. Disruption of north-south habitat
connectivity, essential to wildlife migration in the Sierra Nevada,
will have much more serious effects as climate change significantly
shifts wildlife habitats. For these reasons, the Forest Service has
made consolidation of public ownership in checkerboard areas an
acquisition priority in California. Acquiring all the private lands in
the checkerboard region with significant wildlife, watershed, scenic,
and recreational values will be a very long-term effort; consistent
progress is essential.
We are asking you to support funding for parcels in six areas, all
but one of which are in the region of checkerboard ownership. These
parcels are the Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests' highest
acquisition priorities in fiscal year 2011. The merits of the parcels
in each area are briefly described below.
Castle Peak Area (Tahoe National Forest, checkerboard region)
Our highest priorities for acquisition are parcels in the Castle
Peak area on the Sierra Crest in Tahoe National Forest. Most of the
Castle Peak area is included in the Castle Peak Proposed Wilderness.
The Castle Peak area is highly scenic and is a very popular year-round
recreation area for the large populations of northern California and
western Nevada. Thousands of acres in the Castle Peak area have been
purchased in recent years, thanks in part to your support, but the
acquisitions are not yet complete.
The White Rock Lake parcel, most of which is roadless, is on the
northern edge of the Proposed Wilderness. Including the roadless
portion of the parcel in the Proposed Wilderness would make its
boundary more logical and defensible. Acquisition of the parcel would
consolidate public ownership of the White Rock Lake watershed, better
protecting the Lake and its population of Federal endangered mountain
yellow-legged frogs.
Two parcels southwest of Castle Peak and close to the Proposed
Wilderness have significant recreational values. Acquisition of these
parcels would make possible an improved routing of the popular Hole in
Ground bicycle trail onto public lands. These parcels, which are near
already subdivided lands, are potential locations for second-home
development, which makes their acquisition more urgent.
Sagehen Creek Watershed (Tahoe National Forest, checkerboard region)
The University of California's Sagehen Creek Field Station has used
the Sagehen Creek watershed as an outdoor classroom and site for
wildlife, forestry, and hydrology research since 1951. Recognizing this
use, the Forest Service has designated the public lands in the
watershed as the Sagehen Creek Experimental Forest.
Consolidated public ownership of the Experimental Forest would
ensure that incompatible activities on private land in the watershed do
not confound research data and restrict educational activities.
Acquisition of sections 13 and 15 on the southern and western
boundaries of the Experimental Forest would significantly decrease the
private lands in the Sagehen Creek watershed. Acquisition would also
add to the public lands in the north-south wildlife corridor on and
near the Sierra Crest, in which ownership is significantly fragmented.
Lacey Valley Meadows and Webber Lake (Tahoe National Forest,
checkerboard region)
The 1,500 acres of beautiful subalpine meadow in Lacey Valley south
of Webber Lake are an outstanding feature of a 3,000-acre property in
the vicinity of the Lake that will be available for acquisition. Two
sections in the upper end of the Valley are available in fiscal year
2011.
The meadow and riparian areas of Lacey Valley are habitat for
waterfowl and for the willow flycatcher, which is on the State
endangered list. The meadow and the surrounding uplands provide habitat
for deer and numerous species of raptors and predators.
Though meadows are only a small percentage of the lands within
Tahoe National Forest, they contribute disproportionately to the
forest's scenic, wildlife, and recreation values. A large proportion of
meadows within the Forest are privately owned; early settlers valued
the resources of meadows and their suitability for settlement. Now
meadows are attractive locations for second-home and resort development
which seriously degrades their ecosystems and denies the general public
access. Promptly responding to opportunities to acquire meadows is
essential because meadows are so attractive to residential and resort
developers. Acquisition of the forested ridges surrounding the Lacey
Valley meadows ensures protection of the meadows and creeks.
English Mountain (Tahoe National Forest, checkerboard region)
Purchase of this parcel would help consolidate very fragmented
public ownership immediately northeast of English Mountain by acquiring
the remainder of a checkerboard section. The parcel contains most of
the northeastern slopes of English Mountain and also Secret Lake, a
small alpine tarn, and its outlet stream. Purchase of the section is
the beginning of the highly desirable eventual consolidation of public
ownership of beautiful English Meadow and other meadows along the
Middle Yuba River. The Grouse Lakes Potential Wilderness, which
includes the summit of English Mountain, is immediately to the south of
the parcel. Though part of the section has been logged, some mature
mixed conifer forest remains.
Big Avalanche Cave (Tahoe National Forest, checkerboard region)
Public ownership of the parcel would protect and guarantee public
access to this regionally significant limestone cave system with 1,500
to 2,000 feet of passages. In the opinion of northern California
speleologists, Big Avalanche Cave, where extensive exploration of easy
passages with minimal resource impacts is possible, is the most
important recreational cave in the northern Sierra Nevada. A colony of
Townsend's Big-eared Bats, a species of concern in California, occupies
a summer roost a few miles away. The cave is a suitable and likely
winter hibernation site for this colony. Both the Western Cave
Conservancy and the National Speleological Society support this
acquisition.
Martin Meadow (Eldorado National Forest)
The volcanic ridge east of Silver Lake, between Silver Lake and the
Kirkwood Ski Area, is a striking scenic backdrop for Silver Lake. This
parcel is on the west slope of the ridge, within a potential addition
to the Mokelumne Wilderness, surrounded on three sides by Forest
Service land. Public ownership of the parcel will preserve its
wilderness character and the wilderness character of surrounding
national forest lands.
Conclusion
Your past support of appropriations to purchase private lands with
significant wildlife and recreational values in Tahoe and Eldorado
National Forests has been invaluable. The Mother Lode Chapter of the
Sierra Club urges you to continue your past support by supporting this
$5.5 million appropriation for fiscal year 2011.
______
Letter From the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
March 26, 2010.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related
Agencies
Washington, DC.
Dear Seantor Feinstein: Support for fiscal year 2011 Federal
funding of $5.9 million for the Department of the Interior--Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) to assist in the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program, with $1.5 million to be designated specifically to
identified salinity control efforts.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan) has adopted a position supporting funding for the BLM's
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Title II Program.
For 70 years Metropolitan has provided imported water to the
southern California region from the Colorado River and the State Water
Project originating in northern California. Our mission is to provide
high quality, reliable drinking water supplies primarily for municipal
and industrial use. Metropolitan is the Nation's largest provider of
imported water to an urban area. The population today in our service
area is 19 million and it is projected to rise to 25 million within the
next 25 years. Metropolitan is comprised of 26 member public agencies
that serve an area spanning 5,200 square miles and 6 southern
California counties.
Water imported via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) has the
highest salinity of Metropolitan's imported sources of supply,
averaging around 630 milligrams per liter since 1976 and causing
economic damages. For example, damages occur from:
--A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--An increase in the cost of water treatment and sewer fees in the
industrial sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to
groundwater quality deterioration;
--Increased use of imported water for leaching; and
--Increased cost of desalination and brine disposal for recycled
water.
Concern over salinity levels in the Colorado River has existed for
many years. To deal with the concern, the International Boundary and
Water Commission approved Minute No. 242, Permanent and Definitive
Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado
River in 1973, and the President approved the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act in 1974. High total dissolved solids in the
Colorado River as it entered Mexico and the concerns of the seven
Colorado River Basin States regarding the quality of Colorado River
water in the United States drove these initial actions. To foster
interstate cooperation on this issue and coordinate the Colorado River
Basin States' efforts on salinity control, the seven Basin States
formed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum).
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program reduces salinity
by preventing salts from dissolving and mixing with the River's flow.
Irrigation improvements (sprinklers, gated pipe, lined ditches, etc.)
and vegetation management reduce the amount of salt transported to the
Colorado River. Point sources such as saline springs are also
controlled. The Federal Government, Basin States, and contract
participants spend close to $50 million annually on salinity control
programs.
The Program, as set forth in the act, benefits both the Upper
Colorado River Basin water users through more efficient water
management and the Lower Basin water users, hundreds of miles
downstream from salt sources in the Upper Basin, through reduced
salinity concentration of Colorado River water. California's Colorado
River water users are presently suffering economic damages in the
hundreds of millions of dollars per year due to the River's salinity.
By some estimates, concentrations of salts in the Colorado River
cause approximately $350 million in quantified damages in the lower
Colorado River Basin States each year and significantly more in
unquantified damages. Salinity control projects have reduced salinity
concentrations of Colorado River water on average by more than 100
milligrams per liter with an economic benefit of $264 million per year
(2005 dollars) in avoided damages.
The BLM's budget justification document has stated that the BLM
continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate progress in
cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and report salt-retaining measures in
order to further the Plan of Implementation of Federal Salinity Control
Program in the Colorado River Basin. The BLM budget, as proposed in the
BLM Budget Justification Document, calls for five principal program
priorities within the Soil, Water, and Air Management Program. One of
the priorities is reducing saline runoff in the Colorado River Basin to
meet the interstate, Federal and international agreements to control
salinity of the Colorado River.
As you are aware, BLM is the largest landowner in the Colorado
River Basin. Due to geological conditions, much of the lands that are
controlled and managed by the BLM are heavily laden with salt. Past
management practices have led to human-induced and accelerated erosion
processes from which soil and rocks, heavily laden with salt have been
deposited in various stream beds or flood plains. As a result, salts
are dissolved into the Colorado River system causing water quality
problems downstream.
Congress has charged Federal agencies, including the BLM, to
proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
BLM's rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
effective salinity control measures available. These measures
significantly complement programs and activities being considered for
implementation by the USBR through its Basin-wide Program and by the
USDA through its on-farm Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Metropolitan requests that Congress appropriate $5.9 million to BLM
for fiscal year 2011 and urges the subcommittee to specifically
designate $1.5 million of that amount for the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program as has been the direction to BLM from the
subcommittee in past years.
Over the past years, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
program has proven to be a very cost effective approach to help
mitigate the impacts of increased salinity in the Colorado River.
Continued Federal funding of this important Basin-wide program is
essential.
I would appreciate it if you make this statement a part of the
formal hearing record concerning fiscal year 2011 appropriations for
the BLM. I thank you for your subcommittee's support of this program in
years past and hope that you will again support funding to continue
this valuable program.
With best regards,
Jeffrey Kightlinger,
General Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the Maumelle Water Excellence Project
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Maumelle Water Excellence (MWE) project in Arkansas. An appropriation
of $4 million from the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is needed in order
to protect a 594-acre property. I am thankful that this project was
included in the President's budget request for fiscal year 2011 at a
funding level of $2.5 million. However, the project can be completed in
fiscal year 2011 with an appropriation of $4 million.
In 2004, the State of Arkansas enrolled in the USDA's FLP to help
address forest fragmentation resulting from increased development
pressure and an increased demand for outdoor public recreation. For the
second year in a row, the Arkansas Forestry Commission, the lead
implementing agency for the FLP in Arkansas, has made the MWE project
the State's top-ranked FLP project.
The Maumelle Water Excellence (MWE) project proposes to conserve
more than 900 acres of pristine forested land along 3.6 miles of the
Big Maumelle River through fee title acquisition. The MWE project would
create an invaluable link between existing public lands and would form
a protected riparian corridor leading to Lake Maumelle, the primary
drinking water supply for approximately 400,000 Central Arkansas
residents. Successfully completing the project will help preserve
forests and sensitive habitat that serve a vital role in providing a
high-quality drinking water supply for the region.
The project is part of a 915-acre sod farm previously owned by a
private investment group, of which 594 acres are forested and eligible
for FLP funding. The nonforested portion of the sod farm will be
purchased with non-Federal money, where water quality conservation
measures will be implemented, and forests and native grasses will be
planted. Non-Federal funding would also be used to establish the
Watershed Center of Excellence, a partnership of the University of
Arkansas at Little Rock and local, State, and Federal agencies tasked
to educate the public on watershed management, water quality
conservation techniques, and beneficial stream reconstruction.
The property consists of bottomland hardwoods and cypress breaks,
which are rare for the Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion. These forests
provide habitat for the federally listed endangered harperella plant,
multiple species of migratory waterfowl, many small- and large-game
species, and the Prothonotary Warbler, which is listed in the Arkansas
Wildlife Action Plan as a species of great conservation need. The MWE
project offers tremendous recreational opportunities for the region.
The project will, for example, create new opportunities for hiking,
fishing, and hunting. Protection of this project area will open more
hunting grounds for Little Rock area residents and offer targeted
hunter education to area youth.
The MWE project also provides a significant national benefit by
protecting several miles of the Ouachita National Recreation Trail
(ONRT) viewshed. ONRT is a scenic trail formally designated by the
Secretary of Agriculture under the National Trail System Act of 1968.
ONRT is 224 miles long stretching from eastern Oklahoma across 192
miles of the Ouachita National Forest and 32 miles of private/other
public lands to central Arkansas ending at Pinnacle Mountain State
Park. The ONRT runs immediately adjacent to 2.2 miles of the MWE's
southern boundary and continues onto property Central Arkansas Water
already owns.
The State of Arkansas, Central Arkansas Water (CAW), and Arkansas
Game & Fish Commission have pledged considerable funds to protect the
lands along the Big Maumelle River. This impressive collaboration,
which has allocated more than $8 million in non-Federal funding to
protect this property, offers tremendous value and a remarkable
opportunity to help preserve an important landscape in Arkansas.
The most significant threats to the water quality of Lake Maumelle
are development and deforestation. Located just 15 miles west of Little
Rock, the State's capitol, this property is at the edge of development
in the metro area. Given the popularity of Lake Maumelle, housing
density within its watershed is expected to increase between 5 to 20
percent in the next 20 years. The MWE project offers to protect
important endangered species habitat, preserve and restore working
forests, boost outdoor recreational opportunities, and safeguard a
critical water supply--all within 15 miles of the State capital.
The property is available now for permanent protection. An
appropriation of $4 million from the FLP in fiscal year 2011 would be
matched by more than $8 million in State and other public funds to
allow the conservation of this critical natural resource property and
ensure safe drinking water for area residents.
I urge you to do all you can to ensure that this worthwhile program
is funded adequately in fiscal year 2011 and that the MWE project
receives $4 million in fiscal year 2011.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Arkansas, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
Programs
My name is Michael Garner and I am Director of Maryland's Abandoned
Mine Land Program. I also serve as President of the National
Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP). The NAAMLP
represents 30 States and tribes with federal approved abandoned mine
land reclamation (AML) programs authorized under title IV of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). title IV of SMCRA
was amended in 2006 and significantly changed how State AML grants are
funded. Beginning in fiscal year 2008, State AML grants are funded
primarily by mandatory appropriations. As a result, the States should
receive $413.2 million in fiscal year 2011. Instead OSM has budgeted an
amount of $259.5 million for State AML grants, a reduction of $153.7
million. The proposed spending cuts would eliminate funding to States
and tribes that have ``certified'' completion of their highest-priority
coal reclamation sites. OSM has also proposed to $20 million reduction
in discretionary spending that would eliminate the Federal emergency
program under 410 of SMCRA. I appreciate the opportunity to testify and
present this statement to the Subcommittee on issues related to the
proposed fiscal year 2011 budget for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM).
SMCRA was passed in 1977 and set national regulatory and
reclamation standards for coal mining. The act also established a
Reclamation Fund to work towards eliminating the innumerable health,
safety and environmental problems that existed across the Nation from
the mines that were abandoned prior to the act. The Fund generates
revenue through a fee on coal production. This fee is collected by OSM
and distributed to States and tribes that have federal approved
regulatory and AML programs. The promise Congress made in 1977, and
with every subsequent amendment to the act, was that, at a minimum,
half the money generated from fees collected within the boundaries of a
State or tribe, referred to as ``State share'', would be returned for
uses described in the act if the State or tribe assumed responsibility
for regulating coal mining according to SMCRA. If a State or tribe was
successful in completing reclamation of abandoned coal mines and was
able to ``certify'' according to section 411, then the State share
funds could be used to address a myriad of other problems related to
noncoal mining, public facilities, infrastructure, water supply and
environmental cleanup. The 2006 amendments clarified the scope of what
the State share funds could be used for and reaffirmed the promise made
by Congress in 1977. Currently, certified States and tribes are using
the funds ``with priority given for addressing the impacts of mineral
development'' as provided for in the act. These include environmental
stewardship, cleaning up abandoned coal and hardrock mines nationwide,
creating green jobs, sustainable development, infrastructure
improvements, and alternative energy projects. These funds stimulate
economic activity in local communities by putting money to work on the
ground in an expeditious manner, and protecting public health and
safety--all the while improving the environment.
The reduction in certified State AML grants proposed by OSM not
only breaks the promise of State share funding, but will upset the
balance and compromise that was achieved in the comprehensive
restructuring of SMCRA accomplished in the 2006 amendments following
more than 10 years of discussion and negotiation. The reduction in
funding is also inconsistent with the goals set forth in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The certified State AML programs
have been up and operating effectively and have been achieving many of
the goals and objectives set forth in the ARRA for more than 30 years.
We therefore respectively ask the subcommittee to continue the funding
for certified States at the statutory authorized levels and turn back
any efforts to amend SMCRA.
In addition to the $153.7 million reduction, the proposed fiscal
year 2011 budget would also eliminate or redirect $20 million annually
from the Federal AML emergency program. This would eliminate all
funding for the emergency program and leave the States and tribes to
rely on funds received through their non-emergency AML grant funds.
This is contradictory to the 2006 amendments that require the States
and tribes to maintain ``strict compliance'' with the non-emergency
funding priorities described in section 403(a), while leaving Section
410, Emergency Powers, unchanged.
Section 410 of SMCRA requires OSM to fund the emergency AML program
using OSM's ``discretionary share'' under section (402)(g)(3)(B), which
is entirely separate from State and tribal nonemergency AML grant
funding under sections (402)(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(5). SMCRA does not
allow States and tribes to administer or fund an AML emergency program
from their nonemergency AML grants, although, since 1989, 15 States
have agreed to implement the emergency program on behalf of OSM
contingent upon OSM providing full funding for the work. By using the
State's existing AML programs to abate the emergencies, OSM has been
able to fulfill their mandated obligation more effectively and
efficiently. There are 10 States and 3 tribes that continue to rely
solely on OSM to operate the emergency program within their
jurisdiction.
Emergencies are defined as ``a sudden danger with a high
probability of substantial physical harm to the health, safety and
general welfare of people before they can be abated under normal
program operation procedures'' (OSM Directive AML-4). Regardless of
whether a State AML Program or OSM operates the emergency program, OSM
has always retained the authority to ``declare'' the emergency which
clears the way for the expedited procedures to be implemented. The
emergency declaration is done by making the findings described in
section 410 that ``(1) an emergency exists constituting a danger to the
public health, safety, or general welfare; and (2) no other person or
agency will act expeditiously to restore, reclaim, abate, control, or
prevent the adverse effects of coal mining practices.'' In fiscal year
2009 OSM made 183 emergency declarations in Kentucky and Pennsylvania
alone, States where OSM operates the emergency program. As part of
these declarations, OSM has made the finding (183 times in 2009) that
they are the only agency that can ``act expeditiously to restore,
reclaim, abate.'' the emergency. And yet in fiscal year 2011, OSM now
asserts this is no longer the case. OSM has not developed legislation,
regulations, procedures, directives or policies to transfer emergency
powers to the States and tribes, nor has OSM received a solicitor's
opinion regarding the legality of this transfer. OSM's only guidance to
the States has been that beginning in 2011 the agency ``will no longer
declare emergencies'' which simply ignores the emergency situation and
OSM's statutorily mandated obligation to address it. Simply denying
that emergencies exist does nothing to protect the public or allow
States and tribes to make progress towards certification.
If Congress allows the elimination of the emergency program, States
and tribes will have to adjust to their new role by setting aside a
large portion of their nonemergency AML grant funds so that they can be
prepared for any emergency that may arise. Emergency projects come in
all shapes and sizes, vary in number from year to year and range in
cost from thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. This will result
in funds being diverted from other high-priority projects. It will also
delay certification under section 411 and increase the backlog of
projects on the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS). For
minimum program States and States with small AML programs, large
emergency projects will require the States to redirect all or most of
their AML resources to address the emergency delaying other high-
priority reclamation. In a worst-case scenario, a minimum program State
would have to ``save up'' multiple years of appropriations to eliminate
a costly emergency. Furthermore, by failing to fund the emergency
program each year, OSM will be adding to the Federal expense share,
section 402(g)(3), that resides in the AML Trust Fund. This share
already stands at approximately $420 million and will continue to grow
by at least $20 million per year if discretionary funds are not
appropriated for the emergency program. One of the congressional
objectives in restructuring the funding formula in the 2006 Amendments
was to assure that AML fees collected annually are put to use on the
ground where they can make a difference. What better way to accomplish
this than to provide Federal funding to address emergency reclamation
work each year.
Finally, it should be kept in mind that eliminating $20 million for
emergency funding will ultimately reduce reclamation funding by over
$200 million for the life of the AML program. As previously stated, AML
reclamation achieves many of the goals envisioned in the ARRA. For the
reasons above, we urge the subcommittee to restore $20 million for the
AML emergency program in fiscal year 2011.
Included in the mandatory funding mentioned above is supplemental
funding for ``minimum program'' States. Under the funding formula
contained in the 2006 amendments to SMCRA, all of the States are to
receive sizeable funding increases except for minimum program States.
We urge Congress to fund these States at the statutorily authorized
level of ``not less than $3 million annually'' in fiscal year 2011 to
allow these States to proceed with the critical AML projects awaiting
funding. The current phase-in approach limits funding to $2.25 million
which greatly inhibits the ability of these States to accomplish much
in the way of substantive AML work--especially given their inventory of
remaining high priority problems and the looming possibility of
emergency projects.
One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML
restoration work is through leveraging or matching other grant
programs, such as EPA's 319 program. Until fiscal year 2009, language
was always included in OSM's appropriation that encouraged the use of
these types of matching funds, particularly for the purpose of
environmental restoration related to treatment or abatement of acid
mind drainage (AMD) from abandoned mines. This is an ongoing, and often
expensive, problem, especially in Appalachia. NAAMLP therefore requests
the Committee to once again include language in the fiscal year 2011
appropriations bill that would allow the use of AML funds for any
required non-Federal share of the cost of projects by the Federal
government for AMD treatment or abatement.
We also urge the subcommittee to support funding for OSM's training
program, including monies for student travel. These programs are
central to the effective implementation of State regulatory programs as
they provide necessary training and continuing education for State
agency personnel. NAAMLP also urges the subcommittee to support funding
for TIPS, a program that directly benefits both the AML and Regulatory
Programs in the States by providing critical technical assistance. In
this regard, we also request that the subcommittee restore the $303,000
for these two programs that has been proposed for reduction. We also
request that the subcommittee direct OSM not to make any further
adjustments to these programs in order to focus resources on other
regulatory program activities related to the June 11 MOU, as suggested
in OSM's budget justification document. Finally, we support funding for
the Watershed Cooperative Agreements in the amount of $1.55 million.
The fiscal year 2011 budget is of great concern to the NAAMLP
membership for the reasons described above and because it is counter to
the objectives of title IV of the act and disregards the intentions of
Congress that have been made clear from 1977 to the most recent
amendments in 2006. This OSM budget proposal was developed unilaterally
and did not include any participation by the States and tribes who have
historically worked jointly with OSM in the drive to protect the public
safety and welfare since the inception of SMCRA over three decades ago.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA),
representing the State and local air quality agencies in 53 States and
territories and more than 165 metropolitan areas across the country,
appreciates this opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year
2011 budget for the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). NACAA supports the President's request for an $82.5 million
increase in Federal grants for State and local air pollution control
agencies under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act--part of the
State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program. This would raise the
total amount for Section 103/105 air grants to State and local air
agencies to $309.1 million.
Air Pollution Presents a Serious Public Health Threat
Air pollution is one of the most pressing public health problems
facing our Nation. In this country alone, exposure to polluted air
results in the deaths of tens of thousands of people prematurely every
year and causes many other serious health problems, such as the
aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease; decreased lung
function; difficulty breathing; coughing; increased susceptibility to
respiratory infections; effects on the brain, such as IQ loss and
impacts on learning, memory, and behavior; and cancer. For sensitive
populations, such as the elderly, children or individuals with
underlying health problems, the risks are even greater. Air pollution
is also damaging in other ways, including harming vegetation and land
and water systems, impairing visibility and causing adverse impacts on
climate.
Exposure to air pollution is widespread. According to EPA data,
approximately 127 million people lived in counties that exceeded at
least one of the health-based national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) in 2008.\1\ When a new health-based standard for ozone is
issued, this number will likely be higher. With respect to hazardous
air pollutants, also called ``air toxics,'' EPA estimates that nearly
everyone in the United States has an increased cancer risk of greater
than 10 in 1 million (1 in 1 million is generally considered
``acceptable'').\2\ Air pollution probably causes more deaths than any
other problem under this subcommittee's jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Our Nation's Air: Status and Trends Through 2008 (February
2010), EPA, www.epa.gov/airtrends/2010/.
\2\ National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 2002--Fact Sheet,
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002/factsheet.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President's Request Recognizes the Importance of Healthful Air
Quality
As stated at the outset, NACAA supports the President's request of
$309.1 million for State and local air grants, which represents an
increase of $82.5 million above the amount appropriated in fiscal year
2010, and strongly urges Congress to appropriate funds at this level.
Even though this increase will not fully address the funding deficit
that State and local air agencies have been facing for many years,
which will be discussed further in a moment, it will be enormously
helpful as we continue our existing programs and take on additional
responsibilities in fiscal year 2011. Such an increase, especially
during these difficult economic times, is recognition by the
administration that clean air is critically important to public health
and the welfare of this country and that the benefits of reducing air
pollution far outweigh the costs of the program. We are very grateful
for the President's support of our efforts and hope that Congress will
appropriate the requested amount in recognition of the importance of
protecting public health.
State and Local Air Quality Efforts are in Need of Significant
Increases
State and local air quality agencies have struggled with
insufficient resources for many years. Section 105 of the Clean Air Act
authorizes the Federal Government to provide grants for up to 60
percent of the cost of State and local air programs, while States and
localities must provide a 40-percent match. In reality, however, State
and local air agencies report that they provide 77 percent of their
budgets (not including permit fees under the Federal title V program),
while Federal grants constitute only 23 percent. Clearly State and
local agencies are providing far more than their fair share of the
funding. The chart below illustrates these funding trends.
Moreover, the continuing adverse impacts of the recession at the
State and local levels strain already stressed budgets and cause States
and localities to make painful decisions to reduce funding or cut air
programs that are important for public health. As a result, States and
localities must increasingly rely on Federal contributions.
Unfortunately, Federal grants to these agencies (as the chart shows)
have remained relatively stagnant and the purchasing power of State and
local agency resources has actually decreased due to inflation. In
fact, in terms of purchasing power, Federal grants have decreased by
nearly 10 percent between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2010. At the
same time, the responsibilities these public health agencies face have
increased dramatically.
Last year, NACAA conducted a survey of State and local air
pollution control agencies, requesting information about the additional
resources they need to fulfill responsibilities that are fundamental to
their programs.\3\ The results of this study show there is an annual
shortfall of $550 million in Federal grant appropriations for State and
local air programs. These agencies cannot carry out their programs
effectively with such enormous deficits. Insufficient funds and
increasing workloads have combined to undermine the ability of State
and local agencies to adequately address air pollution and protect
public health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Investing in Clean Air and Public Health: A Needs Survey of
State and Local Air Pollution Control Agencies, NACAA (April 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the President's request does not fully address all our
funding needs, it will be very helpful as we continue our efforts to
obtain and maintain healthful air quality for our Nation. Because State
and local agencies already provide 77 percent of their budgets, meeting
the 40-percent match associated with this increase nationally should
not be a problem.
The President's Budget Request Will Provide Funds for Critical Programs
The proposed budget calls for increases in three primary areas:
Core Activities ($45 million), Increasing Capacity for Greenhouse Gas
Permitting ($25 million); and Monitoring ($12.5 million). All of these
efforts are extremely important and are in need of increased financial
support. The following are a few words about each one.
Core Activities.--We commend the President for recognizing the
importance of State and local agencies' core programs, as illustrated
by the request for an additional $45 million in grant funds to support
those activities. While new and innovative efforts are important and
necessary, we cannot forget how critical the ongoing core programs are,
including the day-to-day activities that serve as the foundation of our
programs. For example, the additional funds will supplement the
existing resources used for continuing program responsibilities and
support the increasing workload that State and local air agencies face
as EPA updates its health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Agencies will be required to update or prepare new State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead and fine
particulates. For example, SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 standard
are due in November 2012, for the new lead standard in 2011 and 2012,
and for the new ozone standard in 2013. State and local agencies must
begin developing these plans, which will require increasingly complex
tasks, such as addressing multi-pollutant and multi State transport
issues, compiling emission inventories, carrying out sophisticated
modeling exercises, significantly expanding and operating monitoring
networks and adopting and enforcing regulations, among other
responsibilities.
Increasing Capacity for Greenhouse Gas Permitting.--State and local
agencies need to expand their capacity with respect to greenhouse gases
(GHGs) so that they are able to transition to whatever GHG program EPA
develops. For example, once GHGs are a ``regulated pollutant'' under
the Clean Air Act, States and localities will be required to issue New
Source Review permits for new and modified sources under the
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration'' (PSD) program and Title V
operating permits for existing sources. The $25 million increase would
be used to prepare for these additional tasks by supporting staff
development and training, program planning and analysis, source
identification, outreach to industry and responding to the public.
Monitoring.--State and local agencies must increase monitoring
activities to address the new and revised standards related to ozone,
lead, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Additionally, the public is
demanding more monitoring of hazardous air pollution in locations where
the public lives, works, attends school and plays. These efforts will
require the purchase of additional ambient air monitoring equipment
that will provide much-needed information about the levels of
pollutants in the air and, later, the success of control measures. The
President's request calls for an additional $15 million for the
acquisition of new monitoring equipment in fiscal year 2011 ($12.5
million in new funding and $2.5 million reprogrammed from air toxics
monitoring at schools). While this amount is not sufficient to address
all the additional monitoring needs, it will be very helpful for State
and local agencies as they expand their monitoring capabilities to
address the new and revised standards, as well as hazardous air
pollutants.
We note that EPA is once again recommending that fine particulate
monitoring funds be shifted from section 103 authority, where no match
is needed, to section 105, which would require additional matching
funds. We request that these funds remain under section 103 authority,
as they have in the past. For individual agencies that have concerns
about the matching requirements, this will ensure that they can
continue receiving these monitoring funds.
Diesel Retrofit Funding Should Be Increased
NACAA is a member of a broad coalition representing public-
interest, environmental, business and governmental organizations, among
others. The coalition recommends that Congress provide $100 million in
fiscal year 2011 for programs authorized by the Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act (DERA), which is an increase of $40 million above the
President's request. The DERA programs are intended to decrease the
amount of harmful microscopic particles in the ambient air resulting
from diesel exhaust. NACAA urges Congress to provide this funding to
these important efforts.
Conclusion
The President's budget request calls for a much-needed increase in
grants to State and local air quality agencies at a time when these
entities are required to continue their efforts and take on significant
new responsibilities. While these increases would not fully address the
enormous funding deficit that these programs face, they are a step in
the right direction and would be vastly helpful to State and local air
quality programs.
NACAA recommends, therefore, that Congress appropriate the amount
contained in the President's fiscal year 2011 request for Federal
grants to State and local air quality agencies under sections 103 and
105 of the Clean Air Act, which is $309.1 million. This represents an
increase of $82.5 million above the fiscal year 2010 appropriated
amount. Additionally, NACAA recommends that DERA programs be funded in
the amount of $100 million, which is $40 million above the President's
recommended amount.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important issue
and for your consideration of the resource needs of State and local air
quality programs as they work to improve and protect public health.
______
Letter From the National Association of Forest Service Retirees
March 1, 2010.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies,
Washington, DC.
Re: Fiscal year 2011 appropriation for the U.S. Forest Service
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: This letter sets
forth the recommendations of the National Association of Forest Service
Retirees regarding the fiscal year 2011 budget for the U.S. Forest
Service. Members of the Association are men and women who spent their
professional careers involved with the protection and management of our
Nation's forests and in research. Most members spent their careers
working on the National Forests and Grasslands. We remain committed to
the statutory management objectives for these lands that are vital to
the well-being of the American people. We believe it is important, even
in periods of tight budgets, to provide adequate protection and
stewardship for these lands so they can serve the people and provide
needed natural resources, such as water, over the long run.
We want to acknowledge the efforts of this subcommittee to maintain
the capability of the Forest Service to carry out its vital missions in
the face of clearly inadequate budget requests in recent years. The
President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2011 shows much better
recognition of the importance of Forest Service programs. Nevertheless,
we feel it falls short in several areas that are discussed below.
Research
With the changed structure of the forest products industry, forest
management research by major forest products firms has largely
disappeared. Cutbacks in State budgets have reduced forest management
research at universities. That leaves the Forest Service as the source
of the science we need to properly manage our Nation's forests. We
badly need more answers to questions about how to manage forests for
various purposes in a period of climate change. We need to find
economic uses for the smaller material that we need to remove from the
forest to reduce the vulnerability to fire, insects, and disease.
We recommend an increase in Forest and Rangeland Research of 5
percent over fiscal year 2010 for research aimed at improving forest
adaptability to changing climate, efficient resource use, and forest
inventory and analysis. We limit our request to 5 percent given the
current economic situation. Frankly an increase in research of about
$90 million per year over the next 5 years is needed to provide a sound
scientific foundation for the protection and management of our forests
in the 21st century.
We want the subcommittee to know of our concerns about the serious
decline in the number of career, peer-reviewed scientists in the Forest
Service. In spite of relatively stable appropriations for research, the
number of career scientists in the agency has declined from about 900
to just over 500. The agency has become increasingly dependant on
short-term appointments and Post-Doc appointments. This decline affects
the quality of the scientific work that is being done. It significantly
reduces the ability of the agency to provide sound scientific advice to
the agency, to the forest management community, and to the Congress. We
urge the subcommittee to work with the agency to reverse this
unfortunate trend.
State and Private Forestry
We were disappointed to see the administration propose reductions
in funding for Forest Heath Management. Given the catastrophic losses
to bark beetles in the West and the threat of lethal invasive insect
species throughout the country, we believe an increase in funding for
this activity is warranted. We recommend an increase of 3 percent over
the 2010 appropriation for Forest Health Management on both Federal and
Cooperative lands.
We are also concerned about the proposed reduction in State Fire
Assistance. The threat of fire on all ownerships is increasing. The
cooperative relationships among Federal land management agencies, State
fire agencies, and local fire agencies are a model for emergency
response. Reducing support for State and local agencies will adversely
affect the Nation's overall capacity for wildfire and other emergency
responses. The States are simply in no position to pick up these costs.
We recommend no reduction in State Fire Assistance.
The United Nations had designated 2011 as the Year of the Forests.
Observances are planned throughout the world to call attention to the
importance of forests to the quality of life. We recommend increasing
the appropriation for International Forestry by $1 million to allow the
Forest Service to participate with other Nation's in this recognition.
National Forest System
The proposal to merge the Forest Products, Wildlife and Fisheries,
and Vegetation and Watershed Management line items into a single line
item will facilitate implementation of integrated management activities
on the ground. When a Ranger receives funds in a number of discrete
accounts, it is hard to match the money to the needs of a particular
project. On the other hand, merging the line items will make it more
difficult for people interested in particular activities to identify
and track how their interests are being addressed. For example, the
Budget Justification for 2011 shows only acres to be treated to restore
watershed function or resilience. No data is shown that identify the
nature of the work that will be done. There is no data for targets
previously displayed such as the area of forest vegetation to be
improved, the area of forest vegetation to be established, the area of
rangeland vegetation to be improved, the area of stream improvements,
or the area of noxious weeds and invasive plants to be treated. People
and cooperators with interest in the various activities should be able
to find out what the agency is proposing to do and then find out if
they did it. If this proposal is accepted, it will be important for the
agency and the Congress to fully display planned work and to carefully
track and report on activities within the line item. A single broad
description such as restoring watershed function provides no basis for
judging the need, priority, cost, or otherwise assessing the validity
of the proposal. For example, if the appropriation for the line item is
based on preparing and selling a given volume of timber, the agency
will need to track and report on accomplishments for this activity. If
the line items are merged, we suggest the combination be named
Integrated Resource Management rather than Integrated Resource
Restoration. Restoration of forests and watersheds to healthy
conditions is important, but a significant amount of the work that is
needed on our National Forests and Grasslands involves activities to
maintain vegetation, watersheds and wildlife habitat in a healthy,
sustainable condition.
We appreciate the emphasis the subcommittee has given to funding
needed Hazardous Fuel Treatments. This work is critical to reducing the
vulnerability of our forests to catastrophic fire losses, as well as
the threat to lives and property in the wildland urban interface. We
believe, however, that it will not be possible to get on top of the
growing fuels problem by relying only on appropriated funds. If we are
going to succeed, we must find ways to capture the economic value of
the material that needs to be removed from the forest. Much of this
material can be used for conventional wood products, for composite
materials, and for energy production. Not all of the material will
fully pay its way out of the woods today, but even if its removal must
be subsidized, it will be cheaper to utilize it than to treat it in
place. Importantly, utilization of this material will create jobs in
local forest-dependent communities where unemployment rates are high.
We recommend an increase in the volume of timber to be prepared and
offered for sale of 700 million board feet over that provided for
fiscal year 2010.
The Forest Service reports a backlog of lands needing reforestation
of about 1 million acres. This is based on the results of on the ground
examinations and prescriptions. Based on the rate that the backlog has
been reduced in recent years, it will take nearly 20 years to eliminate
it. We are concerned that the actual area needing reforestation may be
significantly larger than reported. For example, a rapid assessment of
the 2007 fires showed that some 500,000 acres might need reforestation.
The rapid assessment of the 2008 fires showed that potentially 227,000
acres might need reforestation. On-the-ground stand examinations are
needed to identify how much of this burned land should be added to the
backlog. We recommend a $6 million increase in funding over that
provided in 2010 for reforestation so that stand examinations can be
completed and the agency and this subcommittee will have the data
needed to develop a plan for increasing the reforestation program to a
level that will eliminate the backlog within 5 years.
The administration proposes a small decrease in funding for
Inventory and Monitoring. Inventory and monitoring are essential to
professional management of forest resources and to insuring that
activities meet established standards. Good information on the results
of forest management activities is important to gaining and maintaining
public support. We urge that funding for Inventory and Monitoring be
continued at not less than the 2010 level.
The National Forests and Grasslands are neighbors to thousand of
landowners and communities. Maintaining property lines, inspecting
authorized uses, and responding to requests for land uses and rights-
of-way are essential to protecting the public property and to being a
good neighbor. We recommend an increase of $5 million for Landownership
Management.
Capital Improvements and Maintenance
We deplore the proposed reductions in funding for Capital
Improvements and Facilities. We recognize that substantial funding for
these activities was provided in the economic stimulus package, but
large backlogs remain. If regular funding is reduced because of the
economic stimulus funding, the benefits of the economic stimulus are
lost. We particularly object to the reduction in funding for
maintaining passenger car roads. The American people have a right to
visit their National Forests and Grasslands. These roads are essential
to recreation use that is important to the economies of local forest-
dependant communities. They are important for the prompt initial attack
on fires that is essential to controlling suppression costs. It has
long been recognized that adequate access is essential to sustainable
management and protection of forest lands. One of the premises of the
reduction in the timber program in the 1990's was that some of the
employment losses would be made up by increases in recreation use.
Recreation use on the National Forests is dependent on access by roads
and trails. We urge that funding for Capitol Improvements and
Maintenance be continued at fiscal year 2010 levels.
Wildland Fire Management
In response to Congressional direction, the budget proposes
rebalancing funding for Preparedness and Suppression. This rebalancing
is desirable. We were disappointed that the Administration failed to
fully implement Congressional direction in the FLAME Act. Funding for
fire suppression (Fire Operation-Suppression and the FLAME Fund) is
based on the 10-year average cost of suppression. We recommend funding
for fire suppression be based on the most recent 5-year average cost of
suppression projected to 2011 as prescribed by the FLAME Act.
Establishing a third fund for suppression has no merit.
It is essential that the Forest Service has the capability to
respond quickly with emergency watershed stabilization treatments
following a wildfire. The flooding in Los Angeles following the Station
Fire illustrates the importance of these funds. We urge that funding of
NFP-Rehabilitation and Restoration be continued at 2010 levels.
Earlier we expressed our concerns about the proposed reductions in
Forest Health and State Fire Assistance under State and Private
Forestry. We have the same concerns about the reductions in these
programs under the National Fire Plan. We recommend an increase in
funding for NFP-Forest Health of 3 percent. We recommend maintaining
NFP-State Fire Assistance at the 2010 level;
This subcommittee has been diligent in recognizing the special
responsibility that the Congress has for the proper stewardship of our
Nation's forest lands and, particularly, the National Forests and
Grasslands. We believe the recommendations set forth above will help to
insure that this natural heritage will serve the people now and in the
future.
Sincerely,
George M. Leonard,
Board of Directors.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Phil Giudice of
Massachusetts, and Chair of the National Association of State Energy
Officials (NASEO). NASEO represents the energy offices in the States,
territories and the District of Columbia. NASEO is submitting this
testimony in support of funding for the Energy Star program (within the
Climate Protection Division of the Office of Air and Radiation) at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NASEO supports funding of
at least $75 million, including specific report language directing that
the funds be utilized only for the Energy Star programs. The Energy
Star programs are successful and cost-effective. They should be
expanded, not reduced. With energy prices increasingly volatile, Energy
Star can help consumers quickly.
The Energy Star program is focused on voluntary efforts that reduce
the use of energy, promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, and
works with States, local governments, and business to achieve these
goals in a cooperative manner. NASEO has worked very closely with EPA
and more than 40 States are Energy Star Partners. In 2005, EPA and
NASEO announced a Clean Energy and Environment State Partnership
program, which has many State members. We are also working closely with
EPA on Home Performance with Energy Star. With very limited funding,
EPA's Energy Star program works closely with the State energy offices
to give consumers and businesses the opportunity to make better energy
decisions, without regulation or mandates.
Energy Star focuses on energy efficient products as well as
buildings. In 2008, 550,000,000 Energy Star products were purchased.
The Energy Star label is recognized across the United States. It makes
the work of the State energy offices much easier, by working with the
public on easily recognized products, services, and targets. In order
to obtain the Energy Star label a product has to meet established
guidelines. Energy Star's voluntary partnership programs include Energy
Star Buildings, Energy Star Homes, Energy Star Small Business and
Energy Star Labeled Products. The program operates by encouraging
consumers, 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, Home
Performance with Energy Star (especially for existing homes), Energy
Star for public housing, etc.
In addition to the State partners, the program has more than 14,000
voluntary partners including more than 2,000 manufacturers using the
label, more than 1,000 retail partners, more than 5,000 builder
partners, 4,500 businesses, 550 utilities and thousands of energy
service providers. The Home Performance with Energy Star activity
allows us to focus on whole-house improvements, not simply a single
product or service. This is extremely beneficial to homeowners.
Programs have already been undertaken in California, Massachusetts, New
York, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin. We are also
working closely with EPA in the implementation of the Energy Star
Challenge, which is encouraging businesses and institutions to reduce
energy use by 10 percent or more, usually through very simple actions.
We are working with the building owners to identify the level of energy
use and compare that to a national metric, establish goals and work
with them to make the specified improvements. Again, this is being done
without mandates.
The State energy offices are very encouraged with progress made at
EPA and in our States to promote programs to make schools more energy
efficient, in addition to an expanding Energy Star business partners
program. This expansion will continue. EPA has been expanding the
technical assistance work with the State energy offices in such areas
as benchmark training (how to rate the performance of buildings),
setting an energy target and training in such areas as financing
options for building improvements and building upgrade strategies.
The State energy offices are working cooperatively with our peers
in the State environmental agencies and State public utilities
commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies
are developed recognizing both energy and environmental concerns. We
have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues.
The level of cooperation from the agency has been extraordinary and we
encourage these continued efforts.
Expansion of Energy Star
The Energy Star program saves consumers billions of dollars every
year. The payback is enormous. NASEO supports an increase of this
program to $75 million in fiscal year 2011. The elements of the
proposed expanded program are as follows:
--$5 million in additional funding should be appropriated to expand
the program to upgrade energy-inefficient homes (Home
Performance with Energy Star and Qualified Installation with
Energy Star). Consumers could save $500 per year on their
energy expenditures, which is $10,000 more than 20 years
(nominal dollars). This is real money in the pockets of
consumers. It can help them stay in their homes and help the
economy. There are significant, off-the-shelf energy efficiency
measures that can be utilized. A large expansion of the Home
Performance with Energy Star is the critical element of this
initiative. Additional work to encourage quality installation
of heating and cooling equipment would also produce real
savings.
--$5 million in additional funding should be appropriated for an
expansion of energy performance ratings systems for the
Nation's buildings. Information on energy use per square foot
is a key motivating tool. This can help commercial building
owners make the right decisions.
--$5 million in additional funding should be appropriated for
expansion of Energy Star to medium and small manufacturers and
small businesses. The State energy offices are working hard to
preserve and expand jobs in this difficult economy. Energy Star
is a powerful tool to help reduce operating costs and maintain
profits and jobs.
--$5 million in additional funding should be appropriated for an
expanded outreach program for energy efficiency to States,
utilities, local governments, schools, and other potential
program sponsors. Energy Star provides crucial technical
assistance to help work with these entities to expand energy
efficiency programs throughout the economy.
--$5 million in additional funding should also be provided for the
Energy Star Industrial program, Energy Star New Commercial
Buildings, Energy Star New Home Construction and Energy Star
Product labeling.
The funds delineated above should be added to the existing
appropriation. It is especially critical for the Energy Star program to
work with the States and local governments as they distribute stimulus
funds for the State Energy Program ($3.1 billion), the Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (for local and State
governments) ($3.2 billion), the Weatherization Assistance Program ($5
billion) and the Appliance Rebates Program ($300 million). The funding
provided in this bill will help spend this money more effectively.
Conclusion
Increases in funding for the Energy Star programs are justified.
NASEO endorses these activities and the State energy offices are
working very closely with EPA to cooperatively implement a variety of
critical national programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Forest Service
Retirees
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to present the recommendations of the National Association
of Forest Service Retirees regarding the fiscal year 2011 budget for
the U.S. Forest Service. Members of the Association are men and women
who spent their professional careers involved with the protection and
management of our Nation's forests and in research. Most members spent
their careers working on the National Forests and Grasslands. We remain
committed to the statutory management objectives for these lands that
are vital to the well-being of the American people. We believe it is
important, even in periods of tight budgets, to provide adequate
protection and stewardship for these lands so they can serve the people
and provide needed natural resources, such as water, over the long run.
We want to acknowledge the efforts of this subcommittee to maintain
the capability of the Forest Service to carry out its vital missions in
the face of clearly inadequate budget requests in recent years. The
President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2011 shows much better
recognition of the importance of Forest Service programs. Nevertheless,
we feel it falls short in several areas that are discussed below.
Research
With the changed structure of the forest products industry, forest
management research by major forest products firms has largely
disappeared. Cutbacks in State budgets have reduced forest management
research at universities. That leaves the Forest Service as the source
of the science we need to properly manage our Nation's forests. We
badly need more answers to questions about how to manage forests for
various purposes in a period of climate change. We need to find
economic uses for the smaller material that we need to remove from the
forest to reduce the vulnerability to fire, insects, and disease.
We recommend an increase in Forest and Rangeland Research of 5
percent over fiscal year 2010 for research aimed at improving forest
adaptability to changing climate, efficient resource use, and forest
inventory and analysis. We limit our request to 5 percent given the
current economic situation. Frankly an increase in research of about
$90 million per year over the next 5 years is needed to provide a sound
scientific foundation for the protection and management of our forests
in the 21st century.
We want the subcommittee to know of our concerns about the serious
decline in the number of career, peer-reviewed scientists in the Forest
Service. In spite of relatively stable appropriations for research, the
number of career scientists in the agency has declined from about 900
to just more than 500. The agency has become increasingly dependant on
short-term appointments and Post-Doc appointments. This decline affects
the quality of the scientific work that is being done. It significantly
reduces the ability of Forest Service Research to provide sound
scientific advice to the agency, to the forest management community,
and to the Congress. We urge the subcommittee to work with the agency
to reverse this unfortunate trend.
State and Private Forestry
We were disappointed to see the administration propose reductions
in funding for Forest Heath Management. Given the catastrophic losses
to bark beetles in the West and the threat of lethal invasive insect
species throughout the country, we believe an increase in funding for
this activity is warranted. We recommend an increase of 3 percent more
than the 2010 appropriation for Forest Health Management on both
Federal and Cooperative lands.
We are also concerned about the proposed reduction in State Fire
Assistance. The threat of fire on all ownerships is increasing. The
cooperative relationships among Federal land management agencies, State
fire agencies, and local fire agencies are a model for emergency
response. Reducing support for State and local agencies will adversely
affect the Nation's overall capacity for wildfire and other emergency
responses. The States are simply in no position to pick up these costs.
We recommend no reduction in State Fire Assistance.
The United Nations had designated 2011 as the Year of the Forests.
Observances are planned throughout the world to call attention to the
importance of forests to the quality of life. We recommend increasing
the appropriation for International Forestry by $1 million to allow the
Forest Service to participate with other Nation's in this recognition.
National Forest System
The proposal to merge the Forest Products, Wildlife and Fisheries,
and Vegetation and Watershed Management line items into a single line
item will facilitate implementation of integrated management activities
on the ground. When a Ranger receives funds in a number of discrete
accounts, it is hard to match the money to the needs of a particular
project. On the other hand, merging the line items will make it more
difficult for people interested in particular activities to identify
and track how their interests are being addressed. For example, the
Budget Justification for 2011 shows only acres to be treated to restore
watershed function or resilience. No data is shown that identify the
nature of the work that will be done. There is no data for targets
previously displayed such as the area of forest vegetation to be
improved, the area of forest vegetation to be established, the area of
rangeland vegetation to be improved, the area of stream improvements,
or the area of noxious weeds and invasive plants to be treated. People
and cooperators with interest in the various activities should be able
to find out what the agency is proposing to do and then find out if
they did it. If this proposal is accepted, it will be important for the
agency and the Congress to fully display planned work and to carefully
track and report on activities within the line item. A single broad
description such as restoring watershed function provides no basis for
judging the need, priority, cost, or otherwise assessing the validity
of the proposal. For example, if the appropriation for the line item is
based on preparing and selling a given volume of timber, the agency
will need to track and report on accomplishments for this activity. If
the line items are merged, we suggest the combination be named
Integrated Resource Management rather than Integrated Resource
Restoration. Restoration of forests and watersheds to healthy
conditions is important, but a significant amount of the work that is
needed on our National Forests and Grasslands involves activities to
maintain vegetation, watersheds and wildlife habitat in a healthy,
sustainable condition.
We appreciate the emphasis the subcommittee has given to funding
needed Hazardous Fuel Treatments. This work is critical to reducing the
vulnerability of our forests to catastrophic fire losses, as well as
the threat to lives and property in the wildland urban interface. We
believe, however, that it will not be possible to get on top of the
growing fuels problem by relying only on appropriated funds. If we are
going to succeed, we must find ways to capture the economic value of
the material that needs to be removed from the forest. Much of this
material can be used for conventional wood products, for composite
materials, and for energy production. Not all of the material will
fully pay its way out of the woods today, but even if its removal must
be subsidized, it will be cheaper to utilize it than to treat it in
place. Importantly, utilization of this material will create jobs in
local forest-dependent communities where unemployment rates are high.
We recommend an increase in the volume of timber to be prepared and
offered for sale of 700 million board feet over that provided for
fiscal year 2010.
The Forest Service reports a backlog of lands needing reforestation
of about 1 million acres. This is based on the results of on the ground
examinations and prescriptions. Based on the rate that the backlog has
been reduced in recent years, it will take nearly 20 years to eliminate
it. We are concerned that the actual area needing reforestation may be
significantly larger than reported. For example, a rapid assessment of
the 2007 fires showed that some 500,000 acres might need reforestation.
The rapid assessment of the 2008 fires showed that potentially 227,000
acres might need reforestation. On-the-ground stand examinations are
needed to identify how much of this burned land should be added to the
backlog. We recommend a $6 million increase in funding over that
provided in 2010 for reforestation so that stand examinations can be
completed and the agency and this subcommittee will have the data
needed to develop a plan for increasing the reforestation program to a
level that will eliminate the backlog within 5 years.
The administration proposes a small decrease in funding for
Inventory and Monitoring. Inventory and monitoring are essential to
professional management of forest resources and to insuring that
activities meet established standards. Good information on the results
of forest management activities is important to gaining and maintaining
public support. We urge that funding for Inventory and Monitoring be
continued at not less than the 2010 level.
The National Forests and Grasslands are neighbors to thousand of
landowners and communities. Maintaining property lines, inspecting
authorized uses, and responding promptly to requests for land uses and
rights-of-way are essential to protecting the public property and to
being a good neighbor. We recommend an increase of $5 million for
Landownership Management.
Capital Improvements and Maintenance
We deplore the proposed reductions in funding for Capital
Improvements and Facilities. We recognize that substantial funding for
these activities was provided in the economic stimulus package, but
large backlogs remain. If regular funding is reduced because of the
economic stimulus funding, the benefits of the economic stimulus are
lost. We particularly object to the reduction in funding for
maintaining passenger car roads. The American people have a right to
visit their National Forests and Grasslands. These roads are essential
to recreation use that is important to the economies of local forest-
dependant communities. They are important for the prompt initial attack
on fires that is essential to controlling suppression costs. It has
long been recognized that adequate access is essential to sustainable
management and protection of forest lands. One of the premises of the
reduction in the timber program in the 1990's was that some of the
employment losses would be made up by increases in recreation use.
Recreation use on the National Forests is dependent on access by roads
and trails. We urge that funding for Capitol Improvements and
Maintenance be continued at fiscal year 2010 levels.
Wildland Fire Management
In response to Congressional direction, the budget proposes
rebalancing funding for Preparedness and Suppression. This rebalancing
is desirable. We were disappointed that the Administration failed to
fully implement Congressional direction in the FLAME Act. Funding for
fire suppression (Fire Operation-Suppression and the FLAME Fund) is
based on the 10-year average cost of suppression. We recommend funding
for fire suppression be based on the most recent 5-year average cost of
suppression projected to 2011 as prescribed by the FLAME Act.
Establishing a third fund for suppression has no merit.
It is essential that the Forest Service has the capability to
respond quickly with emergency watershed stabilization treatments
following a wildfire. The flooding in Los Angeles following the Station
Fire illustrates the importance of these funds. We urge that funding of
NFP-Rehabilitation and Restoration be continued at 2010 levels.
Earlier we expressed our concerns about the proposed reductions in
Forest Health and State Fire Assistance under State and Private
Forestry. We have the same concerns about the reductions in these
programs under the National Fire Plan. We recommend an increase in
funding for NFP-Forest Health of 3 percent. We recommend maintaining
NFP-State Fire Assistance at the 2010 level;
This subcommittee has been diligent in recognizing the special
responsibility that the Congress has for the proper stewardship of our
Nation's forest lands and, particularly, the National Forests and
Grasslands. We believe the recommendations set forth above will help to
insure that this natural heritage will serve the people now and in the
future.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of School Nurses
On behalf of our members and supporters across the country, and
tens of millions of children whose health, learning and behavior are
daily impacted by dank, dark, dirty, and polluted conditions of our
Pre-K-12 public schools, we urge you to fund the EPA's ``Clean Green
Healthy Schools Initiative'' at $8.2 million, $2 million above the
President's $6.2 million request in the fiscal year 2011 EPA request.
The national ``Sick Schools 2009'' collaborative report assembled
by more than 30 contributing public interest nonprofits, analyzed
Federal data from EPA, Education, and CDC, as well as peer reviewed
published sciences in healthy school environments. Result: at least 60
percent of all 55 million school children endure lower test scores and
poor attendance due solely to the environmental conditions of their
schools. See http://www.healthyschools.org/SICK_SCHOOLS_2009.pdf
The President's fiscal year 2011 EPA budget supports EPA's critical
Office of Children's Health Protection and the agency's voluntary
schools-focused programs that help local schools and districts to
create healthier school environments for all children. EPA will co-lead
a Federal interagency effort to integrate existing voluntary schools
programs across the agencies, including asthma, indoor air quality,
chemical clean outs, green practices (highly cost-effective as New York
State has learned) and enhanced use of integrated pest management;
promote safe handling and management of PCB-containing caulk in schools
and build regional technical support and outreach; assesses the impacts
of non-compliance with existing environmental laws on health risks in
schools; and increase technical assistance on voluntary EPA guidelines
under the Energy Independence Security Act (EISA of 2007) regarding
school siting and other school environmental concerns.
We also urge you to support increases for EPA's Healthier Indoor
Air and for school and community air toxics monitoring, and for
expanding EPA's asthma programs and pesticide-use reductions with
schools. Children are 100 percent of our future and promoting healthy
learning environments is a task that EPA is uniquely poised to tackle,
in collaboration with Education and CDC.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Cooperators' Coalition
Summary
The National Cooperators' Coalition (NCC) urges the Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to increase the funding of
the U.S. Geological Survey's Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Units (CFWRUs) by $2.7 million above the amount appropriated for fiscal
year 2010 to fill vacant scientist positions and complete restoration
of the program's integrity. Contingent on full funding of the base
program, the NCC seeks additional funding of $2 million to establish
new capacity by adding units in Nevada and New Jersey, completing the
wildlife mission at existing units in Hawaii and California, and
ensuring that the entire CFWRU network is sufficiently robust to meet
the Nation's pressing natural resource challenges. These increases
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level are essential to successfully
address the natural resource management challenges posed by climate
change, energy development needs, invasive species, wildfire, increased
demand for limited water resources, and retirement and replacement of
an unprecedented number of natural resource professionals over the next
10 years.
The National Cooperators' Coalition is an alliance of non-Federal
CFWRU program cooperators and other supporters. Its members include
State fish and wildlife agencies, universities, and non-governmental
organizations. The mission of the NCC is to build a stronger and more
coordinated base of support to serve research, education, and technical
assistance needs of the non-Federal CFWRU program cooperators.
Continue to Build on This Subcommittee's Efforts
This subcommittee was instrumental in providing the funding needed
to fill all CFWRU scientist positions in fiscal year 2001, after years
of work. Unfortunately, much of this effort was undone over the next 7
years. Beginning in fiscal year 2008, however, the subcommittee once
again began leading the effort to restore the integrity of the CFWRU
program. We greatly appreciate your leadership in adding funding for
the past three years for this important research and training
partnership, which already brings together State fish and wildlife
agencies, State universities, and Federal agencies around a local,
applied research agenda. To provide the capacity in the CFWRU program
that existed a decade ago, the fiscal year 2011 USGS appropriation now
needs just $2.7 million more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
State and Federal natural resources agencies are facing
unprecedented challenges posed by climate change, energy development
needs, invasive species, infectious diseases, wildfire, and increased
demand for limited water resources. These agencies also face the
challenge of replacing an extraordinary number of natural resource
professionals who will be retiring within this decade. Finding workable
solutions to these challenges requires the kind of approaches to
research emphasized by the CFWRUs, which rely on interdisciplinary
efforts, collaborations and accountability to help resolve emerging
issues at scales that transcend State boundaries.
As you know, each of the CFWRUs in 38 States is a true Federal-
State-university-private partnership among the U.S. Geological Survey,
a State natural resource agency, a host university, and the Wildlife
Management Institute. The CFWRUs build on these partner contributions
to leverage more than $3 for every $1 appropriated to the program by
Congress. The CFWRUs have established a record of educating new natural
resource professionals who are management-oriented, well-versed in
science, grounded in State and Federal agency experience, and able to
assist private landowners and other members of the public. Restoration
of funding support would ensure that the Interior Department provides
the Federal scientist staffing agreed to with partners so that the
return on their continuing investment in the CFWRUs is realized and
fully leveraged. The role of the CFWRU program in facilitating
solutions to natural resources management challenges and training the
fish and wildlife managers of tomorrow should be expanded rather than
compromised by funding shortfalls that result in the absence of
scientist leaders.
With appropriation of $22 million for the CFWRUs for fiscal year
2011, a sound foundation will exist on which new capacity should be
built with appropriation of an additional $2 million to add CFWRUs in
Nevada and New Jersey and complete the wildlife mission at existing
CFWRUs in Hawaii and California. Rutgers University, University of
Nevada--Reno, University of Hawaii--Hilo and Humboldt State University
bring a wealth of research, education and innovative technology to
address contemporary conservation issues at regional and national
scales. The respective State agency partners bring an extensive history
of successful fish and wildlife management skills and resources that
complement those existing at the universities. The State agency and
university partners are well-equipped to collaborate with CFWRUs to
help resolve natural resources management challenges that transcend
State boundaries. For example, New Jersey capacity can be brought to
bear on the effects of climate change on anadromous fish, and new
strategies for wildlife management in urban settings. California has
been at the forefront of watershed restoration, forest management and
disease ecology. Hawaii's problems and handling of invasive rodents,
feral pigs, and feral cats that affect endangered species can serve as
a model for other States. In Nevada, wildfire and invasive plants
threaten mule deer habitat and invasive species threaten Lake Tahoe.
Finally, the NCC would like to work with the subcommittee to
develop a competitive, matching fund program within existing CFWRU
legislative authority for fiscal year 2012 and beyond to address high
priority research needs for natural resources managers.
We urge you to make greater use of this important research and
training partnership, which already brings together State fish and
wildlife agencies, State universities, and Federal agencies around a
local, applied research agenda. With your assistance, the Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Units can make the best use of Federal
funds, becoming even more effective in using science and collaboration
to address the natural resources challenges facing the Interior
Department, other Federal, State, local agencies and this country's
citizens.
Thank you for consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers
Request:
--$50,000,000 for State Historic Preservation Offices \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NCSHPO supports the request of the House Preservation
Caucus of $50 million for SHPOs, $5 million for survey/digitization
grants, $20 million for tribes, $25 million for Save America's
Treasures and $4.6 for Preserve America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--$5,000,000 for competitive grants to States for digitization of
documents and historic site survey fieldwork
The programs are funded through withdrawals from the Historic
Preservation Fund (16 U.S.C. 470h) U.S. Department of the Interior's
National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund (HPF).
Thank you Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and
members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies for the opportunity to provide
testimony. First, on behalf of all 57 State Historic Preservation
Officers, I extend heartfelt thanks to you and the subcommittee for
providing an additional $4 million for SHPOs in fiscal year 2010,
without which SHPOs could not have addressed the rising workload of
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) projects and helped to
keep the stimulus program on track. The additional HPF withdrawals are
particularly essential in these times of State fiscal crises and
reduced SHPO budgets that have resulted in up to 40 percent reductions
in staffing.
Our request has two components: a $50,000,000 withdrawal from the
HPPF and a $5 million withdrawal to assist States in ``finishing'' the
identification of America's historic places by the 50th anniversary of
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in 2016.
SHPOs and ARRA
SHPOs continue to need $50 million to weather ``the perfect storm''
created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) projects
hitting the ground at the exact time that State governments are facing
massive budget deficits, reduced funding and, in some cases,
elimination of historic preservation programs. While the administration
and Federal agencies can claim success in obligating ARRA funds, the
real review work for SHPOs is just beginning.
As seen from the following, increasing amounts of ARRA reviews with
no additional funding for staffing means States are unable to fully
implement all the requirements of the National Historic Preservation
Act.
--Wisconsin.--Has reallocated staffing from Federal Rehabilitation
Tax Credit project reviews ($4.7 billion program that created
70,000 jobs in 2008) and public education efforts, requested by
the citizens of Wisconsin, to Federal ARRA project reviews
because of the need to shift resources to compliance.
--California.--Clearing out the ARRA projects backlog has resulted in
other projects (approximately 400), especially renewable energy
projects, being delayed. Not only is the workload increasing by
200 percent to 300 percent, but also staff must spend
considerable amounts of time teaching/training the section 106
process to Federal agencies. Federal agencies are also
delegating their section 106 consultation responsibilities to
local governments that have no idea of the Federal regulatory
requirements CA has developed Programmatic Agreements to
expedite the process wherever possible. The California budget
crisis mandated three furlough days per month which reduces the
person hours available to conduct the Federal reviews.
Productivity has decreased by 15 percent. California has been
successful in obtaining 10 additional positions, paid for by
Federal and renewable energy agencies to supplement OHP's staff
as limited term employees for the next 2 years. However,
additional resources and staff are still needed.
--Maryland.--Staff has worked hard to ensure prioritized review of
ARRA assisted projects, but the increased volume of projects,
as well as the increased amount of staff time needed to provide
information and technical assistance to the grant recipients,
is depleting their existing staff resources. Thus, their
ability to complete non-ARRA funded project reviews within a
30-day time and provide essential customer service to
compliance clients is being substantially impaired.
--South Dakota.--The combination of ARRA projects and being short
staffed as meant less time spent on National Register
nominations that South Dakotans want as recognition of their
heritage and the first step for rehab tax credit projects.
--Texas.--To meet Federal section 106 review deadlines Texas
reallocated staff from processing National Register nominations
to handling ARRA funded compliance projects. The slowdown in
the National Register process has led to complaints from
Texans.
--Oklahoma.--Has experienced a 40 percent increase in total section
106 project reviews. In order to meet the regulatory 30-day
deadline they have cut back significantly on providing needed
assistance to Oklahoma communities and conducting site visits.
They are also experiencing furloughs.
It's Not Just ARRA
As SHPOs continue to review $787 billion in ARRA projects, Congress
is considering a second Jobs Bill and future ``green and clean'' energy
bills. These and all new Federal initiatives create additional SHPO
review responsibilities. The Departments of Interior and Energy are
also aggressively pursuing renewable energy projects. These massive,
multi-state initiatives require extensive work hours for SHPO staff to
fulfill the Federal regulatory requirements. Many SHPOs anticipate
renewable energy projects will require much of their section 106 staff
time during the next several years, likely causing delayed responses to
non-energy related reviews primarily due to a lack of digitized records
and complete historic surveys.
SHPOs Long-term Goal
A major reason for the extensive SHPO involvement in Federal
project reviews is the lack of a complete inventory of historic places.
(In Washington where their historic site information is digitized,
Federal agencies do project planning from their desk top.) To begin to
address this, the NCSHPO is requesting $5 million in competitive grants
to States to create a digital record of America's historic places.
Historic site survey is the foundation of all historic preservation. As
the 50th anniversary of the Preservation Act approaches in 2016, SHPOs
need HPF support to find America's historic places and put the
information in accessible, digital formats.
Specifically, the grant funds would be used for two purposes: (1)
to convert existing paper records to electronic formats (data bases,
GIS) and (2) to conduct inventory fieldwork, filling in the current
patchwork of identified sites, which is essential for Federal project
review (section 106) and lays a foundation for every future
preservation activity, e.g., National Register).
Funding Rationale
SHPOs are the Nation's Preservation Program
In 1966 Congress recognized the importance of preserving our past
by passing the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 16 U.S.C. 470),
which established historic preservation as a Federal Government
priority. Instead of using Federal employees to carry out the Act, DOI
and ACHP rely State Historic Preservation Offices to do the work: (1)
locate and record historic resources (see section above); (2) nominate
significant historic resources to the National Register of Historic
Places; (3) foster historic preservation programs at the local
government level and promote the creation of preservation ordinances;
(4) provide funds for preservation activities; (5) comment on Federal
preservation tax projects; (6) review all Federal projects for their
impact on historic properties; and (7) provide technical assistance to
Federal agencies, State, and local governments and the private sector.
SHPOs generate Jobs and Economic Development
The SHPOs conduct 90 percent of the work involved in the Federal
Rehabilitation Tax Credit program. Starting with National Register
nominations, SHPOs educate investors about the tax credit and work with
owners on the rehabilitation plans before final NPS approval. In 2009,
during the height of the recession, 1,000 plus rehabilitation projects
created an average of 68 new and principally local jobs per project and
leveraged $4.7 billion of private investment into the U.S. economy.
SHPO pass through 10 percent of their HPF allocation to Certified
Local Governments. Although the amounts are paltry (grants average less
than $10,000/project), they pack a powerful punch. The Michigan SHPO
grant to a Certified Local Government (CLG) created a historic wood
windows restoration workshop. The workshop provided specialized
training to the unemployed and in the process educated individuals
about the energy efficiency benefits of rehabilitating rather than
replacing historic wood windows. This workshop, free of charge to
participants, resulted in 4 of the 14 students starting their own
window repair small businesses, and the program was such a success that
more workshops will be offered in 2010.
Heritage tourism creates jobs, new businesses, builds community
pride and can improve quality of life. SHPOs are essential, ground
level partners in identifying historic places and providing research
for tourist interpretation. According to a 2009 national research study
on U.S. Cultural and Heritage travel by Mandela Research, 78 percent of
all U.S. leisure travelers participate in cultural and/or heritage
activities while traveling. Cultural and heritage travelers also spend
on average $994 per trip compared to $611 for all U.S. travelers.
SHPOS are good at their job
2009 State Historic Preservation Offices' Accomplishments.--SHPOs
used their HPF allocations well in 2009. While virtually every State
experienced cut backs and reductions, SHPOs are still charged with
implementing the requirements of the NHPA to their fullest extent.
Highlights of 2009 historic preservation accomplishments include:
--More than $4.7 billion of private investment in the rehabilitation
of commercial historic properties under the Federal
Rehabilitation Tax Credit (FRTC) program.
--An estimated 70,000 jobs created by the FRTC program in 2008.
--6,710 low and moderate-income housing units created through the
FRTC.
--Approximately 9 million acres surveyed for cultural resources and
more than 146,600 properties evaluated for their historical
significance.
--1,115 new listings in the National Register of Historic Places.
--SHPOs reviewed 106,900 Federal undertakings, providing 104,100
National Register eligibility opinions.
--55 new communities became Certified Local Governments (CLGs).
--CLG's newly designated 53,700 properties, and 89,300 properties
took part in local preservation review, programs, and
incentives.
Conclusion
Historic preservation recognizes that what was common and ordinary
in the past is often rare and precious today, and what is common and
ordinary today may be extraordinary, 50, 100, or 500 years from now. I
would like to thank the subcommittee for their commitment to historic
preservation. The Federal Government plays an invaluable role in
preserving our Nation's history and through our partnership, SHPOs
stand committed to identify, protect, and maintain our Nation's
historic heritage.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Environmental Services Center
Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the
subcommittee: We request an appropriation of $3 million in fiscal year
2011 to assist small communities in meeting their wastewater treatment
needs through the National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC) and the
National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities (NETCSC).
Both programs are administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under the Environmental Programs and Management account.
Introduction
My name is Gerald Iwan and I serve as executive director of the
National Environmental Services Center. Our center is home to both EPA
and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funded programs that provide
comprehensive environmental services to small communities and rural
areas. Our work is focused mainly on drinking water, wastewater, and
community resiliency. Two of our major programs--the NSFC and the
NETCSC--are the subjects of this testimony. The first two pages outline
the need and justification for our request; the last two pages of our
testimony provide background information about the NSFC and NETCSC
programs.
Need
In the 1977 Clean Water Act and its subsequent reauthorizations,
Congress mandated the NSFC to collect, distribute information, and
provide training about wastewater treatment to small and rural
communities. With our expertise in decentralized wastewater treatment
and management, the NSFC and its associate program, NETCSC, uniquely
support the goals of EPA's Office of Water, protect public health,
preserve valuable water resources, and contribute to community economic
vitality and resiliency. Nearly 1 in 4 U.S. households depends on
individual septic or other types of onsite system to treat wastewater.
NSFC and NETCSC partner with a wide range of organizations and groups
to collaborate in helping States and communities address the service
needs for small and rural communities. These communities are most often
characterized as being rural, having few financial resources, and as
being overseen by elected officials who have limited time and support
personnel to make decisions in these matters. The impact of the NSFC
and NETCSC information, assistance, and training services includes
pollution prevention, environmental protection and public health
protection, cost saving to communities and homeowners, regulatory
compliance and reform, economic development and resiliency. The
congressionally directed funding requested in our testimony will enable
us to help these communities with services they will not otherwise
obtain.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act mandates that EPA provide
funding through grants and loans for wastewater treatment
infrastructure and for technical assistance and training resources to
support local officials, wastewater treatment professionals and others
in implementing infrastructure projects and in their management and
maintenance. As such, the NSFC and NETCSC serve as the underpinning of
EPA's cooperative effort with 15 national organizations to support
appropriate decentralized wastewater treatment and management. EPA does
not explicitly budget funding for small community programs since funds
were allocated under the Clean Water Act. Formula funding for the NSFC
under the Clean Water Act has expired. The NSFC program requires
congressional appropriations to continue our programs while the Water
Quality Investment Act of 2009 is being debated in Congress.
Request
Congressional support to continue the work of the NSFC and NETCSC
is imperative because the State agencies and communities these programs
assist cannot pay on a fee-for-service basis. Neither can State
allocations for water and wastewater infrastructures pay for these
programs' services. By virtue of the congressional appropriation, we
are able to offer most of our services free of charge.
Without congressional support, the NSFC and NETCSC programs will be
unable to attain sufficient funding to continue in the near term. In
the longer term, the NSFC can be supported under the funding formula
provided for this program through renewal of the State Revolving Loan
Fund financing section of the Clean Water Act passed by the House in
March 2009. While EPA has a mandate to protect drinking water and
manage wastewater discharges, the administration budget request
typically does not include funding for water programs that serve small
and rural communities. Congress regularly adds funds each year to the
EPA budget to continue service provider programs to meet the goals
established by EPA. In the past, funding for the Clearinghouse and
Training Center has been included among the congressional priorities
for water-related programs such as the National Rural Water
Association, Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Groundwater
Protection Council, and similar organizations.
We request reinstated funding support for fiscal year 2011 of $3
million for the NSFC and NETCSC programs to support our work until the
Clean Water SRF legislation is reauthorized and enacted. Thank you for
considering our request.
Background Information About NSFC and NETCSC
The National Small Flows Clearinghouse
The NSFC provides information and technical assistance about small
wastewater facilities serving the needs of residents located in rural
areas and small communities. We assist agencies, organizations, and
industries that advance decentralized wastewater treatment as part of
the Nation's wastewater infrastructure. These technologies are referred
to as ``decentralized'' because they do not require the large
infrastructure investment common to centralized municipal collection
and treatment systems. Decentralized systems, such as onsite septic
systems and small cluster systems, serve 40 percent of the total U.S.
population, especially in small communities and in newer residential
developments.
Through its congressionally mandated information collection and
dissemination mission [1977 Clean Water Act section 104(q)(1)], the
NSFC serves as the national archive for onsite and decentralized
wastewater treatment technology information and research. The NSFC was
created under the Clean Water Act legislation to provide information
and assistance to small and rural communities on proper technology
selection and management of onsite and small wastewater systems. As
such, the Clearinghouse offers a comprehensive body of information and
technical assistance services unique to the wastewater industry. Users
of these services include individual homeowners, small town officials
who do not have staff support to address regulatory requirements,
developers, State regulators, and professionals who install and service
alternative treatment systems.
Since its inception and through subsequent Clean Water Act
reauthorizations, the NSFC has provided small and rural communities
contemporary, objective and comprehensive technical consulting, site-
specific technical assistance, information about wastewater systems,
and a suite of regularly published and special topic publications
targeted to small and rural community needs for wastewater. Now in its
33d year, the NSFC is a long-standing national information resource on
wastewater collection and treatment technologies that are appropriate
for use in small communities, rural areas and in subdivisions where the
cost to provide central sewage services is a significant portion of
most municipal budgets.
The NSFC is a highly regarded national source of information about
onsite wastewater treatment and management. For example, as part of its
holdings, it has the only comprehensive literature database in the
nation on decentralized technologies, offering accurate, relevant
operation, maintenance and management information to stakeholders.
Additionally, the NSFC administers the annual State Onsite Regulators
Alliance (SORA) and captains of industry (COI) conference. For the past
11 years, SORA-COI has brought together State onsite wastewater
regulators with associated equipment manufacturers and EPA regional
managers. This conference has proven to be an extremely valuable
resource to the parties and especially to EPA for providing them direct
contact with their wastewater regulatory and private sector
constituents. Most recently, SORA has become a recognized organization
of regulators with bylaws, board of directors, and defined membership
criteria under NSFC.
About the National Environmental Training Center for Small
Communities
NETCSC was established by Congress in 1991 as an adjunct to the
NSFC to meet the training needs of multiple constituent groups on a
variety of environmental topics. NETCSC develops and delivers training
for community officials, circuit riders, water and wastewater
professionals, and other groups on wastewater, drinking water, and
municipal solid waste disposal and security. In a unique approach,
NETCSC develops, disseminates and delivers training customized for
small community environmental management. Environmental trainers and
technical assistance providers who attend our classes then in turn
train environmental professionals who serve small communities. NETCSC
has developed more than 40 training packages for drinking water and
wastewater system design, operation, finance, management, emergency
response, and system security. These training packages are delivered
and available coast-to-coast to thousands of participants, often in co-
sponsorship with other training and/or service providing organizations.
Since 1991, NETCSC has held more than 250 training events. Hundreds
of environmental trainers across the Nation subsequently use our
materials to train thousands of local officials, operators, installers,
regulators, engineers, and homeowners. Training on environmental
management and security and emergency response has been customized for
and delivered to tribal audiences. More than 95 percent of the
attendees recommend our courses to their colleagues; more than 75
percent rate the instruction and course materials as being excellent or
very good, and more than 95 percent plan to use what they have learned
through the training courses to help small communities
Support for EPA National Priorities
As part of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) initiated by EPA,
the National Environmental Services Center, which houses both NSFC and
NETCSC, joined with 15 other national organizations to assist the
agency in meeting its strategic goals under its Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment Program. Services provided by both programs are
the underpinning for the activities of many of the MOU partners in
achieving their respective goals in the MOU partnership. Continued
support for the NSFC and NETCSC is important to EPA in meeting its
national goals under its water programs.
Accomplishments
Highlights of NSFC and NETCSC accomplishments, many of which are
provided to the user community free of charge thanks to congressional
support, include:
--Toll-free phone service providing technical assistance;
--Publications, including Small Flows and Pipeline, with a mailing
list of 70,000 of which 5,492 subscribers are located in high
poverty counties;
--3,300 information products such as pamphlets, guides, handbooks,
design manuals, videos, checklists, catalogs, outreach resource
guide, directories, posters, and case studies;
--Comprehensive Web site and searchable online databases, our Web
site averages 3.5 million page views and 1.6 million downloads
annually;
--Demonstration projects at more than 100 sites in 27 States;
--The intensive annual SORA conference;
--An annual environmental training institute for small communities
and service providers;
--The Nation's only Wastewater Vulnerability Assessment Guide for
small communities;
--A ``Top Ten'' list of security and emergency preparedness actions;
and
--Six listservs that have a total of 3,264 subscribers.
With the support of Congress and in conjunction with EPA, both
programs have expanded their capabilities and level of service over
time to meet national needs and to address the ever-increasing
complexity of infrastructure issues as they pertain to smaller systems.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Humanities Alliance
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
National Humanities Alliance (NHA) and its 104 member organizations and
institutions, we write to express strong support for the National
Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Our members, and the thousands of
teachers, scholars, humanities organizations and institutions they
represent, use NEH grants to maintain a strong system of academic
research, education, and public programs in the humanities. We urge you
to provide the NEH with funding of at least $232.5 million in fiscal
year 2011, including:
--$204 million for NEH program funds (a $64 million increase);
--$144 million for national programs (a $44.4 million increase);
--$60 million for the Federal/State partnership (a $19.6 million
increase); and
--$28.5 million for administrative funds requested by the agency (a
$1 million increase).
Funding Overview
Our request constitutes a significant, $65 million increase over
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, which we believe is a necessary and
appropriate Federal expenditure given: the value of the humanities in
supporting national interests, from a competitive workforce to homeland
security; the severity of the current economic crisis, and the need for
Federal intervention to mitigate long-term damage to the Nation's
education infrastructure; the documented, unmet demand for NEH programs
at both the Federal and State levels; NEH's present capacity to
distribute requested funds efficiently through existing program
structures noted for excellence; NEH's demonstrated historical capacity
to operate effectively at higher funding levels.
NEH is funded at $167.5 million for fiscal year 2010, including
$140 million in total program funds and $27.5 million for
administration. The agency did not receive funding under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. Historically, NEH has
demonstrated the capacity to operate at much higher funding levels.
Even with recent adjustments, NEH overall funding is still just more
than one-third of its funding peak in 1979 ($429 million when adjusted
for inflation). The agency has not yet recovered from a nearly 40
percent cut imposed in the mid-90s, before which (in fiscal year 1994),
NEH was funded at the equivalent of $256.9 million ($2009).
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has requested decreased
funding for NEH at a level of $161.3 million, which constitutes a
reduction of $6.2 million in overall funding from the fiscal year 2010
level approved by Congress. It is important to note that the
President's budget represents a $7.2 million cut in NEH program funds,
which would absorb a proposed $1 million increase in administrative
funds to cover the agency's estimated operating costs for fiscal year
2011. We strongly oppose the cuts proposed in the administration's
fiscal year 2011 budget request for NEH.
NEH National Programs
The NHA supports fiscal year 2011 funding of $144 million for
national programs (an increase of $44.4). New funds requested include:
--$36.9 million to increase the award rate for critically underfunded
grant competitions; and
--$7.5 million for a new, competitively awarded graduate student-
faculty program.
NEH national programs represent the pool of funds that support
peer-reviewed, competitive grant opportunities for a wide range of
educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, and individual
scholars around the country. These grants are at the center of the
agency's mission to create, preserve, and disseminate knowledge in the
humanities. Current national core programs and special initiatives
include the Division of Research, Division of Preservation and Access,
Office of Digital Humanities, Office of Challenge Grants, Division of
Education Programs, Division of Public Programs, and the We the People
initiative. A new initiative, Bridging Cultures, has been proposed by
the administration for fiscal year 2011.
Unmet Demand.--Demand for humanities project support, as
demonstrated by NEH application rates (and confirmed by feedback from
the field), far exceeds funding available. In fiscal year 2009, NEH
received 4,366 competitive grant applications representing more than
$402 million in requested funds, but was only able to fund 16.9 percent
of these peer-reviewed project proposals. This is a low figure, when
compared to the most recent rate of 32 percent reported by the National
Science Foundation (NSF), a Federal agency closely parallel to NEH in
its operations and mission to advance research and teaching for the
academic fields under its umbrella. We estimate that at least $37
million would be needed to increase the NEH award rate to 25 percent,
if only the most critically underfunded of NEH's grant competitions
were boosted. To achieve parity with the fiscal year 2009 NSF funding
rate of 32 percent, an increase of at least $60 million would be
required. Examples of underfunded NEH grant programs include:
--fellowships and collaborative research;
--digital humanities projects;
--professional development for teachers and faculty;
--preservation of historically significant collections;
--public film, radio, television, and digital media projects; and
--challenge grants to build institutional capacity and leverage non-
Federal support.
Graduate Student/Faculty Fellowships.--NHA supports the
recommendation of the Association of American Universities and the
Council of Graduate Students, among others, to create a new,
competitive program promoting collaboration among graduate students and
faculty in the humanities, similar to models in the sciences. For more
than a decade, NEH has stood alone as the only Federal research agency
that does not support graduate education. The proposed program would
provide much-needed support to sustain the pipeline for the next
generation of scholars and educators in the humanities. These young
people are particularly vulnerable today because of the especially
severe impact of the economic downturn on new faculty hires in
humanities disciplines. Increased Federal attention to, and investment
in, humanities graduate education is critical to attract and retain
talented individuals to serve as the Nation's future experts and
educators. We request $7.5 million in new funds for this program.
Critical Priorities Addressed in the Fiscal Year 2011 Budget
Request.--The NHA continues to urge expansion of NEH activity in a
number of critical areas, including: international/global studies,
humanities data, and graduate education. While we do not support the
Obama administration's overall funding recommendations for NEH, we are
very pleased to note interest signaled in the agency's fiscal year 2011
budget request for the following:
--Global Understanding.--For fiscal year 2011, NEH has proposed a new
special initiative--Bridging Cultures--to advance Americans'
understanding of their own rich cultural heritage, as well as
the cultural complexity of the world in which they live. As the
only Federal agency responsible for advancement of a broad
range of critical fields in this area (e.g., history, foreign
language, comparative literature, religious studies, cultural
anthropology), NEH is well-positioned to provide leadership in
support of increased U.S. global competency and competitiveness
abroad, as well as civil engagement and understanding at home.
--Humanities Data.--NHA applauds the following statement in the
administration's budget request for NEH: ``In fiscal year 2011,
the NEH plans to enter into a partnership with the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS) . . . to sustain and extend
AAAS's developmental work on the Humanities Indicators project.
This project, which is responsive to NEH's legislative mandate
to develop a ``system of national information and data
collection . . . on the humanities,'' is making a wide range of
humanities data available to researchers, educators, and the
general public. These data will equip policymakers and
institutional administrators with statistical tools to help
inform decisionmaking about primary and secondary education,
higher education, the humanities workforce, levels and sources
of humanities funding, public understanding of the humanities,
and other areas of concern to the humanities community.''
--Graduate Education.--NEH has recently revised the eligibility
criteria for summer seminars and institutes to create
opportunities for humanities graduate students, beginning in
the summer of 2010. NHA strongly supports this policy change,
which is responsive to suggestions from the humanities
community.
NEH Federal/State Partnership
The NHA supports fiscal year 2011 funding of $60 million for the
NEH Federal/State Partnership (a $19.6 million increase). Our request
would strengthen the capacity of State humanities councils to support
local cultural and educational institutions, teaching and learning
resources, family literacy programs, community discussion groups, and
programs for new citizens. A recent survey of State council capacities
and resources has identified $150 million in funds needed for programs
and infrastructure support in their States. State councils seek to
secure half this figure in Federal funding over the next 3 years.
Value of the Humanities
The 1965 legislation that established the NEH states: ``An advanced
civilization must not limit its efforts to science and technology
alone, but must give full value and support to the other great branches
of scholarly and cultural activity in order to achieve a better
understanding of the past, a better analysis of the present, and a
better view of the future.'' At a time of rapid globalization and
technological development, the wisdom of this statement is as evident
today--if not more so--than it was 45 years ago. The humanities
represent critical modes of thought and fields of knowledge that
support a globally competitive (and vocationally mobile) workforce,
undergird our civic institutions, inform complex policy challenges, and
enrich individual lives. They encompass a broad range of fields--
including the study of languages, linguistics, literature, history,
law, government, philosophy, archaeology, comparative religion, ethics,
and more--which support capacities especially relevant to the 21st
century: knowledge of world cultures, religions, and languages;
understanding of U.S. history and democratic traditions; and humanistic
perspectives to evaluate the implications of scientific and
technological advances.
Economic Crisis
Additional funds are needed to help offset severe economic
pressures on the academic workforce and humanities institutions and
invest in the Nation's long-term economic recovery. As one of the
largest sources of support (private or public) for the humanities in
the United States, NEH funding is critical to the health of our
Nation's education and research infrastructure. As the impact of the
economic downturn deepens, many institutions and nonprofit associations
around the country are struggling to maintain continued access to high-
quality programming and educational opportunities in the humanities--
from colleges and universities, to schools, museums, libraries,
historical societies, and other nonprofit organizations.
Our Nation's long tradition of fostering broad access to liberal
arts education is increasingly looked to by nations around the world as
a unique driver of U.S. economic leadership and innovation in the last
century. Nevertheless, recent Federal policy places almost exclusive
emphasis on fostering scientific and technological advancement, and
widens still further the historic gap between Federal and institutional
support for the humanities and investment in other academic
disciplines. As a result, opportunities for humanities researchers,
educators, and students, are failing to keep pace with those provided
to their counterparts in the sciences. NSF, for example, received $3
billion in Recovery Act funding that by October, 2009, had already
enabled 4,599 competitive awards supporting more than 6,700
investigators in all 50 States and Puerto Rico--many of them located at
the same educational institutions served by NEH. While these are
critical expenditures, we cannot allow this gap to continue to grow
without damaging our Nation's capacity to foster the broad range of our
citizens' talents, and train the next generation of scholars and
educators in all fields of learning. Our long-term economic success
depends on cultivating a broadly educated workforce ready to compete in
the knowledge-based, global economy of the 21st century. It is a
strategic mistake to turn away from a historic strength of the U.S.
educational system at the very moment others are moving to embrace it.
Conclusion
We recognize that Congress faces difficult choices this year, and
ask the subcommittee to fund a significant increase for the NEH in
fiscal year 2011 as an investment in the Nation's long-term economic
recovery and competitiveness, the strength and vitality of our civic
institutions, the preservation and understanding of our diverse
cultural heritage, and the lives of our citizens. The NHA and its
members are grateful for the subcommittee's vigorous and sustained
support for the humanities, and would especially like to recognize its
leadership for the increase received by NEH for fiscal year 2010. Thank
you for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department
Madam Chairman and Honorable Members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of
conserving land at the Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in
northern New Hampshire. This year presents an opportunity to begin the
conservation of the 31,300 acre Androscoggin Headwaters property from a
willing landowner with appropriations from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the Forest Legacy Program (FLP).
An appropriation of $4.5 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from
LWCF for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to acquire 2,920 acres for
inclusion at the Umbagog Refuge. An appropriation of $4.1 million from
FLP is also needed in fiscal year 2011 to place a conservation easement
held by the State of New Hampshire on an additional 11,146 acres. These
initial acquisitions will conserve 45 percent of the land targeted in
the Androscoggin Headwaters. I am thankful that these projects were
recognized in the fiscal year 2011 President's Budget request. The
request includes the full amount in FLP and $2 million in LWCF.
However, an appropriation of $4.5 million is needed from LWCF this year
to complete this phase.
Supporting the Androscoggin Headwaters Conservation Project is a
good fit for the NH Fish and Game Department. Our mission states that
as guardian of New Hampshire's fish, wildlife and marine resources, we
work in partnership with the public, nongovernmental organizations and
other agencies to conserve, manage and protect these resources and
their habitats, to inform the public about these resources, and to
provide opportunities for the public to use and appreciate these
resources. The project implements strategies identified in our NH
Wildlife Action Plan that will conserve habitats and species of
greatest conservation need. It also advances the objectives of NH's
Forest Resource Plan, and its strategies promoting forest stewardship
and sustainable forest economies. The project directly contributes to
the priorities of the New England Governors, who at their September
2009 conference passed a resolution establishing a New England Forest
Initiative to ``Keep Forests as Forests''. The project is a signature
effort of the Mahoosuc Initiative, a coalition of local, regional, and
national nonprofits that have formed an alliance to promote land
conservation; tourism and forestry-related economic development; and
enhanced quality of life for residents in the region. The Eastern Brook
Trout Joint Venture has also offered their support for the Androscoggin
Headwaters Project.
Covering 31,300 acres of remote forests, streams, and ponds, the
Androscoggin Headwaters property is one of the largest unprotected
ownerships remaining in the state of New Hampshire. The property is
located at the headwaters of the Androscoggin River adjacent to Umbagog
National Wildlife Refuge, and features a variety of wildlife and
fisheries resources that are of regional and national significance. The
property is an important source of forest products and jobs for the
region's timber economy, and is a popular destination for hunting,
fishing, snowmobiling, and other outdoor pursuits. The Trust for Public
Land (TPL) is working with the landowner, New Hampshire Fish and Game,
the New Hampshire Forest Legacy Program, and the Umbagog National
Wildlife Refuge to bring the most critical wildlife habitat into public
ownership while retaining the balance of the property in private
ownership subject to a state-held Forest Legacy conservation easement.
Situated at the southern range of the boreal forest zone and near
the northern range of the deciduous zone, the region provides habitat
for species of both forest types, many of which are identified as
priority species in the New Hampshire State Wildlife Action Plan. The
Umbagog Refuge encircles much of Lake Umbagog, with 8,700 acres of open
water, many miles of shoreline, protected coves and backwaters, and
extensive and diverse wetland complexes. The Refuge protects unique
habitat for many wetland-dependent and migratory species, including
bald eagle, Canada warbler, wood thrush, and American black duck; as
well as many species of state concern, including common loon, northern
harrier, American woodcock, and others. For the common loon and osprey,
Lake Umbagog is considered the best breeding habitat in New Hampshire.
Lake Umbagog and its associated wetlands have been listed by both Maine
and New Hampshire as a priority site under the Atlantic Coast Joint
Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The Refuge
includes a very large and exemplary native bog community that is
designated as a National Natural Landmark.
Located along the border of northern New Hampshire and western
Maine in the Mahoosuc Mountains, Lake Umbagog is the westernmost link
in the chain of Rangeley Lakes, famed for their excellent recreational
opportunities. Kayakers, canoeists, and anglers explore numerous coves
and bays on Lake Umbagog and dozens of rivers, streams, and smaller
ponds around the Lake. Hunters, hikers, nature photographers, and
wildlife watchers all find extensive opportunities in the Refuge and
the Androscoggin Headwaters property's remote expanses. The region is a
well-known and sought-after fishing area that offers anglers the
opportunity to fish for warm water species such as small mouth bass,
perch, and pickerel in Lake Umbagog and for cold water species, notably
eastern brook trout, in the feeder streams and surrounding ponds.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Request
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2011 is the first phase
(2,920 acres) of the larger, 31,300 acre five-phase Androscoggin
Headwaters Conservation Project. At its successful conclusion, this
project will conserve 15 undeveloped ponds and 38 miles of streams with
some of the finest cold-water fisheries in the Northeast. This first
phase and subsequent phases will add a total of 7,450 acres in fee
ownership to the Umbagog Refuge, currently 21,650 acres. The target
property lies entirely within the authorized 47,807 acre Refuge
acquisition boundary. It is also part of a much larger 63,000 acre
conserved working forest landscape that includes the existing Refuge, a
community forest owned by the Town of Errol, and Forest Legacy
conservation easements held by the State.
The 2,920-acre property contains the first tributary to the
Androscoggin River after it flows out of its source at Lake Umbagog.
The property contains Round Pond, Long Pond, Bear Brook Pond and Little
Bear Brook Pond--all undeveloped ponds that are popular for fishing,
paddling, and wildlife watching. These water bodies are vulnerable to
second home development that would severely compromise the wildlife
habitat quality and the opportunity to continue remote wildlife-
compatible recreation.
An appropriation of $4.5 million from LWCF will complete the first
phase of the Androscoggin Headwaters project, allowing the Refuge to
protect important habitat for Federal trust species and link it to
other conserved lands. The appropriation will ensure shoreline
protection, public access for recreation, and wetland habitat
preservation.
Forest Legacy Program Request
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2011 through the Forest
Legacy Program is an 11,146-acre phase of the Androscoggin Headwaters
Conservation Project. At its successful conclusion, the project will
conserve 23,000 acres as privately owned working forest through FLP
conservation easements held by the State of New Hampshire.
The Androscoggin Headwaters North parcel, the subject of the
requested fiscal year 2011 FLP funding, is comprised of upland and
lowland forest noted for its excellent soils and mix of hardwood and
softwood stands. This parcel also includes over half a mile of frontage
on Akers Pond and several popular snowmobile trails that connect Errol,
New Hampshire to Rangeley, Maine. The required match for the
appropriated funds will be met through the conservation of an
additional 938-acre parcel that contains Greenough and Little Greenough
Ponds, which are two of only three ponds in New Hampshire that sustain
native, nonstocked eastern brook trout populations. It will be acquired
in fee utilizing State and private funds, and conveyed to the NH Fish
and Game Department.
Northern New Hampshire has relied on forest products as the fuel
for the region's economic engine for more than 200 years. Traditionally
that has meant pulp and papermaking. As the northern New England paper
industry has declined, jobs have been leaving the region. Our northern
forest, however, is poised for a new source of economic activity. There
are several proposals for utility-scale biomass energy plants that will
take wood chips from the region's forests to produce renewable energy.
In addition to jobs in logging, trucking, and value-added forest
products, the conservation of this property will support good jobs in
the tourism industry. Businesses catering to hunters, anglers,
snowmobilers, kayakers, wildlife viewers, and other outdoor enthusiasts
will benefit from the guarantee of public access for recreation that
will be created through the conservation of this large block of
forestland.
The property is threatened with significant second home development
along the waterfront parcels. The remote ponds are scenic, have
tremendous recreational opportunities, and are highly valued for
waterfront development of vacation homes. This kind of development
would seriously undermine habitat for loons and other waterfowl,
degrade water quality for the wild trout populations, and limit public
recreational access. The Androscoggin Headwaters conservation strategy
will protect the entire waterfront.
The Androscoggin Headwaters Project also will help wildlife adapt
to the impacts of climate change. At 31,300 acres, the project will
conserve ecological systems from valley bottom to ridge top. The
property is located in the northeast corner of New Hampshire close to
the Mahoosuc Mountains and Rangeley Lakes, a region that is forecast to
retain consistently cold winters and a deep snow pack under high carbon
emission scenarios. Numerous species adapted to northern New England's
long cold winters will find refuge here as suitable habitat to the
south warms and fragments. Among these are snowshoe hare, American
marten, three-toed woodpecker, and the Federal threatened/State
endangered Canada Lynx.
Protection of the Androscoggin Headwaters property will connect
large blocks of conservation land, adding to more than 100,000 acres.
The property's proximity to other conserved lands--including Umbagog
National Wildlife Refuge, 13-Mile Woods Community Forest, and State
owned and easement lands around Maine's Richardson Lake, Grafton Notch,
and Rapid River--will significantly advance the creation of landscape-
scale habitat connectivity in this region.
An appropriation of $4.1 million from the Forest Legacy Program
will complete the first easement phase of the Androscoggin Headwaters
Conservation Project and will ensure continued sustainable forestry,
public access for recreation, and protect upland and wetland habitats
recognized as some of the most important in the Eastern United States.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
conservation effort in New Hampshire, and I appreciate your
consideration of this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
I am Billy Frank, Jr., chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission (NWIFC). It is indeed a privilege for me to be among the
distinguished cadre of Northwest tribal leaders who are also here to
present the funding requests of their people. Their strong support and
encouragement gives our organization focus and direction and helps make
us successful in protecting and enhancing their treaty rights.
Using the fiscal year 2010 enacted budget as a minimum level of
need in fiscal year 2011 to maintain current services, I submit the
following requests:
bureau of indian affairs (bia)
Restore the western Washington fish management and Washington State
timber-fish-wildlife project to fiscal year-2010 enacted levels of
$8.532 and $2.736, respectively; increase western Washington fish
management by $8.614 million beyond the fiscal year 2010 enacted level;
increase salmon marking by $1.4 million beyond the fiscal year 2010
enacted level; increase United States-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
implementation by $680,000 beyond fiscal year 2010 enacted level; and
increase fish hatchery maintenance by $2.142 million beyond the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level.
environmental protection agency (epa)
Support the Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP) at the $71.4
million request in the President's budget; support the Multimedia
Tribal Implementation Grants at the $30 million request in the
President's budget; support the increase of $2.9 million in tribal
capacity building which is requested in the President's budget; and
restore the Puget Sound Geographic Program to the fiscal year 2010
enacted level of $50 million.
regional requests
We support the budget requests of the Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Indians.
national requests
We support the budget requests for the National Congress of
American Indians.
On behalf of our 20 member tribes, I am here today to speak to our
fiscal year 2011 natural resource management funding requests for the
BIA and the EPA. But before I do that, I must first acknowledge the
outstanding support this subcommittee has given to us this past year.
You listened to our story and have helped us greatly with your actions
that supported our needs. We are also pleased that the fiscal year 2011
President's budget continues to be supportive of the northwest natural
resources funding requests and includes many of the subcommittee's
actions from last year.
tribes, treaty rights, and trust obligations of the federal government
Indian tribes have always inhabited the watersheds of western
Washington, with cultures almost entirely based on harvesting fish,
wildlife, and other natural resources in the region. In the mid-1850s,
a series of treaties were negotiated between the Federal Government and
the tribes in the region. Through the treaties, the tribes gave up most
of their land, but in so doing reserved certain rights to fish, hunt,
and gather to protect their way of life.
The promises of the treaties were quickly broken in the decades
that followed as the tribes were systematically denied their treaty-
protected rights by the State of Washington. In 1974, the tribes won a
major victory in United States vs. Washington (Boldt Decision), which
reaffirmed their treaty-protected fishing rights. The ruling--which has
been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court--established the tribes as co-
managers of the resource and determined they were entitled to 50
percent of the harvestable number of salmon returning to Washington
State waters. More recent Federal court rulings and solicitor opinions
upholding treaty-reserved rights have further expanded the role and
responsibilities of the tribes as natural resource managers. Those
rulings, combined with the interconnectedness of all natural resources,
mean that tribal participation is essential in nearly all aspects of
natural resource management in the region.
The tribes from the Pacific Northwest have stepped forward and have
embraced co-management. Today, the tribes have developed sophisticated
programs designed to protect and enhance their treaty rights. Tribal
programs, based on deep cultural and philosophical underpinnings, have
served as the backbone of salmon recovery, providing the technical,
policy, and legal framework for this incredibly difficult task. Tribes
perform complicated harvest, hatchery, and habitat management tasks
that neither the State nor the Federal Government can effectively carry
out. Tribal programs, largely funded by the BIA, serve as a de facto
arm of the Federal Government as it labors to uphold its trust
obligations to the tribal people. It is because of the role that tribes
play in protecting their rights that they require adequate, long-term,
and stable funding. This subcommittee has heard this plea and has been
a valuable partner in this effort.
requests justification narrative
BIA
Restore the western Washington fish management and Washington State
timber-fish-wildlife project to fiscal year 2010 enacted levels
Congress increased the rights protection implementation subactivity
in fiscal year 2010 by $12 million. This increase was allocated to all
line items within this program element, restoring the pacific salmon
treaty implementation, Washington State timber-fish-wildlife project,
and salmon marking to previously funded levels. Additional monies were
added to the western Washington fish management program bringing this
account to $8.532 million.
However, the President's budget did not carry forward the entire
fiscal year 2010 increase. The western Washington fish management and
the timber-fish-wildlife project were reduced by $434,000 and $139,000,
respectively. Thus, we request that these accounts be increased to
maintain the fiscal year 2010 funding level.
Increase Western Washington Fish Management to $8.614
Million Beyond the Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted Level
Over the past several years, the tribes and the NWIFC have
requested an increase of $12 million in the base western Washington
fisheries management program. Last year, Congress heard our plea and
increased the National Rights Protection Implementation Fund by $12
million with $3.386 million of this going to the western Washington
program. This increase was very much appreciated and will go towards
meeting many of our needs. However, we once again ask Congress to
address the remaining identified needs at the NWIFC and our member
tribes. We request an increase of $8.614 million which is consistent
with our needs assessment presented last year to this subcommittee.
Increase Salmon Marking by $1.4 Million Beyond the Fiscal
Year 2010 Enacted Level
The salmon marking line item was funded at $1 million by the fiscal
year 2010 increase in rights protection implementation. These funds are
used to mark salmon at tribal hatcheries and to use these marked fish
to scientifically monitor salmon populations and watersheds in western
Washington, pursuant to the Federal requirement to mass mark pacific
salmon reared in facilities funded by Federal dollars. Plans to
implement more extensive selective fisheries targeted at these marked
fish require an additional $1.4 million to implement.
Increase U.S.-Pacific Salmon Treaty Implementation By
$680,000 Beyond the Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted Level
The Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985, Public Law 99-5, charges the
United States section of the Pacific Salmon Commission with the
responsibility for implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, a
bilateral treaty with Canada. Responsibility for funding Treaty related
programs rests with the United States Government. We support the U.S.
section's recommendation to fund the Department of the Interior, BIA at
$4.8 million, an increase of $680,000 from the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level.
Increase Fish Hatchery Maintenance by $2.142 Million Beyond
the Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted Level
Tribal fish hatcheries in western Washington are part of the
largest fish hatchery system in the world. Tribal hatcheries produce 50
percent of the coho salmon and 33 percent of the Chinook salmon in
Puget Sound and the coast of Washington. These hatcheries provide fish
that significantly contribute to both non-Indian recreational and
commercial harvest, as well as for tribal fisheries. Today, hatcheries
also play a large role in recovering pacific salmon, many of whom are
listed under the Endangered Species Act.
A comprehensive needs assessment study was conducted in fiscal year
2006 by the BIA at the request of Congress which identified a level of
need more than $48 million in necessary hatchery maintenance and
rehabilitation costs. Last year the BIA fish hatchery maintenance
budget was increased to $2.852 million. We support this increase and
ask that this account be increased a further $2.142 million to total $5
million.
epa
GAP
We support full funding of the EPA GAP at the $71.4 million amount
requested in the President's budget. This funding has built essential
tribal capacities and remains critical to the tribes' ability to
sustain their important water quality programs. We support the increase
of $8.5 million which is included in the President's budget.
Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants
We support $30 million for the Multimedia Tribal Implementation
Grant program funding, which is included in the President's budget.
This program will allow the EPA to provide targeted multimedia (cross
discipline) grants to tribes for implementation of Federal
environmental programs. This program logically follows the capacity
building function under the tribal GAP, as noted above.
This program is a substantial investment from within the EPA and
will continue to build a firm foundation for environmental protection.
Tribes in western Washington are ready to partner with EPA to begin
this implementation program.
Tribal Capacity Building
Additional funds are needed within the agency to effectively manage
the new Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants Program. An additional
$2.9 million will support new positions to oversee, provide guidance
and ensure accountability to the grant program and ongoing tribal GAP
work. This capacity will also provide direct technical assistance to
tribes. We support this additional funding included in the President's
budget.
Puget Sound Geographic Program
Marine resources are very important to our member tribes. The Puget
Sound Geographic Program provides essential funding that will help
protect, restore and enhance Puget Sound. We support restoring this
program to the $50 million amount enacted in fiscal year 2010. With
this level of funding, collaborative work can continue on key marine
issues, salmon recovery, land-use management, and regulatory changes.
Tribes will seek funding from this EPA account, in coordination
with the Puget Sound Partnership. Such funding will allow the tribes to
participate in the necessary scientific work, implementation measures,
and policy discussions on issues that affect our treaty rights.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, we know that it is
difficult to allocate scarce Federal funds. However, we believe that
the management work that we perform to protect our valuable resources
and to help fulfill the trust obligation of the Federal Government
continues to be worthy of your support. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Jersey Audubon Society
Funding requests:
--Cape May National Wildlife Refuge--Hanson Aggregates Property.--
$2,000,000
--Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge--Great Creek Road
Parcel.--$1,375,000, and West Creek Parcel: $350,000
--Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge--Kenely Property.--
$1,750,000; and
--Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge--Great Brook.--$1,100,000.
We, the 48 undersigned organizations, respectfully urge you to
support funding for land acquisition projects at New Jersey's National
Wildlife Refuges and to ask the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee to provide that funding under the
Land and Water Conservation Fund program in fiscal year 2011. Please
help us preserve our national heritage by strengthening the refuge
system in our State.
Fulfilling the following requests is critical to protecting our
State's rich biodiversity, safeguarding our natural resources and
increasing recreational opportunities for our citizens. These requests
are listed as top priorities; as more funding becomes available, we
support increased appropriations for the five National Wildlife
Refuges.
Cape May National Wildlife Refuge.--$2,000,000 for assistance in
the acquisition of 620-acre Hanson Aggregates property, which contains
rare plant communities and numerous endangered and threatened bird and
amphibian species. Purchase of the property will also help protect area
water supply.
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge.--$1,375,000 for the
acquisition of the 139-acre Great Creek Road Parcel, and $350,000 for
the acquisition of the 79-acre West Creek Parcel. These parcels provide
critical habitat for bird species along the Atlantic Flyway, and help
maintain the integrity of the watershed.
Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge.--$1,750,000 for
acquisition of a 165-acre Kenely Property, a diverse mix of habitats
for diverse wildlife including threatened and endangered species.
Conservation of this property would also contribute to the water
quality of the Wallkill River.
Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.--$1,100,000 to complete the
acquisition of an 18-acre parcel known as Great Brook, which provides
critical habitat for endangered Indiana bats and numerous other rare
species as well as office space for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
employees.
Investing in New Jersey's refuges provides significant economic and
quality of life benefits to our citizens. These investments protect and
enhance New Jersey's $4 billion wildlife-related recreation industry.
Each year, fishing, hunting, and wildlife-watching activities create
more than 37,000 jobs and generate more than $150 million in sales tax
revenue. Our refuges also provide natural ecosystem services that help
purify our State's air and water supply and protect human health.
We must take action now to protect the remaining natural areas
surrounding our refuges. New Jersey's open space and undeveloped land
is disappearing at an alarming rate. For this reason, we respectfully
ask you to encourage the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee to appropriate funding for these vital
refuge land acquisition projects before it is too late. Thank you for
your consideration.
undersigned organizations
New Jersey Audubon Society; Appalachian Mountain Club; Association
of New Jersey Environmental Commissions (ANJEC); Bergen County Audubon
Society; Bergen SWAN (Save the Watershed Action Network); The
Conservation Fund; Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and Its
Tributaries, Inc.; Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey; D & R
Canal Watch; Delaware River Greenway Partnership.
Delaware Riverkeeper; Edison Wetlands; Doug O'Malley, Field
Director, Environment New Jersey; Food & Water Watch; Friends of Sparta
Mountain; Friends of the Cape May National Wildlife Refuge; Friends of
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge; Friends of the Great Swamp
National Wildlife Refuge; Friends of the Supawna Meadows National
Wildlife Refuge; Friends of the Wallkill River National Wildlife
Refuge.
Fyke Nature Association; Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association;
Great Swamp Watershed Association; Hackensack Riverkeeper; Hunterdon
Land Trust Alliance; Kingston Greenways; The Land Conservancy of New
Jersey; Michael Catania, President of Conservation Resources, Inc.;
Monmouth Conservation Foundation; Musconetcong Mountain Conservancy.
Musconetcong Watershed Association; New Jersey Conservation
Foundation; New Jersey Environmental Lobby; New Jersey Highlands
Coalition; New Jersey State Council--Trout Unlimited; New Jersey State
Federation of Sportsmens Clubs; New York-New Jersey Trail Conference;
Deborah Mans, Executive Director, NY/NY Baykeeper; Passaic River
Coalition; Pinelands Preservation Alliance.
Project HEAL at Camp Creek Run; Rancocas Conservancy; Save Barnegat
Bay; Schiff Natural Lands Trust; South Branch Watershed Association;
Anthony Cucchi, New Jersey State Director, The Trust for Public Land;
Jennifer Coffey, Policy Director, Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed
Association; Verona Park Conservancy.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association
Department of the Interior (DOI)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)--Mineral Resources Program (MRP).--
Fund the MRP at least $24 million and reject any proposed cuts to the
Minerals Information Team.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)--Mining Law Administration.--
Increase funding for the mining law administration program to $38
million.
Office of Surface Mining.--Reverse the administration's 15 percent
cut to state Surface Mining Control and SMCRA regulatory title V
programs.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
NMA opposes EPA's use of the fiscal year 2011 budget to finalize
greenhouse gas regulations for motor vehicles and proposing and
finalizing specific sources standards for all sources of greenhouse gas
emissions.
Superfund Taxes.--NMA opposes reinstating the long-expired
corporate environmental income tax and the revival of the excise tax on
domestic crude oil, imported petroleum products and certain chemicals.
DOI
Mineral Resources Program--Minerals Information Team
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is the source for the
majority of the United States' statistical data on mining and mineral
commodities. The collection, analysis and dissemination of this
information is a Federal responsibility that cannot be duplicated in
either the private sector or by other levels of government and is in
fact mandated by the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended in 1980
and 1992. The Mineral Resource Program's Mineral Information Team (MIT)
within the USGS is the leading source of unbiased research on the
Nation's mineral resources. The guidance and research the program
provides is vital in maintaining the growing value of processed
materials from mineral resources that accounted for $454 billion in the
U.S. economy in 2009, as well as assessing the environmental impacts of
mining. The statistical and analytical information provided by the
Mineral Resource Program MIT provides the basis for informed policy
decisions and is extensively used by Government agencies, members of
Congress, State and local governments, as well as industry, academia
and nongovernmental organizations. Collection of this information
provides a fundamental service to the Nation. Specifically, the U.S.
Federal Reserve Board uses the data for calculating the Nation's
leading economic indicators; the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau
of Industry and Security uses the data and analysis to resolve trade
disputes; the Federal Reserve Board uses global minerals information to
prepare economic forecasts; and U.S. intelligence agencies use the data
to understand the effect changes in natural resource markets have on
economic and political stability of developing countries. Mineral
resource supply and demand issues are global in nature, and our nation
is becoming more dependent upon foreign sources to meet our metals and
minerals requirements. For example, the United States has become more
than 50 percent reliant on 38 of the 81 mineral commodities essential
to the economy and 100 percent reliant on 19 of those commodities.
In real terms, the MIT has been severely constrained by an ever
decreasing budget (a more than 30 percent decline) since 1996 when the
mineral assessment group was incorporated in to the USGS. In order to
restore its budget to levels intended when the group was moved to the
USGS more than a decade ago, the Mineral Resource Program's MIT would
need to be funded at $24 million. NMA encourages full funding for this
important program.
Mining Law Administration Program
The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Mining Law Administration
Program (MLAP) is facing ever-growing responsibilities and obligations
to process notices and plans of operations necessary for domestic
exploration and mining projects. While NMA supports the
administration's request for $36 million in funding, we feel that
additional funding is imperative to lessen the backlog of notices and
plans of operations. NMA recognizes and appreciates that the
subcommittee increased MLAP funding in fiscal year 2010 and encourages
them to further increase the MLAP by an additional $2 million in fiscal
year 2011.
The number of mining claims filed over the past several years has
increased by more than 600 percent. In 2002, only 15,407 new mining
claims were filed as compared to 92,284 in 2007. During the same
timeframe, the number of full time equivalent (FTE) employees assigned
to the program fell from 359 to 298. Additional staffing and other
resources are necessary in order to process the notices and plans of
operations required for expanding our domestic mineral supplies. Delays
in obtaining permits and other authorizations remains a substantial
impediment to the financing and development of mining projects in the
United States. According to Behre Dolbear, the United States ranks
among the lowest of the top 25 mining nations in terms of time and
expense for obtaining required permits for mineral exploration and
development. Permitting delays discourage companies from exploring in
the United States and impair the ability to attract the capital
investment required for mine development. In short, investment capital
flows to where investors will experience a quicker return on their
investment.
In a 2005 report to Congress, BLM identified insufficient staffing
as one cause of permitting delays, noting that many BLM offices were
not backfilling positions as they were vacated. BLM recommended that a
portion of the increased location and maintenance fees could be used to
maintain adequate staffing levels needed to review, analyze and approve
plans of operations. NMA agrees that the increased location and
maintenance fees should be used to address MLAP budget needs.
To address this regulatory bottleneck that impairs our Nation's
economic growth and security, NMA provides the following
recommendation: a portion of the location and maintenance fees
collected that exceed the MLAP budget should be dedicated to the MLAP
instead of being deposited to the General Fund. In 2007, the amount
collected from such fees exceeded the budgeted amount by more than $24
million. Such funds would allow the hiring by BLM state offices of
approximately 100 FTEs to allow either backfilling of currently vacated
positions or new hires. Additionally, allocation of funds to the state
offices should be prioritized based on the number of notices and plans
filed in each office and current unfilled openings in MLAP.
Office of Surface Mining State regulation and abandoned
mine land program
NMA objects to the administration's proposed cuts in funding for
state programs under title V of SMCRA to regulate, inspect and issue
permits for surface coal mining operations in primacy states.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
NMA opposes the fiscal year 2011 budget request as it pertains to
EPA's usurping the power of Congress to address Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (GHGs) under the existing Clean Air Act (CAA). While we are
committed to playing a constructive role in the development and
adoption of policy measures and technologies to address global climate
change concerns, we believe those policy decisions fall within the
purview of our elected representatives in Congress and not EPA.
EPA should not be able to utilize fiscal year 2011 funds to conduct
rulemakings that stem from EPA's December 15, 2009 Endangerment and
Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under section 202(a)
of the Clean Air Act The finding automatically triggers requirements
for all sectors of the economy under the CAA's Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. As such, the legal
and regulatory implications of the endangerment finding and a final
motor vehicle rule extend far beyond the motor vehicle sector. At the
time the motor vehicle regulations become effective, PSD and title V
permitting requirements will automatically be triggered for major
stationary sources of GHG emissions. Also, entities contemplating
construction of new sources or modifications to existing sources that
will be required to analyze and install undefined Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) to limit those emissions.
EPA should not be able to use fiscal year 2011 for such rulemakings
as: finalizing GHG regulations for motor vehicles; or proposing and
finalizing specific sources standards for all sources of greenhouse gas
emissions.
Superfund Taxes
NMA opposes reinstating the long-expired corporate environmental
income tax and revival of the excise tax on domestic crude oil,
imported petroleum products and certain chemicals.
Superfund taxes were originally enacted under the ``polluter pays''
principle. However, companies that formerly paid the taxes continue to
fund the cleanup of most of the sites on the National Priorities List
(NPL). The only NPL cleanups that EPA actually pays for are those with
no viable potentially responsible parties (i.e., orphan sites).
Instead, the Superfund should run on appropriations from general
revenues. Superfund taxes have never controlled or determined the
amount of EPA spending for the Superfund program. The total amount of
EPA spending for the Superfund program is determined by Congress each
year through the appropriations process. The majority of funds
appropriated for the Superfund cleanup program are not being spent on
cleaning up NPL sites.
The National Mining Association (NMA) is the voice of the American
mining industry in Washington, D.C. membership includes more than 325
corporations involved in all aspects of coal and solid minerals
production including coal, metal and industrial mineral producers,
mineral processors, equipment manufacturers, State mining associations,
bulk transporters, engineering firms, consultants, financial
institutions, and other companies that supply goods and services to the
mining industry.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2011
appropriations for Colorado River Basin salinity control activities of
the Bureau of Land Management. I urge that at least $5,200,000 be
appropriated for the Bureau of Land Management within the Soil, Water,
and Air Management Subactivity for activities that help control
salinity in the Colorado River Basin, and of that amount, $1,500,000 be
marked specifically for identified salinity control related projects
and studies.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is
comprised of representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States
appointed by the respective governors of the States. The Forum has
examined the features needed to control the salinity of the Colorado
River. These include activities by the States, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). The Salinity Control Program has been adopted by the
seven Colorado River Basin States and approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency as a part of each State's water quality standards.
Also, Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission
sets limits on the salinity of the water delivered to Mexico in the
Colorado River.
About 75 percent of the land in the Colorado River Basin is owned,
administered or held in trust by the Federal Government. The BLM is the
largest land manager in the Colorado River Basin, and manages public
lands that are heavily laden with salt. When salt-laden soils erode,
the salts dissolve and enter the river system, affecting the quality of
water used from the Colorado River by the Lower Basin States and
Mexico. The BLM needs to target the expenditure of at least $5.2
million for activities in fiscal year 2011 that benefit salinity
control in the Colorado River Basin. In addition, the BLM needs to
target the expenditure of $1,500,000 of the $5.2 million specifically
for identified salinity control projects and technical investigations.
Experience in past years has shown that BLM projects are among the most
cost-effective of the salinity control projects.
As one of the five principal Soil, Water and Air Management program
activities, BLM needs to specifically target $5.2 million to activities
that benefit the control of salinity on lands of the Colorado River
Basin. In the past, BLM has allocated $800,000 of the Soil Water and
Air Management appropriation for funding specific project proposals
submitted by BLM staff to the BLM salinity control coordinator. The
recently released annual report of the Federal chartered Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council reports that BLM has identified
projects that could utilize funding in the amount of $1.5 million for
fiscal year 2011. Consequently, I request that $1.5 million of the
Soil, Water and Air Management Subactivity be marked specifically for
these identified Colorado River Basin salinity control activities.
I believe and support past Federal legislation that declared that
the Federal Government has a major and important responsibility with
respect to controlling salt discharge from public lands. Congress has
charged the Federal agencies to proceed with programs to control the
salinity of the Colorado River Basin with a strong mandate to seek out
the most cost-effective solutions. The BLM's rangeland improvement
programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity control
measures available. In addition, these programs are environmentally
acceptable and control erosion, increase grazing opportunities, produce
dependable stream run-off and enhance wildlife habitat.
The water quality standards adopted by the Colorado River Basin
States contain a plan of implementation that includes BLM participation
to implement cost effective measures of salinity control. BLM
participation in the salinity control program is critical and essential
to actively pursue the identification, implementation and
quantification of cost effective salinity control measures on public
lands.
Bureau of Reclamation studies show that quantified damages from
Colorado River salinity to United States water users are about $350
million per year. Unquantified damages increase the total damages
significantly. For every increase of 30 milligrams per liter in
salinity concentration in the waters of the Colorado River, an increase
in damages of $75 million is experienced by the water users of the
Colorado River Basin in the United States. Control of salinity is
necessary for the Basin States, including New Mexico, to continue to
develop their compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River. The
Basin States are proceeding with an independent program to control salt
discharges to the Colorado River, in addition to up-front cost sharing
with Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Agriculture salinity
control programs. It is vitally important that the BLM pursue salinity
control projects within its jurisdiction to maintain the cost
effectiveness of the program and the timely implementation of salinity
control projects that will help avoid unnecessary damages in the United
States and Mexico.
At the urging of the Basin States, the BLM has created a full time
position to coordinate its activities among the BLM State offices and
other Federal agencies involved in implementation of the salinity
control program. The BLM's Budget Justification documents have stated
that BLM continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate
progress in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, and report salt retention measures to
implement and maintain salinity control measures of the Federal
salinity control program in the Colorado River Basin. The BLM is to be
commended for its commitment to cooperate and coordinate with the Basin
States and other Federal agencies. The Basin States and I are pleased
with the BLM administration's responsiveness in addressing the need for
renewed emphasis on its efforts to control salinity sources and to
comply with BLM responsibilities pursuant to the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act, as amended.
I request the appropriation of at least $5.2 million in fiscal year
2011 for Colorado River salinity control activities of the BLM within
the Soil, Water, and Air Management Subactivity, and that $1,500,000 of
that amount be marked specifically for identified salinity control
related projects and studies. I appreciate consideration of these
requests. I fully support the statement of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum submitted by Jack Barnett, the Forum's Executive
Director, in request of appropriations for BLM for Colorado River
salinity control activities.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: My name
is Alan Hamilton and I am the Conservation Director for the New Mexico
Wildlife Federation. I appreciate the opportunity to present this
testimony on behalf of our organization in support of two important
land conservation projects in New Mexico. Founded in 1914 by Aldo
Leopold and other conservation-minded sportsman, the New Mexico
Wildlife Federation is New Mexico's oldest conservation organization
dedicated to protecting New Mexico's wildlife, habitat and outdoor way
of life. Presently the New Mexico Wildlife Federation is honored to
represent about 8,000 sportsmen and women throughout the State.
The first project is the Forest Service acquisition of the 1,500-
acre first phase of the nearly 5,000-acre Miranda Canyon property. An
appropriation of $4 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund in order to protect this land in the Carson
National Forest. The second project is the 6,250-acre second phase of
the 11,699-acre Vallecitos High Country project. An Appropriation of
$3.375 million is needed from the Forest Legacy Program to protect this
extraordinary land.
Carson National Forest
Some of the finest mountain scenery in the Southwest is found in
the 1.5 million-acre Carson National Forest. Elevations rise from 6,000
to 13,161 feet at Wheeler Peak in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, the
highest peak in New Mexico. The scenery varies from high desert scrub
and red soil to spruce and fir filled mountainsides and wildflower
meadows. In addition to the various landscapes, there are also many
recreational opportunities in the forest. The magnificent mountain
scenery and cool summer temperatures lure visitors to enjoy fishing,
hunting, camping and hiking. Winter activities include skiing,
snowshoeing and snowmobiling. There are 330 miles of trails for hiking,
horseback riding, mountain biking, and 4-wheel drive exploring. For the
backcountry enthusiast, there are 86,193 acres of wilderness in the
forest that have been virtually undisturbed, where travel is restricted
to foot or horseback.
There are many species of animals in the Carson National Forest
including mule deer, elk, antelope, black bear, and bighorn sheep along
with many species of songbirds and a wonderful display of wildflowers.
The forest has 400 miles of clean mountain streams and many lakes that
offer outstanding trout fishing including rainbow, eastern brook,
German brown and cutthroat trout. Available for acquisition as part of
the Carson National Forest is the 4,990-acre Miranda Canyon Property
located just 10 miles south of Taos. The property is adjacent to the
Carson National Forest and ranges in elevation from 7,200 feet to
10,801 feet. The property has various vegetative types from low
elevation sagebrush and pinon juniper to high elevation mixed conifer
forest containing large aspen stands. There are also numerous meadows
and riparian vegetation that provide excellent habitat for wildlife.
The landscape has numerous ridges and peaks that provide
breathtaking views of the Rio Grande Gorge to the west and of Wheeler
Peak, the highest peak in New Mexico, to the north. Picuris Peak is
located on the property along a popular hiking route. The property also
contains historical features such as the Old Spanish National Historic
Trail, a route that dates back to the 1600s when the Spanish made their
way to northern New Mexico and established the first capital city near
San Juan Pueblo. Other geological features on the property include a
unique small volcano and 1.7 billion-year-old rock outcrops that rival
the age of rock found at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.
The landowner of the Miranda Canyon property is currently reviewing
various development options for this scenic property after a recent
attempt to subdivide the property into 150 lots. If subdivided and
developed, tremendous recreational, scenic, and ecological resources
would be diminished or lost forever. However, there is an immediate
opportunity to protect this land for conservation, which would provide
additional recreational opportunities for hunting, sightseeing,
camping, hiking, interpretation, and horseback riding for the public.
In fiscal year 2011, the Miranda Canyon property is available for
acquisition by the Carson National Forest through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. An appropriation of $4 million is needed this year
to begin the acquisition of this property, which will conserve and
enhance the area's scenic, recreation, historic, and natural resources.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation's premier
Federal program to acquire and protect lands at national parks,
forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and
recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the
public with substantial social and economic benefits including
promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking
water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting the
adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these
reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to the program
in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration's
commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing
the many demands this committee faces, I also want to thank the
committee for its recent effort to restore much-needed funding to this
depleted program. This wise investment in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund is one that will permanently pay dividends to the
American people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
Vallecitos High County
The New Mexico Forest Legacy Program is devoted to the protection
and management of environmentally important forest areas that are
threatened by conversion to non-forest uses. In addition, the program
gives priority to private forested lands which protect and enhance
watershed and water quality, maintain and restore riparian areas,
protect important wildlife habitats, and contribute to the cultural and
economic vitality of rural communities.
In fiscal year 2011, the State of New Mexico's top priority for
Forest Legacy Program funding is a phase II conservation easement on
6,250 acres of the Vallecitos High Country property, continuing a
protection effort that began in 2008. The property, located within the
Rio Vallecitos watershed in Rio Arriba County, is an 11,699-acre parcel
of mixed conifer, aspen, and spruce-fir forests interspersed with
mountain meadows and creeks. It adjoins the Carson National Forest on
three sides and is visible from the Continental Divide Trail. The Rio
Vallecitos, an important cold-water fishery, is managed by the U.S.
Forest Service as a Wild and Scenic River. It provides irrigation and
municipal water to the downstream villages of Vallecitos and La Madera.
The property boasts critical wildlife habitat that includes old growth
forest, wet meadows, and clear creeks. The wide diversity of wildlife
on the property includes several threatened and endangered species. In
addition, several miles of riparian woodlands, considered relatively
rare in New Mexico, are found along the Rio Vallecitos, Jarosa Creek,
and North Creek. The Rio Vallecitos runs five miles across the property
near the national forest boundary, and another 12 miles of tributary
creeks on the property feed into this important riparian corridor.
The old-growth mixed conifer and spruce-fir forests on the
Vallecitos High Country property provide suitable habitat for the
federal-threatened Mexican spotted owl and the State-threatened boreal
owl and pine marten. The property also provides important habitat
forperegrine falcon, bald eagle, northern goshawk, and king fisher.
Since it is a large forested property, it is capable of supporting
populations of territorial wildlife species with large home ranges such
as black bear, mountain lion, bobcat, turkey, and birds of prey. The
property is within an area classified as a major wildlife dispersal
corridor by the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, which strives to
maintain a network of undeveloped habitats and migratory pathways in
the region. The wet meadows and beaver ponds on the property are
suitable reintroduction sites for the extirpated boreal toad. This
state endangered amphibian may still exist as an undiscovered remnant
population on the property. Recognizing these critical habitat lands,
the landowner has been working with the New Mexico Department Game and
Fish to protect the boreal toad habitat.
Due to its spectacular views and abundant fishing and hunting
opportunities, the Vallecitos High Country property is highly
threatened by the development of seasonal homes. Protection of this
property will expand New Mexico's protection of high-quality watersheds
and forests by complementing a completed Forest Legacy Program easement
on the Vallecitos Mountain Refuge property along the Rio Vallecitos
only 2 miles downstream. It will also protect the scenic integrity of
the area, as the property is visible from a new segment of the
Continental Divide Trail and is part of the viewshed from the Rio
Vallecitos Canyon.
In fiscal year 2008, a total of $1.195 million was secured from the
Forest Legacy Program to help protect 2,213 acres of the forested
11,699-acre Vallecitos High Country property. In fiscal year 2011,
$3.375 million is needed for the second phase to place a conservation
easement on another 6,250 acres. These Federal funds will be matched by
a 25 percent land value donation from the landowner. Partners in this
project are the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, New Mexico
Forestry Division, the Carson National Forest, Forest Trust, Rio Chama
Watershed Group, Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, and Vallecitos
Mountain Refuge.
Please do all that you can to ensure that this worthwhile program
is funded adequately in fiscal year 2011 and that the Vallecitos High
Country project receives $3.375 million in fiscal year 2011. I am
thankful that the fiscal year 2011 President's budget request included
$1.925 million for this project. However, the phase can be completed
this year with an appropriation of $3.375 million.
I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of these nationally important
protection efforts in New Mexico, and I appreciate your consideration
of the funding requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association
Thank you Chairman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and
honorable members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to submit
written testimony on the fiscal year 2011 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill.
The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) is a national,
nonprofit organization with a mission of advancing parks, recreation,
and environmental conservation efforts that enhance the quality of life
for all people. There are more than 6,500 parks and recreation agencies
throughout the country, a majority of which are members of NRPA.
Through our network of more than 21,000 citizen and professional
members we represent park and recreation departments in cities,
counties, townships, special park districts, regional park authorities,
and citizens concerned with ensuring close-to-home access to parks and
recreation opportunities in their communities.
As your subcommittee works to craft the fiscal year 2011
Appropriations bill, we request that you include $175 million for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund's (LWCF) State Assistance program.
NRPA respectfully urges the subcommittee to invest in our local
communities through park and community infrastructure as our Nation
perseveres through the present economic challenges. The subcommittee
has the opportunity to make a worthwhile contribution to the economy
through not only capital investment infrastructure projects on Federal
lands, but also investments in close-to-home parks and recreation
infrastructure near population centers through LWCF State Assistance.
With more than $12 billion in unmet needs for LWCF State Assistance
reported by States to the National Park Service (NPS), there is
undoubtedly need for robust investment. Funding provided through LWCF
State Assistance not only provides necessary community resources for
outdoor recreation opportunities, community health resources, and
environmental stewardship, it also stimulates State and local
economies, and job creation. In fact, Governor Joe Machin of West
Virginia notes, ``The Land and Water Conservation Fund grant program is
one of the best ways we can be involved in the enrichment of West
Virginia's communities for the future.'' It is obvious that LWCF funds
are vital to many States and literally determine whether a local,
regional, or State park is acquired or recreation facilities are
developed for public use. The need for recreational resources has
exponentially increased, but agencies are unable to meet the rising
need.
lwcf state assistance stimulates jobs creation and local economies
Close-to-home recreation has become increasingly important as a
result of the current economic downturn. The National Association of
State Park Directors reports that America's State park system
contributes $20 billion to local and State economies. Additionally, The
Outdoor Industry Association reports that recreation contributes $730
billion annually to the U.S. economy, supporting 6.5 million jobs
across the country. The uncertainty that is inherent to our current
economic environment has resulted in increased use of State and local
parks and recreational resources further enhancing the economic impact
of park and recreation agencies.
LWCF State Assistance projects stimulate local economies by
creating local jobs, generating visitor tax dollars for local
economies, and employing full-time and part-time workers. Studies have
shown that for every $1 million invested in parks and recreation
infrastructure, at least 20 jobs are created. To demonstrate the job
creation ability of LWCF State Assistance State and local projects, the
chart below was created from information received from the Virginia
State Park Director, and the Arkansas State Outdoor Recreation Liaison
Officer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LWCF State
LWCF State assistance funding recipient Award date Jobs created/ assistance amount
saved awarded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA--Douthat State Park Cabin Project....... December 3, 2008............. 80 $163,026
VA--Douthat State Park Campgrounds......... September 1, 2009............ 100 $497,520
AR--Rose City ball field construction and March 4, 2003................ 30 $75,000
ADA ac- cess.
AR--Maumelle ball park development......... March 17, 2005............... 75 $200,000
AR--Mena Five Clover-Leaf ball field July 21, 2005................ 75 $125,000
development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lwcf state assistance impact on local communities
LWCF State Assistance is a matching grant program that requires
State and local governments to provide 50 percent in non-Federal funds
for the acquisition, development, and redevelopment of parks and
recreation resources. As a result of LWCF State Assistance funding,
more than 41,000 projects have been created in local communities. Since
its inception in 1965, the program has provided almost $4 billion in
matching funds to States and local communities in 98 percent of
American counties. The States, cities, counties, and towns that apply
for and accept Federal funding from the LWCF State assistance grant
program agree to match the Federal investment on a dollar-for-dollar
basis, and often match significantly more than the Federal share.
public health
Congress created the LWCF State Assistance program ``to strengthen
the health and vitality of the citizens of the United States,'' and
undoubtedly these projects are playing a critical role in battling our
Nation's obesity and Type 2 diabetes epidemics. Several medical studies
have shown that there is a strong correlation between proximity to
recreational facilities and parks and physical activity. According to
the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which estimates 65
percent of adults and 16 percent of children are overweight or obese,
even small improvements in the lifestyles of Americans would yield
marked health improvements. In fact, CDC notes that the creation of or
enhanced access to places for physical activity led to a 25.6 percent
increase in the percentage of people exercising on three or more days
per week. Investing in programs such as the LWCF State Assistance
program would provide a significant return on investment through the
reduction in healthcare costs.
environmental benefits
The LWCF State Assistance program not only meets important national
goals and delivers tangible benefits to the American public by
improving health, providing recreation opportunities to all Americans,
and improving communities through economic development, it also
significantly contributes to protecting our environment and promoting
environmental stewardship. LWCF State Assistance projects have a
historical record of contributing to reduced and delayed stormwater
runoff volumes, enhanced groundwater recharge, stormwater pollutant
reductions, reduced sewer overflow events, increased carbon
sequestration, urban heat island mitigation and reduced energy demands,
resulting in improved air quality, increased wildlife habitat, and
increased land values on the local level.
lwcf state assistance: addressing national issues on the local level
The following examples, provided by the NPS, paint a picture of a
Federal program, diverse in application and addressing national issues
on the local level:
Focal Points of Close-to-Home Access to Health and the Outdoors in
Urban Areas
In Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, Tubbs Hill Park received critical LWCF
funding to help acquire and preserve a breathtaking urban forest.
Today, this 135-acre forest in the middle of the city has a 2.2-mile
loop trail, spectacular scenic vistas of Lake Coeur d'Alene and
unparalleled access to close to home recreation in the heart of Coeur
d'Alene. This park is a hub for community exercise and offered as an
ideal healthy resource within the city. In this urban park, you
commonly see osprey, common, and hooded mergansers, bald eagles, as
well as pied-billed, eared, and western grebes.
Economic Development and Community Benefits of Parks and Access to
Recreation
In Rapid City, South Dakota, a community park was built in a part
of the community that did not have a public park. With the help of a
LWCF grant and a matching grant from Rapid City, several developers
donated money to build this community playground. Since the
announcement of the park and playground project, three major housing
developments have emerged in the surrounding neighborhood thereby
generating additional tax revenue.
Environmental Stewardship and Conservation Projects Leverage Regional
Impacts
In Ashburnham, Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
used $450,000 in LWCF funds to leverage an additional $675,000 to
conserve 460 acres of forest lands along the New Hampshire border. The
land provides public access for long-distance hiking, links
conservation lands, protects the water quality of the Millers River,
and preserves archaeologically sensitive sites once used by the
``Harvard Shakers.''
Unfortunately, in recent years funding for LWCF State Assistance
has been severely diminished leaving communities with lists of unfunded
projects. However, in the past year we are seeing encouraging signs by
the Obama administration and Congress that LWCF State Assistance is
becoming a priority within the Interior budget. With Secretary of the
Interior Ken Salazar's vision to fully fund LWCF at $900 million by
2014, it is going to require significant and bold increases between now
and 2014. With the more than $12 billion in unmet need ready to be
funded in our State and local communities, we believe our request for
$175 million for LWCF State Assistance is entirely appropriate.
Adjusting for inflation, the $144 million that was appropriated to LWCF
State Assistance in fiscal year 2002 would today be $175 million.
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, parks and
recreation agencies are not merely community amenities; they are
essential services which are necessary for the economic and
environmental vitality as well as physical wellness of communities
throughout this country. By providing funding for LWCF which has proven
itself invaluable to addressing national issues, Congress would be
investing in the health and well-being of communities across this
Nation from the standpoint of economic recovery, environmental
protection, as well as providing safe and affordable places for
recreation. Because this investment has a positive impact on the
economy in the areas of job creation local economic stimulation, now is
the ideal time to invest into this program that has been dismantled
over the past 8 years. The lack of required Federal operations,
maintenance, and staff funding of these state and local projects is yet
another reason why investment is advantageous to American taxpayer.
______
Prepared Statement of the North Shore Sanitary District
Madame Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss a vital project the North Shore Sanitary
District (NSSD) is attempting to complete--the repair of the Waukegan
Sewage Treatment Plant's Final Effluent Forcemain. Senator Burris has
lent his support to our effort by requesting an appropriation for
fiscal year 2011 of $4,974,000 from the EPA's State and Tribal
Assistance Grant program.
Before discussing this project in detail, I would like to tell you
about the mission of the NSSD. The NSSD works diligently to safeguard
Lake Michigan and other local waterways, such as the Skokie and Des
Plaines rivers, from pollutants while providing wastewater treatment
service to approximately 315,000 residents in eastern Lake County,
Illinois. The NSSD is the second largest wastewater agency in the State
of Illinois, serving the communities of: Winthrop Harbor; Zion; Beach
Park; Waukegan; Gurnee; Grayslake; Park City; North Chicago; Green
Oaks; Lake Bluff, Lake Forest; Highwood; Highland Park; Bannockburn;
and Deerfield. We also provide wastewater treatment services for one of
the largest military installations in the United States--the Great
Lakes Naval Training Station.
The NSSD collects wastewater from local sewer systems in these
communities and conveys it via 125 miles of interceptor sewers and 11
pumping stations to its treatment plants in Waukegan, Highland Park,
and Gurnee. These three facilities have been recognized by the National
Association of Cleanwater Agencies for their excellence.
Like many agencies charged with the responsibility of keeping our
waterways clean, the NSSD has major infrastructure needs that must be
met if we are to continue to be effective in our important mission.
Among these challenges for the NSSD is repairing its 54 inch
diameter Waukegan Sewage Treatment Plant Final Effluent Forcemain, a
5.6 mile long forcemain constructed of pre-stressed concrete pipes that
connect our Waukegan Treatment Plant with the Des Plaines River. The
forcemain, which is nearly 35 years old, carries treated effluent
through densely populated neighborhoods in Waukegan and Gurnee,
Illinois. It has already experienced two significant failures,
resulting in damage to both private property and public infrastructure.
Based on an inspection in 2002, 60 pipes were repaired by lining the
pipe with a carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) wrap. In April 2008,
a second inspection determined there were an additional 31 pipes
exhibiting various degrees of distress since the 2002 inspection and
subsequent repair. The estimated overall cost to upgrade the forcemain
is approximately $14.2 million.
Due to the significant environmental benefits of this project, the
NSSD is seeking this funding assistance. The Federal funding requested
will be used directly in repairing the pipe. The NSSD has decided to
adopt a proactive approach and repair all pipes that are in 16 general
areas where the 31 pipes found to be in distress in 2008 are located.
These 16 areas cover approximately 3,041 feet in length.
These repairs would not only create approximately 160 jobs for the
region but would also reduce the potential of another forcemain
rupture, which in addition to the causing disruption for local property
owners, would require the NSSD to discharge effluent directly into Lake
Michigan.
Thank you again for your consideration, and we would be glad to
answer any question you might have.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Tribal Environmental Council
On behalf of the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC) and
our 187 member tribes, we thank you for the opportunity to provide
fiscal year 2011 funding recommendations for the Department of the
Interior and other agencies under the purview of this subcommittee.
Founded in 1991, NTEC works with federally recognized tribes to
protect tribal environments. NTEC's mission is to support Indian tribes
and Alaska Natives in protecting, regulating, and managing their
environmental resources according to their own priorities and values.
Despite having some of the most pristine habitat in the United
States, tribes have been historically underfunded for wildlife and
natural resource management and conservation. There are 564 federally
recognized American Indian tribes and more than 300 reservations in the
United States. Tribes manage 95 million acres of land, 11 million acres
more than the National Park Service. Tribal lands contain more than
997,000 acres of lakes, 13,000 miles of rivers, and 18 million acres of
forested lands. Tribes operate approximately 114 fish hatcheries, with
many producing threatened or endangered fish species. Tribal lands
provide vital habitat for more than 525 federal listed plants and
animals, many of which are both ecologically and culturally significant
to tribes.
bureau of indian affairs (bia)
Department of the Interior Climate Change Adaptation Initiative
Increase the BIA's allocation of the Interior Department's Climate
Change Adaptation Initiative to $8.55 million.
The Interior Department began a Climate Change Adaptation
Initiative in September 2009, an undertaking that Indian tribes support
in principle. The administration's fiscal 2011 budget request for the
initiative is $171.3 million, an increase of $35.4 million more than
2010. The $136 million for the initiative in 2010 did not include any
funding for tribes. Despite a substantial increase in the overall
funding request, the situation for tribes is nearly as bad in the 2011
budget. Of the $171.3 million, only $200,000 goes to the BIA to involve
and assist Indian tribes. This is highly inequitable, especially
considering the disproportionate effect of climate change on tribes and
their homelands. Sovereign Indian tribes deserve a broader seat at the
table in the Climate Change Adaptation Initiative and a more equitable
share of the funding.
Tribal lands comprise 4 percent of the U.S. land base (tribal lands
represent a higher percentage if compared to the Federal lands involved
in this initiative; tribal lands equal 95 million acres divided by 593
million acres of Federal land and tribal land equal 16 percent). Given
that funding for tribal natural resources has been historically
underfunded and there is no Federal program or funding that
specifically supports tribal climate adaptation efforts, we request
that the allocation to tribes via the BIA should be increased to $8.55
million, or 5 percent of DOI's Climate Change Adaptation initiative,
for tribes to address and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
To achieve this equitable increase for tribes, the money provided
to the various Interior agencies for the Initiative must be
reallocated. In addition, the fiscal year 2011 BIA budget included $19
million for FBI agents, but this does not belong in the BIA budget.
While we support additional funding for tribal law enforcement needs,
we know that many tribes feel it is inappropriate to allocate the
funding in this manner. We suggest that the $19 million be re-directed
specifically for tribal law enforcement programs and to increase
funding for tribal climate change adaptation efforts.
Trust Natural Resources Program (TNR)
Maintain fiscal year 2010 enacted amount of $175.62 million for BIA
TNR Program.
The BIA TNR Program represents the largest amount of base, Federal
funding for tribal natural resource management. Tribes have more than
$356 million of unmet annual needs for natural resource management and
conservation.\1\ Because BIA spending on natural resources in the last
2011 years has been relatively flat compared to inflation and BIA's
budget has been historically inadequate to meet the natural resource
needs of Indian tribes, their needs have multiplied. In addition, the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights notes, ``Native American population
needs have increased at a rate faster than inflation, as problems are
compounded by years of neglect.'' \2\ Even with the fiscal year 2010
increase to the TNR Program, the annual unmet needs of tribes for
natural resource management continue to exist and grow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations, July 1999, 52.
\2\ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, A Quiet Crisis: Federal
Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, July 2003), 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration's fiscal year 2011 request is $17.2 million less
than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level primarily due to an $18.6
million transfer of minerals and mining funding, what has been termed
``efficiency savings,'' and modest decreases and increases to a variety
of tribal programs. Due to the significant unmet annual needs for
tribal natural resource management and the historic underfunding of
tribal natural resource programs, we request that the aforementioned
$17.2 million be reinstated and provided to BIA TNR Programs including
the Tribal Management and Development Program, Wildlife and Parks
Tribal Priority Allocations, Natural Resource Tribal Priority
Allocations, Water Management, Planning and Pre-Development Program,
Endangered Species Program, and Rights Protection Implementation. As
discussed in the previous section, it would also be possible to
allocate some of the $19 million currently proposed for FBI agents to
make up for the shortfall in TNR funding for tribes.
u.s. fish and wildlife service (fws)
Tribal Wildlife Grants Program
Increase FWS Tribal Wildlife Grants Program funding to $8.4
million.
Unfortunately, tribes are not eligible for funding under Federal
wildlife and fishery restoration programs such as the Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson) or the Federal Aid in
Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson) that fund activities
through an excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment. Although tribal
members pay taxes that support this funding, they remain excluded from
receiving the benefits and only States are allowed to access them.
In 2002, Congress authorized FWS to provide funding to tribes under
the Tribal Wildlife Grant (TWG) and Tribal Landowner Incentive Programs
(TLIP). Tribal proposals for support often total more than $30 million
annually. Yet these programs combined have only provided tribes an
average of $7 million annually. With 564 federally recognized tribes,
competition is severe and tribes rarely receive sufficient funds to
fully support important conservation efforts.
In fiscal year 2007, only 38 proposals out of 110 submitted
received funding under the TWG Program. In fiscal year 2003, in the FWS
Northeast Region, 9 tribes submitted TWG proposals requesting $1.4
million, but only 4 were funded for $481,554 (34 percent of the
requested amount). In fiscal year 2009, FWS only funded 41 TWG
proposals out of 101 submitted, awarding $7 million to tribes with a
meager average award of $170,000. In fiscal year 2010, States received
more than $1 billion from the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act,
the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, and State Wildlife
Grants programs. Thus, the $7 million tribes received from the TWG
program was less than .007 percent of the amount States received. From
2002-2010, States received 86 times more FWS funding than tribes for
fish and wildlife conservation, or $6.25 billion for States compared to
$72.2 million for tribes (see chart).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ State funding includes the FWS Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Programs and State Wildlife Grants. Tribal funding includes
the FWS Tribal Wildlife Grants and Tribal Landowner Incentive Program.
Since the inception of the TWG Program in 2002, no more than $7
million per year has been made available on a competitive basis to the
Nation's 564 federally recognized tribes. At this low level of funding,
very few tribes receive any TWG Program funding; those receiving TWG
Program funding typically get very little; and no tribe receives
sufficient funding to sustain long-term tribal wildlife and natural
resource management efforts. In fiscal year 2010, the State and Tribal
Wildlife Grant Program received $90 million, a $15 million or 20
percent increase from fiscal year 2009. Nonetheless, funding for tribes
via the TWG Program remained at $7 million, and continues at that level
in the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget request. Tribes deserve
at least the same 20 percent increase; thus we request that TWG Program
funding be increased to $8.4 million.
environmental protection agency (epa)
Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants Program
Preserve the administration's fiscal year 2011 request of $32.9
million for the Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants Program.
The administration's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes a new Multimedia Tribal
Implementation Grants program to support on-the-ground implementation
of environmental protection on tribal lands. This program would provide
$30 million for tribes to address their most pressing environmental
needs. This program would advance negotiated environmental plans and
activities on a cooperative basis between tribes and EPA, ensuring that
tribal environmental priorities are adequately addressed. In addition,
the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $2.9
million for tribal capacity building and implementation of this new
grant program. NTEC requests that these EPA programs be funded at the
proposed $32.9 million level.
General Assistance Program
Preserve the administration's fiscal year 2011 request of $71.4
million for the EPA General Assistance Program.
Since 1992, the EPA's Indian Environmental General Assistance
Program (GAP) has served a critical need in providing funding to tribes
to build capacity for environmental management. The administration's
fiscal year 2011 budget request includes a much-needed $8.5 million
increase for GAP. This requested increase will help tribal
environmental programs to continue to build capacity as well as advance
efforts to manage tribal environments. NTEC requests that the EPA GAP
Program be funded at the proposed $71.4 million level.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
Chairman Feinstein and members of the subcommittee, the National
Trust for Historic Preservation asks that you support job creation,
sustainability and smart growth by appropriating funding for the
Nation's core historic preservation programs in the amounts of $55
million for State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs); $10 million
for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), $25 million for Save
America's Treasures (SAT), and $4.6 million for Preserve America (PA)
in fiscal year 2011.
SAT, the Nation's only bricks-and-mortar preservation grant
program, is proposed for elimination and the National Trust urges you
to fund it at last year's level of $25 million. The proposed
elimination of SAT would represent a nearly 30 percent reduction in the
Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) overall, while some other programs in
the Department of the Interior have seen as much as a 38 percent
increase. The Trust urges you to help deliver greater equity between
our cultural historic preservation programs and our natural resource
programs, as they are both integral parts of preserving our Nation's
rich heritage.
Over the past 10 years, SAT has been a driver of economic
development and the Federal Government's most successful tool to
preserve the important places that tell our Nation's story. Due to
broad, bipartisan congressional support, the program has provided
nearly $300 million to save 1,132 of America's most significant places
in all 50 States, creating over 16,000 jobs and fostering economic
development in every single project it covers. The National Trust
supports a rigorous evaluation of Federal programs to ensure taxpayer
money is spent wisely. SAT's decade-long track record exhibits the
efficient use of these funds.
SAT stands out as a model of effective spending because every SAT
grant recipient is required to raise a dollar-for-dollar, non-Federal
match. It has leveraged more that $350 million in non-Federal and
private funds. As a result, SAT has been enormously successful in
attracting private-sector financing and creating productive and
sustained partnerships with corporations, foundations, and individuals
that provide matching contributions. Continued Federal funding of SAT
is even more important due to currently distressed credit markets and
high unemployment.
Preserve America, a sister program to SAT for preservation
education and outreach, funded out of the National Recreation account,
would also be eliminated in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget.
The Preserve America program complements SAT's bricks-and-mortar grant
projects by helping local communities develop sustainable resource
management strategies and sound business practices for the continued
preservation and use of heritage assets. The National Trust urges you
to fund it at last year's level of $4.6 million. A 2009 report to
Congress by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation found that
Preserve America is addressing many State, local, and regional heritage
tourism needs with a relatively small Federal investment and like SAT,
the competitive grants require a dollar-for-dollar, non-Federal match.
Tying our Nation's historic preservation activities together are
the SHPOs. In addition to lying the groundwork for SAT and PA, SHPOs
carry out the Federal historic preservation program that provides
citizens the tools needed to revitalize, rehabilitate, and protect the
places that give meaning to America. Funding for SHPOs leverages
investments through local jobs, non-Federal contributions and long-term
economic development. In 2009, the Rehabilitation Tax Credit,
administered by SHPOs, leveraged nearly $5 billion in private
investment and created more than 70,000 jobs. SHPOs also review Federal
projects for their potential impact on historic sites. A recent
February 2010 GAO report highlighted that SHPO staff shortages have
delayed various American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) projects.
Providing $55 million for SHPOs would help fund additional staff vital
to conducting ARRA reviews while still providing communities with the
means necessary to revitalize and preserve their heritage.
THPOs carry out many of the same functions as SHPOs in tribal
areas. There are currently 96 THPOs and as the number continues to
increases, the amount of HPF funds appropriated is not keeping pace. In
fiscal year 1996, there were 12 tribes that received an average of
$80,000. Fifteen years later, the number of THPOs will have grown to
100, and at the President's proposed level of $8 million, each would
receive an average amount of $72,500--about $7,500 less than when the
program was first funded. Therefore the National Trust asks that THPOs
be funded at $10 million for fiscal year 2011.
Funding these essential historic preservation programs would
represent a true investment in America's treasured legacy multiplied
many times over through public-private economic partnerships and
ventures. Most importantly, it would create much needed jobs and ensure
the protection of historic resources nationwide that might otherwise be
lost forever.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Federation
On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), the Nation's
largest conservation advocacy and education organization, and our more
than 4 million members and supporters, we thank you for the opportunity
to provide fiscal year 2011 funding recommendations for the Department
of the Interior and other agencies under the purview of this
subcommittee.
We understand the administration and the subcommittee face
difficult choices in these challenging economic times, and we are
pleased with several of the major initiatives in the President's fiscal
year 2011 budget proposal. We commend the subcommittee for its efforts
to strengthen the scientific and planning capacity to address climate
change impacts on wildlife through landscape-level conservation and
management, rapidly increasing the capacity for appropriately sited
renewable energy and transmission on public lands, and facilitating
essential acquisition of key habitat through a commitment to the Land
and Water Conservation Fund.
Climate Change Adaptation and Landscape-scale Conservation
The proposed budget includes a much-needed $35 million increase
more than the enacted fiscal year 2010 budget to support on-the-ground
adaptation at several agencies. NWF is strongly supportive of the $171
million requested for the Department of the Interior budget to help
agencies assess and respond to the impacts of climate change on
wildlife. We are particularly pleased to see investments in Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives designed to engage and integrate agencies
from across the Department and with external partners.
Promote Renewable Energy and Limit Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Transitioning to a clean energy economy is one of the great
challenges facing the nation. NWF supports the New Energy Frontier
initiative in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget, which invests in
development of clean energy resources on public lands while
acknowledging that not all lands with energy potential are appropriate
for development. This initiative would invest $73.3 million in
renewable energy programs, a $14.2 million increase more than fiscal
year 2010. Because it is essential that applications are sited
appropriately, we strongly support proposed investments in new studies
of wildlife impacts, site-specific environmental studies, and regional
analysis of wind energy zones. We remain concerned, however, that the
Department lacks the necessary policy guidance to support the targeted
build out on public lands without incurring significant impacts to
wildlife and other natural resources.
NWF also strongly supports the Department's common-sense budget
proposals for reducing extravagant subsidies to the oil and gas
industry, including a new fee for nonproducing leases. To confront
climate change, promote cleaner sources of energy, and enhance our
national security, we will need to phase out tax breaks and subsidies
to the most carbon intensive fuels.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the Nation's core
program for preventing wildlife from becoming endangered in every
state. It provides state wildlife agencies and their partners with a
broad suite of proactive conservation tools to allow for meaningful and
cost-effective species conservation. At the heart of this program is
implementation of federally approved wildlife action plans. We urge
Congress to honor its commitment to this important effort and
respectfully request that the subcommittee provide State Wildlife
Grants funding of $100 million, an increase of $10 million more than
fiscal year 2010 enacted levels.
Endangered Species Program
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a safety net for wildlife,
plants, and fish that are on the brink of extinction. While the act has
been extraordinarily successful in preventing the extinction of plants
and animals, funding for its implementation has eroded significantly
over the past few years. We are dismayed with the President's proposal
to virtually flat-fund the program, and are particularly concerned
about decreases in the listing and candidate conservation programs. We
urge the Subcommittee to appropriate at least $217 million in fiscal
year 2011 toward the Endangered Species Program ($38 million above
fiscal year 2010 enacted) as follows: Listing ($32 million), Recovery
($95 million), Consultation ($75 million), and Candidate Conservation
($15 million).
National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance
The National Wildlife Refuge System is a monumental part of the
public lands systems in the United States. It is home to endangered
species, migrating birds, rare flora and fauna, and retreat for hunters
and anglers nationwide. The Refuge System will also play a crucial role
for wildlife as the impacts of climate change continue to increase.
Unfortunately the President's fiscal year 2011 budget reflects cuts to
a system that must be able to lead the way in a warming climate. The
National Wildlife Federation, in support of the Cooperative Alliance
for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), recommends $578.3 million for Operations
and Maintenance for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Conservation Planning Assistance
The Conservation Planning Assistance (CPA) branch delivers on-the-
ground conservation of wetlands and other high-value habitats through
environmental review and technical assistance. Base funding and staff
levels for this program have significantly eroded over the past 15
years, and that erosion continues, despite increased demands for CPA
expertise. As a first step in restoring the agency's capacity to
deliver on-the-ground habitat conservation, we urge the Subcommittee to
appropriate $32.3 million in fiscal year 2011 toward the Conservation
Assistance Program's ``General Program Activities'' account ($6 million
above the fiscal year 2011 request).
Youth in Natural Resources
We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's strong support in fiscal
year 2010 for Secretary Salazar's Youth in Natural Resources
initiative, which will reach and educate youth from all backgrounds
about our Nation's lands, waters and heritage, while providing
employment opportunities to youth to protect our resources and restore
our environment. We urge the subcommittee to continue to grow this
program and recommend a funding level of $56.6 million (an increase of
$20.5 million more than fiscal year 2010 enacted).
U.S. Geological Survey
National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center
The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center is an
important initiative for improving the scientific support required to
successfully cope with the challenges of a changing climate. NWF is
supportive of the proposed $8 million increase in funding for the
center in fiscal year 2011. We would note, however, that following the
issuance of the Secretarial Order on Climate Change and the
establishment of several Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, there is
a need to clarify and better communicate roles and responsibilities
within the Department regarding climate change planning and science.
Bureau of Land Management
National Landscape Conservation System
The National Landscape Conservation System is our newest public
lands system containing 26 million acres of some of the most beautiful
and best places in the American West. It recently received permanent
status through the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009; however it was
created in 2000 and this year will be the 10th anniversary of the
system. As its status continues to rise, the system continues to be
plagued with inadequate funding and lack of budget clarity. It is
becoming more difficult to meet its core responsibilities and manage
the growing number of visitors. Therefore we recommend fiscal year 2011
NLCS funding of $100 million for operations, maintenance and planning.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Trust--Natural Resources Program
The primary function of the Trust--Natural Resources Management
program is to assist tribes in the management, development, and
protection of Indian trust land and natural resource assets. Due to
significant unmet annual needs for tribal natural resource management,
and the historic underfunding of tribal natural resource programs, NWF
is concerned about the proposed $17.2 million decrease in this program
for fiscal year 2011, and recommends maintaining the fiscal year 2010
enacted level of $175.62 million. Of the funds requested for this
program, just $0.2 million are a part of the Department's Climate
Change Initiative. Given the disproportionate impact that climate
change will have tribal lands in Alaska and elsewhere, we would
encourage more robust BIA funding to engage the tribes in preparing for
and adapting to the impacts of climate change.
U.S. Forest Service
Integrated Resource Restoration
The fiscal year 2011 budget proposal combines the Forest Products,
Wildlife & Fisheries, and Vegetation & Watershed line items into a
single $694 million budget item. The stated intent of this realignment
is to shift away from traditional commercial forestry objectives and
towards large-scale ecosystem restoration and stewardship. NWF is
supportive of the intent to focus more on landscape-scale management
and restoration, but has concerns about the potential for funding
related to wildlife, rare plants, and habitat to be obscured through
this realignment and possibly decreased during the course of program
implementation. We would encourage the development of robust program
monitoring and oversight to ensure continued commitment to delivery on
wildlife and fisheries objectives.
Land and Water Conservation Fund
The Federal acquisition portion of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund is the primary tool for the Federal Government for acquisition of
land for valuable wildlife habitat and open space. The stateside
portion is vitally crucial to providing a place for children and
families to connect with nature. However, in recent years LWCF has been
severely underfunded, in direct contrast to the intention of the
original program. NWF is pleased to see this administration increasing
the funding levels of this program, and we strongly recommend a budget
of $425 million for Federal land acquisition, and $175 million for the
stateside program.
Environmental Protection Agency
Greenhouse Gas Reductions and Inventory
NWF applauds the President's call to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and more
than 80 percent by 2050. NWF strongly supports the fiscal year 2011
request of $43 million in new funding for EPA programs to help achieve
these goals under existing Clean Air Act authority. This funding would
cover regulatory development activities covering mobile and selected
stationary sources, as well as technical assistance to support States'
permitting activities. These efforts are critical to combat climate
change, meet our emission reduction pledges under the Copenhagen
Accord, and comply with the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v.
EPA.
NWF also supports the President's request of $21 million for
continued implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. These
activities are essential for ensuring that the agency has sufficient
quality data to guide climate policy development.
Ecosystem Restoration Initiatives
America's Great Waters are the lifeblood of our nation. Sustained,
consistent restoration funding is crucial for the implementation of
multi-year, complex ecosystem restoration plans. NWF is fully
supportive of the proposed increase of $13 million for EPA's Chesapeake
Bay Program Office (fiscal year 2011 request of $63 million). We are
concerned, however, about significant proposed funding decreases for
several other regional efforts, and urge Congress to maintain fiscal
year 2010 funding levels for the following ecosystems: Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative ($475 million vs. $300 million requested); Puget
Sound geographic program ($50 million vs. $30 million requested); Long
Island Sound geographic program ($7 million vs. $3.8 million
requested); and Lake Champlain geographic program ($4 million vs. $1.4
million requested).
National Environmental Education Act Programs
EPA's Office of Environmental Education implements highly
successful, nationwide environmental education programs. Investment in
these programs must ramp up quickly to prepare Americans for the clean
energy economy, keep America competitive, and foster innovative
thinking and solutions to global climate change. We are grateful for
the subcommittee's support of environmental education in previous years
and recommend a funding level of $14 million (an increase of $5 million
more than fiscal year 2010 enacted).
______
Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year 2011 funding for
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation). The
Foundation's fiscal year 2011 funding request is fully authorized and
each Federal dollar appropriated will be matched by a minimum of one
non-Federal dollar. We appreciate the subcommittee's past support and
respectfully request your approval of funding at the following levels:
--$8.537 million through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Resource Management General Administration appropriation;
--$3 million through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Resource
Management Endangered Species appropriation to conserve and
restore endangered salmon;
--$4 million through the Bureau of Land Management's Management of
Lands and Resources appropriation; and
--$3 million through the Forest Service's National Forest System
appropriation.
Since its inception, the Foundation has leveraged nearly $500
million in Federal funds into more than $1.6 billion in on-the-ground
and in-the-water conservation with less than 5 percent aggregate
overhead to the Federal Government and fewer than 90 staff nationwide.
The Foundation was established by Congress in 1984 to foster
public-private partnerships to conserve fish, wildlife, and their
habitats. The Foundation is required by law to match each federally
appropriated dollar with a minimum of one non-Federal dollar. We
consistently exceed this requirement by leveraging Federal funds at a
3:1 average ratio while building consensus and emphasizing
accountability, measurable results, and sustainable conservation
outcomes.
With your support, fiscal year 2011 funds will support our long-
standing grant programs and new partnership initiatives with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and
Forest Service (FS). Several of our priority initiatives for fiscal
year 2011 are described below.
Fish Habitat Restoration
In cooperation with FWS, BLM, and FS, the Foundation provides
community-based grants to assist rural communities, farmers, ranchers
and other private landowners with restoring habitats that are essential
for native fish species and their migration corridors. To the extent
possible, the Foundation is also partnering with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service on these efforts, and successfully leveraging
Federal support with corporate contributions for fish habitat
conservation. Many of these in-stream and riparian habitat restoration
projects are located on or adjacent to public lands. To complement
these efforts, the Foundation has successfully implemented a water
transactions program in the Columbia Basin in partnership with the
Bonneville Power Administration, local water trusts, and willing
landowners. All of these approaches for habitat restoration will be
necessary to sustain or recover the 700 fish species in decline in
North America.
The Foundation is building on our long history in fish habitat
restoration to strategically target our partnership efforts toward
specific species of concern in fiscal year 2011 and the next few years.
Specifically, we are working with Federal, State, and local partners to
coordinate efforts to restore habitat for Eastern Brook Trout in the
Mid-Atlantic region and Salmon in the Pacific Northwest.
Eastern Brook Trout Restoration
Brook trout are the only trout native to much of the Eastern United
States and because they persist in only the coldest and cleanest waters
they are positive indicators of watershed health. The mid-Atlantic
region has seen the greatest decline in brook trout populations, where
they are now found only in scattered headwaters streams. Foundation
grants are focusing on unique threats and opportunities in specific
watersheds of Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. It is
anticipated that restoration activities will meet or exceed the Eastern
Brook Trout Joint Venture goals for the mid-Atlantic region.
Salmon Recovery
The Foundation is successfully engaging landowners, community
groups, tribes, and businesses in stimulating smaller-scale, community-
oriented habitat restoration and protection projects to aid in salmon
recovery. In particular, for nearly a decade the Foundation has
leveraged FWS appropriations with state and local funds to establish
local grant partnerships in Washington State. We have partnered with
the Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board to administer a
statewide Community Salmon Fund program that is coordinated with the
individual Lead Entity groups. In addition, the Foundation has ongoing
partnerships with both King and Pierce Counties to administer county-
specific Community Salmon Fund programs in those counties.
Other focal species for the Foundation's grants include: Apache
trout, Colorado Cutthroat trout and native suckers and chubs in the
Upper Colorado Basin, and Coho salmon and endangered suckers in Klamath
Basin.
Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, and Puget Sound
Watershed health plays an important role in fish and wildlife
conservation and has been a feature of the Foundation's grantmaking
since establishing our partnership with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in 1998. In the last decade, the Foundation has formed
strategic public-private partnerships to restore and protect fish and
wildlife habitat while improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay,
Great Lakes, and Long Island Sound. Federal partners in the programs
include EPA, Department of Interior agencies, Forest Service, USDA's
Natural Resources Conservation Service, NOAA, and others. The
Foundation leveraged various Federal funds for these partnerships but,
more importantly, attracted private contributions from corporations and
other private foundations. We are employing a similar model to develop
a partnership and target financial resources in Puget Sound. The
Foundation's watershed grant programs continued positive results in
2009 with priority project requests far exceeding available funds.
Youth in Natural Resources
The Department of the Interior's fiscal year 2011 budget request
includes $2 million, split between FWS and BLM, for the Foundation to
establish a competitive grant program for youth conservation job
programs. With the movement of Americans to urban areas and more indoor
recreational pursuits, America's youth are developing a gap in their
knowledge of fish and wildlife and the need for natural resource
conservation. This gap poses a serious threat to the future of the
wildlife conservation. Through this unique initiative, local
organizations will develop employment programs that foster a
conservation ethic, expose youth to career opportunities in the
conservation community, and ultimately cultivate future generations of
wildlife professionals.
The Foundation will work with FWS and BLM to develop a public-
private partnership by leveraging the Federal funding with at least an
equal amount of privately financed contributions. Funds will be awarded
to Refuges, Fish Hatcheries, Friends groups, BLM field offices, Youth
Conservation Corps, nongovernmental organizations and others who seek
to develop innovative conservation employment opportunities for youth.
Wildlife habitat conservation education will be an integral aspect of
this grant program and the Foundation will partner with the Department
of the Interior's National Conservation Training Center to develop
learning goals, curricula, and other training material that can be
integrated into job programs.
We request that this new $2 million initiative for Youth in Natural
Resources be funded above and beyond the Foundation's fiscal year 2010
enacted levels for FWS and BLM, which were $7.537 million and $3
million, respectively.
Conclusion
NFWF has a 25-year history with the Department of Interior and has
been successful in bringing together public and private partners to
build strategic partnerships to address the most significant threats to
fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. The Foundation has
partnerships with 14 Federal agencies and more than 50 corporations and
private foundations. We have a successful model of coordinating and
leveraging Federal funds and attracting support from the private sector
to form public-private partnerships for fish and wildlife conservation.
We are working directly with the Federal agencies and our other
partners to maximize results and produce sustainable conservation
outcomes. To that end, the Foundation is incorporating monitoring and
evaluation into our programs to measure progress, promote adaptive
management, demonstrate results, and continuously learn from project
investments. We look forward to building on our partnerships with FWS,
BLM and FS in fiscal year 2011 and appreciate the subcommittee's
continued support of these collaborative efforts.
Background on National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
As of fiscal year 2009, the Foundation has awarded nearly 10,500
grants to more than 3,000 national and community-based organizations
through successful partnerships with the Department of Interior
Agencies, USDA's Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation
Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and others. This collaborative model brings
together multiple Federal agencies with State, tribal and local
governments and private organizations to implement coordinated
conservation strategies in all 50 States.
The Foundation's grant-making involves a thorough internal and
external review process. Peer reviews involve Federal and State
agencies, affected industry, nonprofit organizations, and academics.
Grants are also reviewed by the Foundation's issue experts, as well as
evaluation staff, before being recommended to the Board of Directors
for approval. In addition, according to our Congressional Charter, the
Foundation provides a 30-day notification to the Members of Congress
for the congressional district and state in which a grant will be
funded, prior to making a funding decision.
Madam Chairman, we greatly appreciate your continued support and
hope the subcommittee will approve funding for the Foundation in fiscal
year 2011.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Refuge Association
Mr. Chairwoman and Members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) and its membership
comprised of current and former refuge professionals, Friends
organization affiliates and concerned citizens, thank you for your
strong support for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) including
the meaningful funding increases over the past 3 years which allowed
the NWRS to emerge from years of declining budgets following the 2003
Refuge Centennial. Unfortunately, the President's budget request, a
$3.3 million cut, is a step in the wrong direction and if enacted,
could reinstate the downsizing plans that called for a 20 percent
reduction of staff on refuges nationwide. Because NWRS needs at least
$15 million annually to address management capabilities (rent,
utilities, staff salaries, gas, etc.) the President's proposal is in
actuality an $18.3 million reduction. The NWRA appreciates the
opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2011 Interior,
Environment, Related Agencies Appropriations bill and we respectfully
request the subcommittee support the following programmatic funding
allocations for programs in the NWRS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS):
--$578 million for the operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts of
the NWRS;
--$600 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),
including $150 million for the NWRS;
--$19 million for the Challenge Cost Share Program in the Department
of the Interior including $6 million for the NWRS;
--$40 million for Landscape Conservation Cooperatives in the FWS;
--$25 million for Climate Change Inventory and Monitoring for
refuges;
--$100 million for the NWRS construction account for large-scale
restoration projects, visitors centers and energy efficiency
projects;
--$5 million for Volunteer Community Partnerships for the NWRS;
--$25 million for invasive species control and eradication projects
on and near refuge lands, including $5 million for large-scale
projects;
--$35 million for the management of the new Pacific Marine Monuments;
--$75 million for the FWS' Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
--$115 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
--$52.6 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
--$6.5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund;
--$10 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) in
the FWS' Resource Management General Administration
appropriation.
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response
NWRS needs strong and incremental increases to fulfill it's mission
and purposes and with the tragedy unfolding before our eyes in the Gulf
of Mexico with the Deep Horizon oil spill, potentially impacting up to
60 national wildlife refuges should the oil reach the Gulf Loop,
funding the System adequately is more important than ever. While refuge
staff is feverishly working to protect refuges and wildlife from the
oil itself, the pervasive lack of funding is noticeably apparent by the
lack of baseline data at each of the 25 refuges expected to be first
impacted. Not one of the refuges in the immediate path of the oil spill
has baseline inventories for all the resources that could be impacted
by the oil. Refuges in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida are
scrambling to do baseline inventories of wildlife and water quality.
While we thank the subcommittee for funding NWRS's Inventory and
Monitoring program in the fiscal year 2010 budget, NWRS's lack of this
program due to years of funding shortages has put America's wildlife at
a distinct disadvantage. Unless refuges get this information now, it
will be too late to prove how the oil impacted refuge resources. This
baseline inventory information is not a luxury item; it's an essential
tool.
National Wildlife Refuge Funding--Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and
Construction
The NWRA is the chair of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 22 sporting, conservation,
and scientific organizations representing more than 15 million
Americans. NWRS needs at least $900 million in annual operations and
maintenance funding to properly administer its 150 million acres as
mandated in the Refuge Improvement Act. To reach this reasonable goal,
we respectfully request that you provide $578 million in fiscal year
2011 for NWRS O&M.
The increases in the past 3 years allowed for the suspension of
workforce downsizing plans that outlined an eventual 20 percent
reduction in overall staffing levels. But additional increases that
build upon recent years are essential.
Within the $578 request for refuge O&M, we recommend $15 million
for inflationary costs. We know the NWRS needs at least $15 million
annually to maintain management capabilities which includes rent,
utilities, salaries, concrete, gas, and steel--everything a refuge
needs to fully function. The President's requested $3.3 million
decrease is an effective $18.3 million cut due to these annual needs.
Without providing adequate funding for these fixed costs, refuges will
simply be unable to maintain current programs and public services, and
the backlog will grow.
For example, at the Potomac River Refuges in northern Virginia, the
past 3 years of funding increases allowed the complex to hire a
temporary staffer to conduct public outreach and education and provide
the only staff presence on the weekends deterring criminals from
illegal dumping, poaching, and even prostitution. Should the
President's budget cut be enacted, that staff person would likely be
eliminated and conditions would return to those of only a few short
years ago, when the complex was plagued with illegal squatters, turtle
and fish poaching, dumping, and a prostitution ring. In many cases the
simple presence of an official refuge vehicle is enough to deter would-
be criminals. We must ask ourselves, is a cut to the NWRS budget really
worth the consequent costs?
Within the allocation for refuge operations, we request $25 million
for inventory and monitoring to help refuges cope with climate change;
$25 million for invasive species removal projects including $5 million
for large scale efforts; $5 million for volunteer and partnership
programs and $35 million for the management of the new Pacific Marine
Monuments.
We also ask the subcommittee to expand funding for NWRS's
construction budget to $100 million. The FWS has more than $1 billion
worth of construction needs, including the replacement of quickly
deteriorating structures that are not energy efficient and are becoming
more expensive to maintain. Construction funds also support large-scale
habitat restoration projects such as the Salt Pond restoration efforts
at the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay NWR. Funds for new visitor/
administration centers will be a net benefit with regards to both
efficiencies and economic impact to local communities. Refuges with a
broad range of outdoor and indoor programs create more revenue, jobs in
service industries, and income for local communities.
Climate Change--FWS and NWRS
The FWS and NWRS are just beginning to develop strategies to
address Climate Change and are still woefully behind what is truly
needed--especially with species in extreme locations such as Alaska and
Hawaii on the verge of collapse. We strongly support the FWS initiative
to establish Landscape Conservation Cooperatives to bring the best
science to bear to help all agencies make the most educated management
decisions. We recommend an allocation of $40 million to fund these LCCs
in fiscal year 2011, building upon the investments made this fiscal
year. We recommend $25 million for inventory, monitoring, and planning
for refuges.
Invasive Species--Control and Eradication
The NWRS is succumbing to a relentless onslaught of invasive
species with more than 2.3 million acres of refuge lands infested with
invasive plants and 4,400 invasive animal infestations. Funding is
needed to halt their progress and in some cases remove them entirely.
Of the total 2.3 million plant-infested acres, the NWRS was able to
treat only 14.6 percent in 2008--the same year a Government
Accountability Office report found that the number one management
action that had increased in cost was the management of invasive
plants. We urge the subcommittee to allocate $25 million for invasives
eradication efforts on refuges with $5 million for large-scale
projects.
Strategic Growth and Partnerships
While providing adequate funding to operate and maintain the NWRS
is of vital importance, most refuges are too small in size to fully
achieve their conservation objectives. Their integrity depends on the
health of surrounding lands and waters; and in turn, the health of
refuge lands and waters has an enormous impact on surrounding
communities. Consequently, there is a growing need to provide funding
to ensure that lands and waters outside refuge boundaries are
conserved. NWRA encourages a Beyond the Boundaries approach, which
identifies and prioritizes crucial additions to the Nation's
conservation estate while improving connectivity between refuges and
other conservation lands and encouraging partnerships to implement
conservation strategies.
One of the most effect tools for effective partnering for
conservation is the Challenge Cost Share (CCS) program and we strongly
urge the subcommittee to fund the program at $19 million. The program
was zeroed out in the administration's budget due to inadequate
reporting by DOI agencies; however, the lack of reporting was in many
instances due to a lack of staff resources--not because the program was
not receiving a match from partners or was being used inappropriately.
The program leverages taxpayer dollars, turning a $19 million
investment into at least $38 million in completed projects. We support
DOI efforts already underway to strengthen reporting and we hope you
will work with the administration to repair the program and not
eliminate it. The CCS has provided important opportunities for tens of
thousands of citizen volunteers to do thousands of stewardship projects
on public lands by leveraging these Federal funds in a way that cannot
be duplicated through other Federal funding programs.
Another demonstrated conservation partnership is the FWS' Partners
for Fish and Wildlife Program and we ask that the Subcommittee
appropriate the authorized $75 million next year. Partners is a
powerful tool to work with private land owners and leverage Federal
dollars. A $75 million investment in the Partners program will
conservatively net $300 million worth of additional conservation. On
average, every $1 appropriated leverages between $4 and $10.
To strategically grow NWRS, NWRA strongly supports President Obama
in encouraging Congress to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) to its authorized annual level of $900 million in the next
four years. We urge the subcommittee to allocate $150 million for the
FWS to secure high-priority water rights and high-priority lands and
conservation easements. Inadequate water quantity and quality represent
some of the biggest obstacles for refuges to overcome and
unfortunately, many refuges do not own the water rights on the refuge
or they are not guaranteed an allocation of water from a river or
stream.
Currently, there are roughly 8.3 million acres remaining to be
acquired within approved refuge boundaries. $150 million for refuge
land acquisition may seem high, but consider that if Congress
appropriated the full $900 million annually only to refuges, it would
still take almost 20 years before NWRS could acquire all the lands
currently in acquisition boundaries.
Within this request, the NWRA encourages the subcommittee to
provide funding for the following projects, which have willing sellers,
are immediately available for purchase and provide increased
connectivity between important public and private lands that will
ultimately increase species ability to adapt:
--$4.9 million, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (Utah) to acquire
3,000 acres;
--$2.5 million, Blackwater NWR (Maryland) to acquire 1,515 acres;
--$4 million, Cache River NWR (Arkansas) to acquire 5,000 acres;
--$2.5 million, Charles M. Russell NWR (Montana) to acquire 2,400
acres;
--$500,000, Cokeville Meadows NWR (Wyoming) to acquire 2,200 acres;
--$2 million, Lake Wales Ridge (Florida) to acquire 800 acres;
--$2 million, Nestucca Bay NWR, Oregon to acquire 300 acres;
--$6 million, Silvio O. Conte NFWR (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New
Hampshire, and Vermont) to acquire 2,050 acres;
--$3.5 million, Sheldon--Hart NWR Complex (Nevada, Oregon) to acquire
2,500 acres;
--$10 million, Stillwater NWR, Nevada to acquire 10,000 acres of
water rights.
There are several additional extremely worthy refuge land
acquisitions that are advocated for by refuge ``Friends'' organizations
and refuge partners and we have provided the subcommittee with those
requests in a separate document.
The NWRA also urges the subcommittee to appropriate $115 million
for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program to implement State
Wildlife Action Plans; $52.6 million for the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund; $6.5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund and $10 million for the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation.
In conclusion, the NWRA believes NWRS can meet its important
conservation objectives only with strong and consistent funding
leveraged by the valuable work of refuge volunteers. We extend our
appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing commitment to our
NWRS.
______
Prepared Statement of the Orleans Audubon Society, Inc.
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of
acquiring land at Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in
Louisiana. An appropriation of $2 million in fiscal year 2011 from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is needed towards National Park
Service (NPS) acquisition of the Fleming Plantation property in
Jefferson Parish.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to
climate change. For all these reasons, the President has included
meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and
I support the administration's commitment to fully funding the program
in the near future. Recognizing the many demands this committee faces,
I also want to thank the subcommittee for its recent effort to restore
much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise investment in
the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to the American
people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
The Orleans Audubon Society has had a long-term interest in the
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve and its unique
wetlands. We testified before Congress urging the creation of the park.
One of our members, Frank Ehret, Jr., is known as the ``Father of the
Park'' for his tireless and relentless efforts to make the park a
reality. We also successfully sued developers for violations of the
Clean Water Act which occurred within the authorized boundary. Most
recently, we lobbied to expand the boundary of the park, enlisting the
help of National Audubon Society's Public Policy Office. The boundary
was expanded with the passage of the 2009 Omnibus Public Lands Act.
Encompassing six separate units in south Louisiana, Jean Lafitte
National Park and Preserve boasts a wealth of historical, cultural, and
environmental resources. In addition to a visitor center in the famed
French Quarter of New Orleans, the park units include three Acadian
cultural centers. These centers share the stories and customs of the
Acadians who came to be called Cajuns following their migration from
French Canada to Louisiana. The Cajuns today are renowned for their
music, their food, and their ability to hold on to tradition while
making the most of the present.
Also located within the park is the Chalmette Battlefield, site of
the January 8, 1815 Battle of New Orleans, commonly regarded as the
last great battle of the War of 1812. On the battlefield grounds stands
Chalmette Monument, which pays tribute to the troops who fought there.
Along what remains of Rodriguez Canal is a re-creation of the rampart
that protected American troops from the British army as well as cannons
dating from the period and newer replicas.
A flagship unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and
Preserve is the Barataria Preserve: 20,000 acres of bayous and swamps
located near Marrero, just south of New Orleans. The preserve offers a
multitude of recreational opportunities, including kayaking, canoeing,
bird watching, hunting, and fishing. Visitors there can enjoy an
historic swampland environment within a very short drive of New
Orleans. They also have the opportunity to learn more about the vital
role wetlands play in protecting coastal areas.
Within the recently expanded boundaries of the Barataria Preserve
lies the Fleming Plantation: 4,000 acres of magnificent bayous,
bottomland hardwood, and marsh. The landowner was willing to include
the property in the recently passed expansion of the park and is now
willing to sell it to the NPS. The Fleming Plantation was one of the
region's largest and most productive 19th century sugar plantations.
One of the property's most notable features is the Fleming Cemetery.
Also known as the Berthoud Cemetery, it contains a large Indian shell
mound hidden on the bank of Bayou Barataria near the plantation house.
The Indian mound dates as far back as 500 B.C. Based on archeological
research, the presumed function of this prehistoric site was that of a
ceremonial center and village. In addition to the cemetery, the
property has a large one-story Creole cottage that was likely one of
the early plantation buildings. There are also remains of the
plantation sugarhouse--a tall brick chimney, covered in vines, standing
out amidst the large oak trees.
This land acquisition project has unprecedented support from local
communities, government, ecotourism groups, including bird watchers,
and from environmental organizations. The following support the Fleming
Plantation land acquisition project: Orleans Audubon Society, Baton
Rouge Audubon Society, Jefferson Parish Council of Garden Clubs, Better
Swamps and Gardens, Louisiana Ornithological Society, Gulf Restoration
Network, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, Coalition to Restore
Coastal Louisiana, Woodlands Trail and Park, The Nature Conservancy of
Louisiana, Louisiana Wildlife Federation, Inc., League of Women Voters
of Louisiana, Louisiana Audubon Council, National Audubon Society's
Louisiana Important Bird Areas Program, Gulf Coast Initiative of the
National Audubon Society, Baton Rouge Audubon Society, Delta Chapter of
Sierra Club (Louisiana), and Mayor Tim Kerner, Town of Jean Lafitte.
Acquisition of the Fleming Plantation would preserve an important
historic and ecological site and would lead to the restoration of
marshland on the property to absorb storm surges. Leaving the property
in its current state would perpetuate the existing threats from
hurricanes to natural areas as well as to developed areas of New
Orleans. The property hosts an abundance of migratory waterfowl, and
within its viewshed is Myrtle Grove, the site of the State's first
intended diversion project. Consequently, acquiring this land would
link the State's greater coastal protection and diversion building
effort. This will help protect the Louisiana coast and create marsh
habitat that would reduce potential damage from hurricane storm surges.
An appropriation of $2,000,000 from the LWCF in fiscal year 2011 is
needed towards the acquisition of the 4,000-acre Fleming Plantation.
Adding this historic terrain to the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park
would permanently protect this large environmentally and historically
important property.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Louisiana, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of OPERA America
Madame 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 114 American member companies.
We strongly urge you to support an increased appropriation of $180
million for the National Endowment for the Arts for fiscal year 2011.
This testimony and the funding examples described below are intended to
highlight the importance of Federal investment in the arts so critical
to sustaining a vibrant cultural community throughout the country.
Opera is a continuously growing art form that can address the
diverse needs and backgrounds of our communities. New opera companies
are being established in communities that have never before had access
to live performances. Seventy percent of the opera companies in
existence today have been established since 1960. The growth of the
field corresponds to the establishment and growth of the NEA. Over the
last 20 years, a rich repertoire of American operas has been created by
composers who communicate the American experience in contemporary
musical and dramatic terms. The growth in the number and quality of
American operas corresponds directly to the investment of the NEA in
the New American Works program of the former Opera-Music Theater
Program.
Past NEA funding has directly supported projects in which arts
organizations, artists, schools, and teachers collaborated to provide
opportunities for adults and children to create, perform, and respond
to artistic works. NEA funding has also made the art form more widely
available in all States, including isolated rural areas and inner
cities; indeed, NEA funded projects cross all racial, geographic, and
socioeconomic lines.
The following are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on
opera programs from the NEA's 2010 Access to Artistic Excellence
Program:
American Opera Projects, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, $10,000
To support the commission and developmental phase of Rosencrantz &
Guildenstern Are Dead, by composer and librettist Herschel Garfein and
stage direction by Mark Morris. Based on the 1966 play and 1990 film by
Tom Stoppard, the work will be transformed into a two-act opera for six
principal roles, three smaller roles, and 16 instrumentalists.
Atlanta Opera, Atlanta, Georgia, $20,000
To support a new production of Mozart's Die Zauberfloete (The Magic
Flute). The company will develop a program tailored for middle and high
school students of area public schools and an educational touring
production that will reach student and adult audiences in several
Atlanta public schools.
Austin Lyric Opera, Austin, Texas, $20,000
To support performances of L'Etoile (The Star), by Emmanuel
Chabrier. Education and outreach activities will accompany the
performances.
Boston Academy of Music (aka Opera Boston), Boston, Massachusetts,
$20,000
To support Opera Boston's world premiere of Madame White Snake, by
composer Zhou Long and librettist Cerise Lim Jacobs. The Chinese
community specifically will be targeted through educational and
outreach activities related to the production.
Boston Lyric Opera Company, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, $25,000
To support a new production of The Turn of the Screw, by Benjamin
Britten. Performances will be accompanied by community events through
partnerships with area Boston cultural institutions.
Cedar Rapids Opera Theatre, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, $15,000
To support a production of Salome, by Richard Strauss. The
production will be filmed in HD and broadcast statewide by Iowa Public
Television.
Central City Opera House Association, Denver, Colorado, $20,000
To support a new production of Three Decembers, by composer Jake
Heggie and librettist Gene Scheer. Based on an original text by
playwright Terrence McNally, the musical theater work combines spoken
text, soloists, and ensembles accompanied by an onstage chamber
orchestra.
Chicago Opera Theater, Chicago, Illinois, $20,000
To support a new production of Three Decembers, by composer Jake
Heggie and librettist Gene Scheer. Based on an original text by
playwright Terrence McNally, the musical theater work combines spoken
text, soloists, and ensembles with an onstage chamber orchestra.
Dallas Opera, Dallas, Texas, $25,000
To support a new production of Donizetti's Anna Bolena.
Accompanying outreach activities will include lectures, panel
discussions with the artists, and a radio broadcast on Classical WRR-
FM.
Des Moines Metro Opera, Inc., Indianola, Indiana, $15,000
To support the Opera Iowa Touring Educational Troupe. The program
will engage artists to reach students in underserved rural Midwestern
schools.
Florentine Opera Company, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, $20,000
To support an audio recording and performances of Elmer Gantry, by
composer Robert Aldridge and librettist Herschel Garfein. Naxos
International will create a compact disc recording for release in
November 2011 and digital tracks will be available for download.
Gotham Chamber Opera, Inc., New York, New York, $10,000
To support the commission, development, and premiere of Dark
Sisters, by composer Nico Muhly and librettist Stephen Karam. The opera
will serve as the centerpiece of the company's 10th anniversary season.
Hawaii Opera Theatre, Honolulu, Hawaii, $22,000
To support performances of Wagner's Die Walkuere (The Valkyrie).
The production marks the first time that an opera from The Ring cycle
will have been performed in the State, and it also will serve as a
focal point for the company's 50th anniversary season.
Houston Grand Opera Association, Inc., Houston, Texas, $30,000
To support performances of Puccini's Tosca. Educational components
will include pre-performance lectures, teacher workshop events, and
lecture presentations
Lyric Opera of Kansas City, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri, $15,000
To support performances of Verdi's Rigoletto. Education and
outreach activities will accompany the performances.
Madison Opera, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, $15,000
To support a production of The Turn of the Screw, by Benjamin
Britten. The production continues the initiative recently established
by the company to present chamber opera as an expansion of the
mainstage performance series.
Opera for the Young, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, $12,500
To support artists' fees for a multi-state tour of a new production
of Gilbert and Sullivan's The Pirates of Penzance. Diane Garton Edie
has condensed and adapted the operetta into a child-friendly version
without sacrificing essential story line, language, or representative
musical score.
San Francisco Opera Association, San Francisco, California, $100,000
To support Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Nibelung's Ring).
Educational outreach and enrichment activities will include an Insight
panel discussion in San Francisco's Herbst Theater featuring members of
the cast and production team and preview lectures that will be held at
various venues throughout the Bay Area.
Tulsa Opera, Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma, $16,500
To support a production of Don Quichotte, by Jules Massenet.
Various community outreach activities will coincide with the
production, such as small-scale preview performances in bookstores and
churches featuring Studio Artists, pre-curtain lectures, and school
programs.
Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending
Federal tax dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered
from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties, and its programs are
seriously underfunded. Therefore, we urge you to continue towards
restoration and increase the NEA funding allocation to $180 million for
fiscal year 2011.
On behalf of OPERA America, thank you for considering this request.
______
Prepared Statement of Preservation Action
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: thank you, Chairman
Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and other honorable members of the
subcommittee, for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the
fiscal year 2011 appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies.
We are writing to request adequate funding for our Nation's State
and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs)($55 million and $12
million respectively), the Save America's Treasures ($25 million) and
Preserve America ($4.6 million) programs (permanently authorized by
President Obama under Public Law 111-11 on March 30, 2009), as well as
for National Heritage Areas ($14.8 million).
We are very concerned about the proposed elimination of the Save
America's Treasures (SAT) and Preserve America (PA) programs and the
substantial reduction for National Heritage Areas in the
administration's fiscal year 2011 budget. We also wish to comment on
the termination language used by the administration for SAT and PA
which justifies their elimination by stating that it will enable the
NPS to ``. . . focus resources on managing national parks and other
activities that most closely align with its core mission.'' In our
opinion, these decisions that demonstrate a bias towards our natural
resources, at the expense of our cultural resources are in error,
particularly in the face of this administration's commitment to job
creation, helping small businesses and the combating of climate change.
SHPOs and THPOs--The Backbone of our Historic Preservation Program
(Awarded $46.5 Million and $8 Million in Fiscal Year 2010
Respectively via the Historic Preservation Fund)
SHPOs carry out the Federal historic preservation program that
provides citizens the tools needed to revitalize, rehabilitate, and
protect the places that give meaning to America. Funding for SHPOs
leverages investments through local jobs, non-Federal contributions and
long-term economic development. In 2009, the Rehabilitation Tax Credit,
administered by SHPOs, leveraged nearly $5 billion in private
investment and created more than 70,000 jobs. SHPOs also review Federal
projects for their potential impact on historic sites. A recent
February 2010 GAO report noted that SHPO staff shortages have delayed
various American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) projects. Even a
modest increase for SHPOs would help fund additional staff vital to
conducting ARRA reviews while still providing communities with the
means necessary to revitalize and preserve their heritage.
THPOs carry out many of the same functions as SHPOs in tribal
areas. There are currently 100 THPOs, compared to only 12 in fiscal
year 1996 when the program was first funded. Unfortunately, the amount
of funds appropriated is not keeping pace with this expansion. The
addition of new THPOs each year keeps the average level of support per
THPO suppressed at around $75,000, barely enough to operate a program.
Save America's Treasures (Awarded $25 Million in Fiscal Year 2010 via
the Historic Preservation Fund)
The SAT program was created in 1998 by Executive order to provide
matching funds for the restoration of resources significant to our
national heritage. With broad bipartisan support in Congress and the
leadership of the two previous administrations, SAT funds have brought
new life to irreplaceable historic treasures--including buildings,
documents and works of art--in every State. SAT has also provided
tremendous benefit to projects and sites such as Ellis Island, Valley
Forge, Thomas Edison's Invention Factory, Mesa Verde, Eleanor
Roosevelt's Val-Kill Cottage, Dr. Martin Luther King's Ebenezer Baptist
Church, and the Star Spangled Banner.
Since the program's creation, approximately $293.7 million has been
allocated specifically for the restoration of 1,132 historic
structures, many of them National Historic Landmarks. As a matching
grant program, this allocation has resulted in the generation of an
additional $377 million in private investment. Moreover, SAT projects
resulted in the creation of more than 16,000 jobs (defined as one full-
time equivalent job for 1 year), at the reasonable investment of
$13,780 per job.
In addition to the obvious benefit of preserving our Nation's
history, these jobs are most often created within small businesses in
the construction industry, which have been hard-hit by the recession.
Builders, plumbers, masons, and electricians are only a few of the
trades involved in historic preservation generating local jobs and
spending. In fact, dollar for dollar, building rehabilitation generates
more jobs than new construction.
Further, these are ``green jobs,'' as the restoration and
rehabilitation of existing buildings prevents the disposal of already
produced building materials and vastly improves energy efficiency.
Approximately 48 percent of our Nation's carbon emissions come from the
demolition, construction, and operation of buildings--almost twice as
much as from transportation (27 percent.) Nearly half of all greenhouse
gasses sent into the atmosphere come from buildings. If our Nation
wants to pursue a climate change policy, then we must make every
investment we can into the rehabilitation of existing buildings to
reduce the flow of materials into the waste stream, increase their
energy efficiency and revitalize and repopulate our cities.
Preserve America and National Heritage Areas (Awarded $4.6 Million and
$17.8 Million, Respectively, in Fiscal Year 2010 From the
National Recreation and Preservation Account)
Preserve America grants, administered by the National Park Service
(NPS), support projects in five categories: research and documentation,
planning, interpretation and education, marketing, and training. The
program helps local communities develop sustainable resource management
strategies and sound business practices for the continued preservation
and use of heritage assets. Successful projects feature public-private
partnerships and serve as models to communities nationwide for job
creation in heritage tourism, historic preservation and education, as
well as spurring economic development in the Preserve America
communities.
Funded activities have included rural or downtown survey and
documentation projects; way-finding, signage, and interpretive guides;
regional tourism planning and development initiatives; marketing and
promotion plans; and hospitality and docent training. Eligible
applicants include designated Preserve America Communities (of which
there are almost 800); SHPOs, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and
Certified Local Governments that are in the process of applying for
Preserve America Community designation.
National Heritage Areas, of which there are 49, are designated by
Congress because their natural, cultural, historic, and scenic
resources are considered uniquely representative of the American
experience. While the NPS provides technical assistance and funding, 85
percent of the support for National Heritage Areas comes from the
impacted regions through private, State, and local government sources.
The Federal seed monies have spurred grassroots conservation efforts
that are self-determining, self-defined and thereby reflective of their
individual values in a national context. Each program is customized
based upon the significance, threat, resources, and need of each
community.
Tourism is a major economic development and job creation tool. In
2006, travel and tourism generated $740 billion to the U.S. economy and
employed 8 million people. Approximately 55 percent of Preserve America
Grants have gone directly for heritage tourism development in small to
medium-size towns, 19 percent for rural heritage and preservation, and
12 percent for heritage tourism projects in larger urban areas. In
National Heritage Areas, as a result of direct and indirect sales, an
estimated 152,324 jobs are supported that pay $3.2 billion in wages and
salaries. Overall, cultural heritage travelers contribute $192 billion
annually to the U.S. economy. They contribute by paying not only for
plane tickets and hotel rooms; they support the small businesses
wherever they go.
The ``Core Mission'' of the NPS
The administration's justification of the elimination of SAT and PA
is ``so the NPS can focus resources on managing national parks and
other activities that most closely align with its core mission'' and
``a need to focus resources on national parks and lack of management''
was the reason cited for the reduction for National Heritage Areas.
There seems to be an assumption in this language that the NPS's primary
role is to focus on managing parks and that historic preservation
programs are a distraction. As such, this justification is troubling
and, at best, inaccurate.
The ``Organic Act of 1916'' created the NPS in the Department of
the Interior ``. . . to conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the
enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired.'' Over the years, the NPS's role in historic
preservation has naturally grown and expanded. Since 1933, the NPS has
managed the Historical American Buildings Survey, the Federal
Government's oldest historic preservation program responsible for the
creation of more than 556,900 measured drawings, large-format
photographs, and written histories for more than 38,600 historic
structures and sites. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
which forms the basis of our Nation's Federal historic preservation
program within the Department of the Interior, further expanded the
role of the NPS in the designation and maintenance of historic
resources. Coupled with the fact that the NPS is the steward of more
than 27,000 significant structures, 66,000 archaeological sites and 115
million objects in museum collections, one could argue that not only is
historic preservation an integral part of the mission of the NPS, it
helps define it.
The Historic Preservation Fund and the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF)
As the sub prepares to debate appropriations for fiscal year 2011,
it is important to consider the source of funding of our natural and
historic resource programs--the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) and
the LWCF.
The history of the HPF and the LWCF is interconnected. The LWCF was
established in 1965 for the acquisition and development of public
outdoor recreation areas and facilities. The source of funding is lease
revenue generated from oil and natural gas drilling on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS). Recognizing the need to protect our cultural
resources in concert with our natural resources, in 1976, the LWCF Act
was amended to include the Historic Preservation Fund to carry out the
purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Like the
LWCF, the HPF is funded from OCS lease revenue.
The LWCF is authorized and receives $900 million in deposits each
year, and the HPF $150 million. Subject to the annual appropriations
process, however, neither has ever received full appropriations--
leaving substantial balances in both funds that have yet to be used for
their intended purpose. In the fiscal year 2011 budget, the President
took an important and admirable step to move towards full funding of
the LWCF by proposing a 31 percent increase to $620 million and has
expressed his intention to reach full appropriation by 2014. In
contrast the HPF, which was funded at $79.5 million in fiscal year
2010, with the elimination of the SAT program, will realize a 25
percent decrease to $54.5 million--making it the lowest appropriation
in more than 10 years.
Funding for Historic Preservation Programs is in Line With This
Administration's Priorities
Our Nation's cultural resources and natural resources are both
important. A preference for one over the other would not only be short-
sighted, but once again, it would be in conflict with our desire to
create jobs, help small businesses and combat climate change.
We urge you to correct this error and restore funding at the fiscal
year 2010 levels of $25 million for the SAT program, $4.6 million for
PA and $17.8 million for National Heritage Areas. Further, we ask for a
commitment to move toward full and permanent appropriations from the
Historic Preservation Fund simultaneous with the move toward full and
permanent funding from the LWCF--acknowledging that both are of
importance to our Nation.
Preservation Action is a national nonprofit grassroots member
organization founded in 1974 representing a broad constituency of
community volunteers, Government officials and other professionals and
organizations dedicated to historic preservation, smart-growth,
community revitalization, and cultural resource management.
______
Prepared Statement of the Performing Arts Alliance
We urge the subcommittee to designate a total of $180 million to
the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2011. Mr.
Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am grateful
for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the Performing
Arts Alliance and its member organizations--American Music Center,
Association of Performing Arts Presenters, Chorus America, Dance/USA,
Fractured Atlas, League of American Orchestras, National Alliance for
Musical Theatre, National Performance Network, OPERA America, and
Theatre Communications Group. The Performing Arts Alliance is a
national network of more than 18,000 organizational and individual
members comprising the professional, nonprofit performing arts and
presenting fields. For more than 30 years, the Performing Arts Alliance
had advocated for national policies that recognize, enhance, and foster
the contributions the performing arts make to America.
This testimony is intended to highlight the importance of the
Federal investment in the arts in order to sustain a vibrant cultural
community. With more funding, the NEA's core programs could more
efficiently bring the best in the arts to all Americans:
--Additional funds would allow the size of individual grants to
increase, after having steadily declined since the NEA's budget
was cut by 40 percent in fiscal year 1996.
--Inadequate funding has caused many high-quality grant applications
to go unfunded.
The NEA increases opportunities for the American public to enjoy
and benefit from the performing arts. Since the establishment of the
NEA in 1965, access to the performing arts has improved in communities
large and small across the country. The NEA has helped foster the
development of the many regional theatres, opera companies, dance
companies, orchestras, and performing arts centers that Americans now
enjoy. Despite diminished resources, the NEA awards more than 1,700
grants annually to nonprofit arts organizations for projects that
encourage artistic creativity, provide lifelong learning opportunities,
and engage audiences in the finest the arts have to offer. This modest
public investment in the Nation's cultural life has resulted in both
new and classic works of art reaching all 50 States.
With additional funding, the NEA could do more. The NEA has never
recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in fiscal year 1996 and has
resulted in the underfunding of its programs. We are appreciative of
the increased support this Subcommittee provided for the NEA last year
and are already seeing benefits of increased access to public
performing art organizations and artists across the country. The live
arts bring communities together, encourage dialogue, and provide
innovation and education opportunities to generations of Americans.
the nonprofit performing arts community
The following member profiles of the Performing Arts Alliance,
which include national service organizations representing new music,
arts presenting, chorus, dance, musical theatre, opera, orchestras, and
theatre fields, exemplify the economic, educational, and quality of
life benefits that performing arts organizations bring to communities
across the country.
new music
American Music Center (AMC) is dedicated to building a national
community of artists, organizations, and audiences, creating,
performing, and enjoying new American music. Since its founding in
1939, AMC has been a leader in providing field-wide advocacy, support,
and connection. AMC supports the community by making grants to
composers and ensembles each year and by offering professional
development resources for new music professionals. AMC connects the
community through an array of information services and through
engagement with the broader performing arts field, providing benefits
and services for nearly 2,400 members in all 50 States and 25 countries
around the world.
arts presenters
Performing arts presenters bring professional performing artists
from all over the world into the communities they serve. They include
organizations such as performing arts centers in major urban cities,
academic institutions, artists, artist managers, agents, local arts
agencies, touring artists and companies, and festivals and fairs. Arts
presenters facilitate the interaction between artists and audiences,
support the creation and touring of new works, and are civically
engaged in their communities. The Association of Performing Arts
Presenters (Arts Presenters), a national service and advocacy
organization, represents an industry of more than 7,000 nonprofit and
for-profit organizations, with members hailing from all 50 States and
28 countries on 6 continents across the globe. Arts Presenters' members
bring performances to more than 2 million audience-goers each week and
spend in excess of $2.5 billion annually, and the field of presenters
serves more than 6 million audience members every week. Their
membership includes a range of organizations from very small presenting
groups (under $50,000 budgets) to multi-million dollar budgets and
individuals who are artists or performing arts professionals,
representing a diversity of fields, which include all forms of dance,
music, theatre, family programming, puppetry, circus, magic,
attractions, and performance art.
chorus
Chorus America's mission is to build a dynamic and inclusive choral
community so that more people are transformed by the beauty and power
of choral singing. Chorus America strengthens choral organizations and
provides their leaders with information, research, leadership
development, professional training, and advocacy to help them deliver
the best possible contributions to their communities and to the choral
art. The more than 1,600 choruses, individuals, and businesses that are
members of Chorus America speak with a strong and unified voice to
increase recognition of choral singing as an essential part of society.
dance
There are now more than 600 fully professional dance companies in
the United States. But only 15 percent of the United States' major
professional dance companies are 45 years old or more. As an
established art form with national identity and presence, dance has
burst onto the scene almost entirely within living memory. And yet, the
United States can boast some of the great dance companies in the world.
The key to this spectacular achievement was the creation of a national
marketplace for dance, especially in the 1970s and 1980s. When the NEA
instituted its Dance Touring Program in the 1970s, great dance became
accessible to every community in the United States NEA programs have
continued to ensure that the best of American dance is for all of the
United States and a showpiece for the rest of the world as well. In
addition to the more than 600 professional dance companies, the United
States has more than 1,000 pre-professional and semi-professional
groups. Based on a 2008 survey conducted by Dance/USA of 145 companies
with expense budgets of $500,000 or more, these 145 dance companies:
employed more than 7,000 people in a mix of full-time and part-time
positions, performed for total home audiences of nearly 4 million
people, paid approximately $321.4 million in wages and benefits, and
received $10.4 million from State, local, and government contributions,
representing only 2 percent of total income.
fractured atlas
Fractured Atlas is a nonprofit organization that serves a national
community of artists and arts organizations. Their programs and
services facilitate the creation of art by offering vital support to
the artists who produce it, and they help artists and arts
organizations function more effectively as businesses by providing
access to funding, healthcare, education, and more, all in a context
that honors their individuality and spirit. Their fiscal sponsorship
program has grown from six local groups to more than 1,800 nationally,
and in 2010 their membership topped 11,000 artists and arts
organizations, with an expanded audience of 110,000 through their Open
Arts Network. Fractured Atlas has been an arts industry leader in the
use of technology to address challenges facing the arts community,
share information and resources, and empower arts organizations with
practical tools for managing their operations.
musical theatre
National Alliance for Musical Theatre (NAMT) is the national
service organization dedicated exclusively to musical theatre and
serving some of the leading musical theatre producers in the world.
Last season, NAMT members collectively staged more than 25,000
performances attended by more than 13 million people, employed 13,000
people, and provided education programs for more than 1 million
students and teachers. NAMT has presented its Festival of New Musicals
annually since 1989, bringing together theatre producers and writers,
with the goal of furthering the development and production of new
musicals. NAMT's Festival has showcased more than 300 writers and 200
new musicals, which have had thousands of subsequent productions
worldwide.
national performance network
The National Performance Network (NPN) is a group of diverse
cultural organizers, including artists, working to create meaningful
partnerships and to provide leadership that enables the practice and
public experience of the contemporary arts in the United States. As a
nationwide network, NPN functions as an applied learning community.
NPN's resources currently support and connect 61 performing arts
organizations, called NPN Partners, in more than 36 cities across the
country. The NPN constituency ranges from two-person operations to
multi-million dollar arts centers. NPN Partners are ethnically,
culturally, and stylistically diverse and reflect a cross-section of
urban, suburban, and rural communities that are generally under-
represented. More than 425,000 audience members have attended NPN-
sponsored performances and more than 285,000 people have participated
in NPN residency activities.
opera
OPERA America members are found in communities all across the
country--a total of 117 companies in 43 States. In the United States,
more than half of these companies were established after 1970, and one
quarter of the total were established since 1980, making the growth of
opera throughout North America a relatively new phenomenon. American
opera companies are well-known for their innovative and exemplary
education and outreach programs, many of which are funded in part with
NEA grants. Virtually all U.S. opera companies run such programs in
their communities. Opera companies help fill the void left by
discontinued arts education in many public school systems and can help
young people communicate the realities of their lives via disciplined
artistic expression. The audience for education and community programs
served by United States and Canadian companies during the 2007-08
season totaled more than 2.2 million people. All together, the opera
companies of America provide more than 55,000 jobs each year and had
expense budgets more than $826 million for the 2007-08 season.
orchestras
In its more than 40-year history, the NEA has provided invaluable
leadership and support for musicians, orchestras, and the communities
they serve through direct grants, support to state arts agencies, and
national leadership initiatives. Supported by a network of musicians,
volunteers, administrators, and community leaders, America's adult,
youth, and college orchestras total more than 1,800, existing in every
State and territory, in cities and rural areas alike. More than half a
million individuals are involved in orchestras, including conductors,
staff, board members, musicians, and volunteers. The NEA's fiscal year
2009 grants to organizations included 119 grants to orchestras and the
communities they serve, supporting arts education for children and
adults, expanding public access to performances, preserving great
classical works, and fostering the creative endeavors of contemporary
classical musicians, composers, and conductors. In addition to
concerts, orchestras offer more than 40 different kinds of programs for
their communities, including pre-school programs, in-depth, multi-year
community residencies, long-term partnerships with schools,
instrumental instruction, educational classes for seniors, and programs
in hospitals and libraries.
theatre
In 1961, nonprofit theatre in America consisted of only 16 theatre
companies. Today, thanks in large part to the pivotal role played by
the NEA, the number of theatre companies is estimated to be more than
1,900. Almost every Pulitzer Prize winning play since 1976 originated
at an NEA-funded theatre. Theatre Communications Group (TCG), the
national organization for the American nonprofit theatre, reports that
the estimated 1,919 theatres in the United States employ more than
131,000 workers--actors, directors, playwrights, designers,
administrators, and technicians--and constitute a more than $1.9
billion industry. Collectively, these theatres are estimated to have
offered 202,000 performances that attracted 32 million patrons. TCG
offers grants to theatres and theatre artists, conducts research on the
health of the nonprofit theatre field, convenes various meetings around
the country to bring theatre professionals together, serves as the U.S.
Center of the International Theatre Institute to promote international
cultural exchange, produces a wide array of publications about and for
the theatre field, and serves as the primary national advocate for the
nonprofit professional theatre field. Based on recent surveys of 196
nonprofit theatres, TCG reports that more than 1,200 outreach and
educational programs are in existence today, serving more than 2.7
million people--including a large number of at-risk children.
conclusion
Performing arts organizations are a vital component of community
life, allowing citizens to appreciate our Nation's culture and heritage
through excellent artistic programming. The arts illuminate the human
condition, our history, contemporary issues, and our future. The NEA is
an investment that realizes significant returns on the Federal dollars
invested, both measurable and intangible. We urge you to designate no
less than $180 million to the NEA. Thank you for your consideration of
our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pocono Heritage Land Trust
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of
acquiring land at Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in
Pennsylvania. An appropriation of $2.95 million is needed in fiscal
year 2011 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in order for the
National Park Service to acquire the 167-acre Mosier's Knob property.
I am president of Pocono Heritage Land Trust, a nonprofit
conservation group based in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The land trust
was founded in 1984 to preserve environmentally sensitive lands in the
Pocono region of northeastern Pennsylvania, and it plays an active role
in open-space protection programs funded by Monroe County and the
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. As of
March 2010 Pocono Heritage Land Trust owns or holds conservation
easements (protection agreements) on 11 separate properties totaling
more than 3,000 acres of land in Monroe and Lackawanna counties,
Pennsylvania. PHLT strongly supports the effort to purchase additional
acreage for the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in the
vicinity of Shawnee-on-Delaware, Pennsylvania.
The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area is a natural and
recreational treasure in the mid-Atlantic section of the Appalachian
Mountains. At roughly 70,000 acres, it is the largest national park
unit between Maine and Virginia. The park's proximity to the
metropolitan areas of northern New Jersey, New York City, and
Philadelphia helps it attract more than 5 million visitors annually.
Attractions include scenic viewpoints along major thoroughfares,
hiking, biking, hunting, fishing, camping, and many opportunities to
learn about the many historical and cultural sites in the park. The
park also includes 27 miles of the Appalachian Trail.
Within the park boundary, there are a number of privately owned
properties that face potential development. Acquisition of these
inholdings from willing sellers allows the National Park Service to
consolidate ownership and improve management of forest, habitat, and
recreational resources. In fiscal year 2011, the National Park Service
has the opportunity to acquire the 167-acre Mosier's Knob property in
Smithfield Township, Pennsylvania.
The Mosier's Knob property is immediately adjacent to the boundary
of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and situated along a
ridge overlooking the Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational
River, a designated unit of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The property has abundant natural resources and wildlife habitat, which
consists of forested lands that drain into Shawnee Creek to the north
and the Delaware River to the south. The Shawnee Creek watershed
supports wetlands, rare plants, and a wide variety of wildlife species,
including amphibians, reptiles, and aquatic species that are identified
by the State of Pennsylvania and nationally as species of special
concern. All of these species would benefit from managing the property
for conservation and open space. The property also intersects two sites
identified in the Monroe County Natural Areas Inventory as important to
conserving the biological diversity of the county and state. These
natural area sites contain one or more species of special concern and
are recognized as locations that should be managed as protected
conservation lands.
Nearby recreational opportunities include picnicking, swimming, and
walking the McDade Trail. Fishing and boating on the Delaware River are
major recreational activities that take place throughout much of the
year. A few scenic roadways run parallel to the river along the ridge
of the mountain and provide amazing viewsheds of the river and
landscape vistas of the park. Purchase of the property would reduce the
number of additional roadways and driveways associated with any
development, thereby eliminating air and water quality impacts, noise
pollution, and any intrusion upon the night sky.
Residential development continues to be a concern in the area
around Shawnee-on Delaware. The Mosier's Knob parcel, for example, is
owned by a development company and is part of a larger development plan
for the valley. Without Federal protection, it is likely the landowner
will develop the property. Development on Mosier's Knob would
dramatically impact one of the park's most important viewsheds. A
viewshed analysis conducted by the park determined that development
would be visible both day and night from the Appalachian National
Scenic Trail. Residential or commercial development in the Mosier's
Knob area has the potential to degrade the water and environmental
resources within the national park. Stormwater runoff and an increase
in potential flooding could have devastating effects on the fragile
natural resources within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation
Area.
An appropriation of $2.95 million to the National Park Service in
fiscal year 2011 for the acquisition of the Mosier's Knob property
would consolidate ownership and improve management of forested areas
within the park, protect wildlife habitat, enhance local park and trail
networks, and protect the watershed of the Delaware River within the
national recreation area.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation's premier
Federal program to acquire and protect lands at national parks,
forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and
recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the
public with substantial social and economic benefits including
promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking
water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting the
adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these
reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to the program
in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration's
commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing
the many demands this subcommittee faces, I also want to thank the
committee for its recent effort to restore much-needed funding to this
depleted program. This wise investment in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund is one that will permanently pay dividends to the
American people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Pennsylvania, and I appreciate your consideration
of this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pelican Island Preservation Society
The Pelican Island Preservation Society, an all-volunteer group
with more than 350 members, mission is to support the Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge. Our organization is greatly concerned about
the major funding deficit for operations and maintenance (O&M) facing
the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and the severe impact this
is having on the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge and other
refuges in the system. Our request is that O&M funding be increased to
$578 million in fiscal year 2011.
I wish to thank the subcommittee for your support over the past 3
fiscal years in recommending meaningful increases in funding for the
NWRS. Those increases have served to partially stabilize a critical
funding deficit which resulted in major losses of personnel and a
significant loss of capability to manage refuges. While the increases
have provided some relief, major funding problems still exist and
sizeable annual increases in O&M funding must be forthcoming if the
system is ever to reach its full potential. In fact, the
administration's budget request represents a cut in O&M funding
compared to fiscal year 2010. Essentially, the funding level requested
by the administration represents a $18.3million step backward in terms
of spending power.
Inadequate funding has historically severely hampered the ability
of the Fish and Wildlife Service to effectively manage refuges. The
current backlog of approximately $3.7 billion in operations and
maintenance needs is a direct result of many decades of neglect in the
budgetary arena. This backlog must be addressed in an aggressive
manner.
On our local level, inadequate funding has significantly affected
refuge management programs. A central staff currently manages three
refuges--Pelican Island, Archie Carr, and Lake Wales Ridge. In 2003 the
staff reached its record high level of six permanent full-time
employees plus temporaries. As a result of the funding crunch, the
staff was reduced to two permanent positions. Recent funding increases
have allowed increasing the staff to three permanent full-time
employees and two term employees. Five employees to manage three
refuges, two of which are urban in nature, simply doesn't provide the
manpower needed to do an acceptable job of refuge management. No one on
the staff has law enforcement authority which makes it very difficult
to protect refuge resources. To complicate management problems, Lake
Wales Ridge is located 100 miles (a 2-hour drive) from the refuge
office in Vero Beach. No one is stationed at Lake Wales Ridge.
The role that refuges can play in helping to alleviate current
economic problems should not be overlooked. There are major economic
factors associated with the management of refuges. The NWRS attracts 41
million visitors annually who generate over $1.7 billion for local
economies, including 27,000 jobs and approximately $543 million in
employment income. Further, on the average refuges return $4 of
economic activity for each $1 appropriated for their operation.
Continued underfunding of refuges will result in negative impacts on
local economies--something to consider during the tough economic times
facing our country.
Invasive species are a major problem facing refuge managers.
Despite added emphasis on identification and control, valuable wildlife
habitats continue to be lost. We urge the subcommittee to continue its
strong support for the control of invasive species.
I urge the subcommittee to support an allocation of $300 million to
the Fish and Wildlife Service budget for land acquisition through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. The acquisition of important habitat
for endangered species and other fish and wildlife has been severely
reduced in recent years due to very low allocations. The increased
funding level in fiscal year 2010 represents a turn in the right
direction; however, we need to build on that and then maintain a
sustained funding level in the area of $300 million into the future.
In summary, the NWRS is facing a severe funding deficit which
should be addressed in an aggressive manner. I ask that the
subcommittee support increased O&M funding for the NWRS to $578 million
in fiscal year 2011. Further, I ask that the subcommittee support an
allocation of $300 million from the LWCF for refuge land acquisition in
fiscal year 2011.
______
Prepared Statement of the Public Lands Foundation
Senator Feinstein: We thank you for this opportunity to present
your subcommittee with our views regarding the Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM) budget request for fiscal year 2011. As a national,
non-profit organization comprised principally of retired, but still
dedicated, BLM employees, the Public Lands Foundation (PLF) has a
unique body of experience, expertise and knowledge of public land
management. As retirees, we believe we offer an objective and
nonbureaucratic view of what is currently happening on the National
System of Public Lands (NSPL). The PLF supports the BLM and its
programs, but we are independent in our views and requests. We strive
to improve the effectiveness of BLM by encouraging (1) professionalism
of its employees; (2) increasing public understanding; and (3) proper
scientific management of lands administered by BLM.
Overview
Some of the most significant management challenges for BLM stem
from rapid population and urban growth in the West and accompanying
increased demands for access and use of the NSPL. The BLM's customers
are as diverse as the natural resources the Bureau manages.
The public lands provide the Nation with opportunities for
expanding the development of renewable energy as well as traditional
needs for oil, natural gas, coal, non-energy minerals, grazing land and
timber. Recreation, wildlife, wild horses, cultural resources and
special places are significant attributes of those lands as well.
Management activities contribute to the vitality of State and local
economies, generating an expected $4.5 billion in revenues for 2011,
mostly from energy development.
Budget Overview
The PLF is pleased with several aspects of the overall budget
request for the BLM. In particular we are pleased to see increases in
two important areas, the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS)
and the inspection and enforcement processes associated with oil and
gas development.
The NLCS is unique and comprised of treasured landscapes,
designated for their outstanding cultural, ecological and scientific
values. These areas range from red-rock deserts, rocky coasts, and deep
river canyons to high mountains and arctic tundra. Management of the
NLCS has long been underfunded.
We believe the Secretary's recently announced onshore oil and gas
reforms will assist in restoring balance on the public lands, while
ensuring continued production of critical energy resources. The shift
toward greater funding of inspection and enforcement of oil and gas
development has long been overdue. The fees proposed in the BLM's
budget will help to offset the cost increasing oil and gas inspection
and enforcement activities.
We are also pleased to see increases for land acquisition,
renewable energy permit processing, the Youth in Natural Resources
Initiative, climate change adaptation strategies and the Secretary's
proposal to eliminate the sunset date for the Federal Land Transaction
Facilitation Act (FLTFA) and to allow lands identified in newer BLM
land use plans as suitable for disposal to be sold using FLTFA
authority.
However, we have a number of concerns with other parts of this
budget proposal.
Challenge Cost Share (CCS)
Historically, the BLM has used CCS to fund small, locally based,
partnership work. Most CCS grants from BLM have been less than $5,000
each. Most of this money has been used to restore degraded habitats by
purchasing needed materials and utilizing the labor of local
communities and organizations to implement the restoration. These sorts
of projects have been the backbone of efforts to restore sage grouse
and other sensitive habitats.
We understand the concerns of the Inspector General, but greater
emphasis and requirements for improving accounting and reporting of
expenditures and accomplishments would be superior to ending this
critical program.
Absorption of Fixed Costs
The absorption of $15.9 million of fixed costs will have
significant impacts for all BLM programs. This type of absorption
serves as a tax across all programs and significantly erodes capacity
to accomplish much critical work in smaller programs.
Wild Horses and Burros
We are supportive of the Secretary's proposal as an interim
solution. The proposed increase of $12 million for the program will
definitely help, but we are a bit skeptical of the $42.5 million
request for land acquisition in the East and Mid-West as a long-term
solution. We believe that the best solution can only come from
gathering individual stakeholders together and coming up with a
solution in the West where the horses belong.
Land Use Planning
The reduction of $8.2 million for land use planning will have
lasting impact on future decisions on public lands administered by the
BLM. Designed to last for 15 to 20 years, new or revised land use plans
will be few and far between. The primary tool the BLM has to affect
long term change on public lands is land use planning, thus the
Administration is giving up a significant opportunity to improve
management direction and future decisions for units of the NLCS and
other areas of the NSPL. The reduction of $1 million for travel
management planning is troublesome, since this process is essential to
improving management of off highway vehicles, a concern of everyone.
Alaska Conveyance
The reduction of $13 million from the Alaska Conveyance Program
will be devastating to the BLM in Alaska and the U.S. Government's
commitment to the State of Alaska, the Native Corporations and
individual native allottees to transfer lands that have been promised
to them for decades. This would be roughly a 20 percent reduction in
land transfer capability and will result in reductions in force and a
loss of 638 Survey Contracts for many small villages in Alaska.
Hazardous Fuels Reduction
The Department of the Interior maintains budget control for fire
funding for BLM and other Bureaus. The Department's proposal to reduce
funding for hazardous fuels reduction by $42.6 million and Burned Area
Rehabilitation by $2 million is inconceivable to us. At a time when the
Secretary proposes to focus the Department on climate change, the
budget proposes to reduce the most significant tool the BLM and other
Bureaus have to reduce the impacts of climate change. The spread of
invasive species such as cheat grass will go unchecked. The budget also
proposes to focus remaining funds on projects in the Wildland Urban
Interface only. This will result in more catastrophic wild fires on the
majority of public lands across the West. Fires will be larger, burn
more quickly and frequently if this reduction stands.
Mr. Chairman, we hope these comments and concerns assist you in
budget deliberations for the fiscal year 2011 budget for the BLM. We
remain sincere in our efforts to assure proper management of the
National System of Public Lands.
______
Prepared Statement of the Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute of
Florida, Inc.
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Thomas Creek--Northeast Florida Timberlands project in Florida. An
appropriation of $3.5 million from the Forest Legacy Program is needed
in order to protect the first 294 acres of a 588-acre property. I am
thankful that this project was included in the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2011 at a funding level of $3.5 million.
It goes without saying that the State of Florida has experienced
tremendous growth in recent decades, and one of the results of that
growth has been the diminution of the State's forested lands. Among the
goals of Florida's Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is the mitigation of the
rapid loss of environmentally important forests through the
conservation of these forested communities. Statewide this effort is
focused specifically on lands threatened by permanent conversion to
nonforest uses and where partnerships complement existing land
conservation efforts. In North Florida, FLP goals are expanded to
include the support of sustainable forestry practices, a focus on
riverine systems, the conservation of critical fish and wildlife
habitat, and outreach to private nonindustrial forest landowners. This
year the State of Florida has submitted a Forest Legacy project, Thomas
Creek--Northeast Florida Timberlands, which meets these important state
and regional goals.
Northeastern Florida is home to a diverse coastal ecosystem of
marshes, wetlands, river corridors, forests, and uplands. The landscape
has featured centuries of history through the Pre-Columbian, European
colonization, and American periods. Given the presence of the large and
growing population of Jacksonville in the center of the dynamic
ecosystem, much of the conservation in the region is a cooperative
effort among Federal, State, and local agencies, private landowners,
and interested organizations. A centerpiece of this cooperative
approach is the Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve (EHP), a
unique preserve created by Congress in 1988 that extends more than
46,000 acres at the mouths of the St. Johns and Nassau rivers.
The City of Jacksonville is leading an initiative with the National
Park Service, the State of Florida, and private partners to protect a
1,780-acre forested property south of Thomas Creek and adjacent to
Timucuan EHP. Within this larger effort, 588 acres have been proposed
for acquisition by the City of Jacksonville as part of the Forest
Legacy Program. In fiscal year 2011, the President's budget includes
the first 294-acre phase of this Forest Legacy property, which has a
one-half mile border with Jacksonville's Bear Branch Preserve on its
western side. On its northern flank lies State-owned conservation land
within Timucuan EHP along Thomas Creek. The property also includes a
portion of the site of the 1777 Battle of Thomas Creek, known as the
southernmost continental encounter between the Americans and British
during the Revolutionary War.
The City plans to manage the Forest Legacy property for recreation,
wildlife habitat, water quality protection, and sustainable forestry
purposes. Eight miles of existing logging trails would be available for
hiking and other recreational uses such as camping and hunting. The
project area includes hardwood marshes along one-half mile of Bear
Branch, a tributary of Thomas Creek. The slash pine and loblolly pine
found on much of the tract are currently managed as a working forest.
The City will continue sustainable forestry on the tract, recognizing
the importance of forestry in the economy of northern Florida.
The landscape provides habitat for many notable species including
bald eagle, wood duck, hooded merganser, deer, turkey, and quail.
Bobcats have been sighted in the area. The watershed is also thought to
have habitat suitable for wood storks, gopher tortoises, flatwoods
salamanders, and eastern indigo snakes, all Federal or State-listed
threatened or endangered species. West Indian manatees are known to
frequent the waters of Thomas Creek and the preservation of this land
would aid in protecting the water quality for this endangered species'
habitat. Additionally, a number of Species of Greatest Conservation
Need, as listed in the Florida Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy, have been identified on the property, including little blue
heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and white ibis.
Because of its links to the Nassau River watershed, the State of
Florida has listed this area as a priority for acquisition and
conservation through the Florida Forever Program. The project area,
known as the Northeast Florida Timberlands and Watershed Reserve,
covers forested watershed land in Nassau, Duval, and Clay counties. The
reserve was categorized in September 2008 by the state as an ``A'' list
priority acquisition area and as 1 of 21 projects listed as highest
priority. The goal of the reserve is to provide a wildlife and
recreation corridor and a growth boundary for the rapidly growing
Jacksonville area.
In addition to Timucuan EHP and Bear Branch Preserve, the larger
1,780-acre property is within the vicinity of several other public
facilities and sites. About a mile to the west is the 526-acre
Jacksonville National Cemetery. Authorized by Congress in 2003, the
cemetery opened in January 2009. Jacksonville International Airport and
facilities of the Florida Air National Guard are about 1.5 miles to the
south.
This key location also poses significant development threats to the
area. The airport is a large economic generator in the region, and
lands around it are expected to see high rates of growth in upcoming
years. The property also has proximity to Interstate 95, allowing for
easy access to the rest of the Jacksonville metropolitan area. In fact,
zoning is in place to convert the property into a golf course and
residential community of 800 homes. But for the current downturn in the
economy, this land would be well on its way to being developed within
the next five years. These threats to the property will only increase
in the future given its accessibility and population and economic
growth trends.
An appropriation of $3.5 million from the Forest Legacy Program in
fiscal year 2011 is needed to begin the protection of the recreational,
historical, and natural resources of the Thomas Creek--Northeast
Florida Timberlands property. The City of Jacksonville will provide $2
million to match the funds provided by the Forest Legacy Program for
the first phase of this project.
I urge you to do all you can to ensure that this worthwhile program
is funded adequately in fiscal year 2011 and that the Thomas Creek--
Northeast Florida Timberlands project receives $4 million in fiscal
year 2011.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Florida, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Mr. Chairman, my name is Herman Dillon, Sr., Tribal Chairman of the
Puyallup Tribe of Indians. We thank the subcommittee for past support
of many tribal issues and in your interest today. We share our concerns
and request assistance in reaching objectives of significance to the
Congress, the tribe, and to 25,000+ Indians (constituents) in our urban
service area.
U.S. Department of Interior--Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).--The
Puyallup Tribe submits the following detailed written testimony to the
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies. We look forward to working with Congress to insure that
funding levels for programs necessary for the Puyallup Tribe to carry-
out our sovereign responsibility of self-determination and self-
governance for the benefit of the 4,004 Puyallup tribal members and the
members from approximately 355 federally recognized tribes who utilize
our services are included in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement.--The Puyallup Reservation is
located in the urbanized Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of
Washington. The 18,061 acre reservation encompasses most of the City of
Tacoma, but the area 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 Puyallup Tribe also provides
services for the 4,004 tribal members and 25,000+ Native Americans from
more than 355 tribes and Alaskan Villages. The Puyallup Nation Law
Enforcement Division currently has a Chief of Police, 26 commissioned
officers and 2 reserve officers to cover 40 square miles of reservation
in addition to the usual and accustomed areas. Due to limited Federal
funding for law enforcement in Indian Country, only 2 officers are
funded with Public Law 93-638 funds. The remaining Patrol Officers (26)
and Detention Officers (9) positions are funded by the tribe. The total
cost of law enforcement services, including facilities operations and
maintenance, exceeds $5.7 million per year. These costs are paid for
with tribal earned income. With the continuing increase in population,
increase in gang related activities on the Puyallup Reservation and the
impact of the manufacturing of methamphetamines in the region, the
services of the Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division are exceeding
maximum levels.
A major area of concern has been the status of the tribe's
detention facility. Due to damages from the February 2001 Nisqually
earthquake, we have had to relocate to modular/temporary facilities.
Operated as a ``regional detention facility'' the Puyallup Tribe was
able to provide detention service to surrounding tribes. Since the
relocation to modular facilities the tribe's ability to effectively and
safely incarcerate detainee's has been compromised due to the condition
of the temporary detention facilities. These conditions have been
verified by a recent inspection by the BIA. with a recommendation that
no further funds be allocated to try and bring the facility up to any
standard. In an effort to protect the safety and welfare of the native
community the Puyallup Tribe has initiated the design and construction
of a 46,697 square foot ``Justice Center'' to be located on the
Puyallup Indian Reservation. The total construction cost of the Justice
Center is estimated at $23.8 million, is being designed for a
``phased'' implementation and will provide necessary facilities for the
delivery of judiciary services including a tribal court, court clerk,
prosecution, probation, public defender and law enforcement services
including Police Headquarters and a 17,465 square foot, 28-bed ``Adult
Detention facility'' (phase I). The tribe was successful in securing
fiscal year 2009 Department of Justice ARRA Correctional Facilities on
Tribal Lands Program: Construction of Detention Facilities for Adult
and Juvenile Offenders funding in the amount of $7,936,648 for the
construction of the 28-bed Adult Detention facility. An additional $1.1
million necessary for the completion of phase (I) is being provided
with Tribal Revenues. It is anticipated that this facility will come
on-line at the beginning of fiscal year 2012 with an estimated
operations and maintenance cost of $1.3 million. The Puyallup Tribe has
commenced the process of submitting a Public Law 93-638 contract
request to the BIA for O&M funding for the facility. In order to
complete the tribe's ``Justice Center'' approximately $14.8 million is
necessary for the construction of the Law Enforcement facility (Phase
II) and the Judicial/Tribal Court Center (Phase III).
--Request subcommittee support to increase funding to the BIA Public
Safety and Justice Law Enforcement at the fiscal year 2010
enacted budget level of $52 million and further request that
the BIA transfer law enforcement back into tribal priority
allocations (TPA);
--Support from the subcommittee on the tribe's Public Law 93-638
contract request to the BIA for operations and maintenance
funding for the tribe's adult detention facility, estimated at
an annual cost of $1.3 million;
--Support from the subcommittee to fund the Tribal Courts budget in
the fiscal year 2011 budget at no less than $25 million and
request that the subcommittee issue directive language to BIA
to include increased funding for the tribal courts fiscal year
2012 budget to allow for construction/renovation of tribal
court facilities.
Fisheries, Wildlife and Natural Resources Management.--The Puyallup
Tribe as steward 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 regional community. Despite our diligent program
efforts, the fisheries resource is degrading and economic losses are
incurred by Indian and non-Indian fisherman, 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.
Resource management is constrained due to funding shortfalls. We seek
Committee support and endorsement in the following areas:
--Tribal fisheries resource management, hatchery operation and
maintenance funding via Public Law 93-638 contracts have not
increased substantially since establishment of base budgets in
1984. The demand on Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Program has grown
exponential since the eighties and is currently faced by
Endangered Species Act listings on numerous species. We request
and concur with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission that
increases in fiscal year 2010 rights protection implementation
funding be used to establish new base management funding for
fiscal year 2011. We further support the existing BIA hatchery
maintenance and rehabilitation and the hatchery reform
implementation be funded at the proposed fiscal year 2011
budget level;
--Steelhead numbers throughout the south Puget Sound region have
diminished markedly over the past 20 years. Generally, harvest
management restrictions in the form of fishing closures, wild
fish release regulations and curtailed seasons and/or bag
limits have been enacted to protect wild stock. To avoid
possible extinction the Puyallup Tribe proposes to construct a
steelhead enhancement facility to be located on a 13-acre
property owned by the tribe on Wilkeson Creek in eastern Pierce
County. The program will be capped at rearing 150,000 smolts on
a combination of surface and pumped well water. The steelhead
will be reared for approximately 15 months. This project will
facilitate the Puyallup Tribe and other resource agencies
involved to help stave of extinction of wild winter steelhead
in the Puyallup Watershed. We request subcommittee support to
appropriate $1.426 million for the Wilkeson Creek Property
Steelhead Hatchery Project;
--Washington Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program--United States/Canada
Pacific Salmon Treaty.--The TFW and the United States/Canada
Pacific Salmon Treaty programs has allowed for the expansion of
tribal participation in the State forest practice rules and
regulations and participate in inter-tribal organizations to
address specific treaties and/or legal cases which relate to
fishing rights, harvest and management. We request subcommittee
support to provide funding for the TFW and United States/Canada
Pacific Salmon Treaty at the fiscal year 2010 enacted budget
level;
--Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights Program.--Tribal Wildlife
Management has been the lead agency in management activities to
benefit the South Rainier elk herd since 2004. The South
Rainier elk herd is the primary stock of elk harvested by the
Puyallup Tribe. The Tribe has not only established more
reliable methods for population monitoring, but has also been
proactive in initiating habitat enhancement projects, research,
and land acquisition to ensure sustainable populations of elk
for generations. Funds that have been made available to the
tribe have been on a very competitive basis with a limited
amount per program via USFWS Tribal Wildlife Grants and BIA
Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights Grants. We request
subcommittee support to provide fiscal year 2011 base funding
in the amount of $100,000 for the wildlife management program
budget.
Operation of Indian Programs and Contract Support Costs.--The
President's fiscal year 2011 budget needs increased funding for the
BIA--Operation of Indian Programs. Within the Operations of Indian
Programs is the TPA. The TPA budget functions include the majority of
funding used to support on-going services at the ``local tribal''
level, including; law enforcement, natural resources management, child
welfare, housing, tribal courts, and other tribal governmental
services. These functions have not received adequate funding to allow
tribes the resources to fully exercise self-determination and self-
governance. Further, the small increases ``TPA'' has received over the
past few years have not been adequate to keep pace with inflation. At a
minimum, we request your support and endorsement in the following:
--Support by the subcommittee to fund operation of Indian programs
fiscal year 2011 request of $2.4 billion and fund Contract
Support costs at 100 percent level;
--Tribal communities have some of the greatest needs in the areas of
child abuse and neglect and mental health services. Addressing
the current unmet needs in providing services to our most
vulnerable and victims of abuse should be a priority of all
people. The Puyallup Tribe proposes the development of a Child
Advocacy Center and Domestic Abuse Center designed to provide
services for children, youth and families in need of child
welfare, mental health and juvenile justice services. We
request Committee support to increase funding for Indian Child
Welfare (TPA) by $45 million; Increase Urban Indian Child
Welfare Programs by $15 million; and Increase Child Welfare
Assistance, BIA by $55 million.
Education.--Under DOI, BIA's budget has historically been
inadequate to meet the needs of Native Americans, resulting in unmet
educational needs that have multiplied over the past decade. The
Puyallup Tribe operates the pre-K to 12 Chief Leschi Schools which
includes a verified 2008-2009 School student enrollment of 910+
students, including ECEAP and the FACE program. The enrollment figures
represents near capacity with all classrooms being utilized on a daily
basis. With an increasing number of ``pre-kindergarten'' enrollment,
Chief Leschi Schools will exceed design capacity in the near future. We
request subcommittee support in the following:
--We concur with the subcommittee's strong opposition to the
President's proposed cut to Indian school construction and
request that Indian school construction funding be restored to
the level of $293 million;
--The proposed fiscal year 2011 budget level of $804 million for
education programs is an increase of $5 million from the fiscal
year 2010 level. However, this amount is inadequate, does not
include any across-the-board increases for tribal and BIA
schools and no inflationary adjustments. We concur with the
NIEA recommendations to increase education programs in fiscal
year 2011 and 2012;
DHHS Indian Health Service.--Funding for the Indian Health Service
fails to meet the needs of health services for Native Americans. The
Puyallup Tribe has been operating their 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 an expanding population in Tacoma and Pierce
County, Washington.
There are no IHS hospitals in the Portland area so all specialties
and hospital care have been paid for out of our contract care
allocation. The Contract Care allocation to PTHA has been significantly
inadequate to meet the needs since 2004 when the Puyallup Tribe
subsidized Contract Health with a $2.8 million contribution; in 2005
PTHA shifted to a priority one status. By 2009 the tribal subsidy
reached a staggering $6 million. Given that the PTHA service population
is only comprised of 17 percent Puyallup Tribal members tribal budget
priorities in 2009 indicate the tribe will no longer be able to make
subsidies to the PTHA. Contract Health dollars are expected to run out
by mid 2010. We request the following subcommittee support for the
fiscal year 2011 budget;
--Fund Puyallup Tribal Health Authority Contract Health Care Fund an
additional $6 million to match fiscal year 2010 tribal
expenditures. Fund the Indian Health Service Contract Health
Services budget at $864 million for fiscal year 2011, an
increase of $84 million;
--Fund IHS at the $428 million increase required to maintain current
service levels including medical inflation, payroll increase
and population growth;
--Fund Contract Support Costs at $444 million for fiscal year 2011,
an increase of $46 million over the fiscal year 2010 level;
--Exempt IHS budget from rescissions. IHS health programs are subject
to the same rates of medical inflation as the Veterans
Administration and are deserving of the same consideration;
--The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Public Law94- 437) provides
funding for the Indian Health Services and has been pending re-
authorization since fiscal year 2000. The Puyallup Tribe of
Indians supports all efforts by Congress and the administration
to pass the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
______
Prepared Statement of the Quinault Indian Nation
``The Great Spirit bestowed life to all of us . . . including
the animals, birds, fish, insects and plants. Our collective
Native warnings and predictions were ignored in the rush to
capitalize and exploit the bountiful resources of the land.
Countless irreplaceable species are preserved now in museums or
documents in textbooks. As the consequences of unmanaged
exploitation and pollution reach irreversible proportions, the
United States heeded our centuries old appeals for
environmental protection. We only hope it's not too late and
that Mother Nature's wounds can still be healed. We will
continue to serve as the environmental conscience to the nation
and the world.''
Joseph B. DeLaCruz,
President,
Quinault Indian Nation, 1972-1993.
Thank you Senator Feinstein for the opportunity to submit written
testimony on the fiscal year 2011 budgets for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). On behalf of the
Quinault Indian Nation (QIN), we ask that this subcommittee not access
unfair/disproportionate rescissions on fiscal year 2011 funding for the
BIA and IHS and other Indian program funds. Our requests and
recommendations are as follows:
tribal-specific priority requests
$7 million a year for Blueback Restoration--BIA (for 2011-2019);
$480,000 for Resource Protection and Enforcement--BIA; and $500,000 for
Substance Abuse Strategy--IHS.
local/regional requests and recommendations
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; Northwest Portland Area
Indian Health Board; and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
national and self-governance requests and recommendations--bia requests
Provide $82.9 million general increase to BIA Tribal Priority
Allocation (TPA) for inflationary and fixed costs; provide $64 million
increase for BIA Contract Support Cost (CSC), including Direct CSC;
provide $5 million increase in the Indian Self-Determination (ISD)
Fund; provide 100 percent of fixed costs (uncontrollable), including
Tribal Pay Costs; and increase funding to the Office of Self-Governance
to fully staff the office for the increase of tribes entering Self-
Governance
national and self-governance requests and recommendations--ihs requests
Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory inflation and population
growth increase to maintain existing healthcare services; $330 million
increase for Contract Health Services (CHS); $122 million increase for
IHS to fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC), including Direct CSC;
and a $5 million increaseto the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of
Tribal Self-Governance.
tribal specific requests justification
$61 Million Blueback Restoration ($7 Million Annually From 2011-2019)
The Blueback Restoration Program is designed to halt the current
habitat loss and deterioration and to repair and restore natural
habitat forming processes and sockeye production on the QIN floodplain.
Conditions that will result from implementation of this program will
benefit other salmon stocks in the system and will serve to protect
private property and public infrastructure. The program plan calls for
formation of public and private coalitions and partnerships to
implement restoration actions.
The QIN River Blueback (Sockeye Salmon) Restoration Program will
help to restore the natural beauty and productivity of the QIN river
basin to historic levels, thus making it a more attractive tourism
destination. In addition, the program will provide local construction
jobs during its implementation phase, and the restoration program will
result in conditions that will improve and sustain commercial and sport
fishing on the Quinault River. The program will also benefit local
residents and businesses by reducing the likelihood of flooding and
property loss and increasing local economies both in the near and long
term future. Implementation of the restoration program will help avoid
the burdensome and restrictive consequences of having the Quinault
sockeye listed as threatened or endangered under provisions of the
Endangered Species Act.
This unique and valuable stock of salmon is near collapse due
mostly to degraded habitats in the upper Quinault River basin and in
Lake Quinault. This habitat loss has occurred over the past century due
to historic timber harvesting, property development, and infrastructure
construction. Natural processes on the floodplain began unraveling in
the late 1800s and the deterioration is continuing in the present time.
This is a long-term project expected to take up to 20 years to
complete structure placement and enhancement, including the engineering
and material procurement, with full implementation occurring in the
decades following as natural processes rebuild the habitat to historic
conditions. Through successful efforts of this program, it will protect
and restore the livelihoods of 100 commercial fishermen and 25 sport
fishing guides in Grays Harbor and Jefferson Counties and the Quinault
Indian Reservation.
The program will also contribute partial support for approximately
20 jobs in the fish processing industry in western Washington, thus
improve the economic status of the families living in the communities
within the Quinault Indian Reservation. The program will provide
employment for 10-30 laborers and equipment operators in Grays Harbor
and Jefferson counties during the construction phases of individual
projects.
This project will reverse adverse environmental impacts by
restoring habitats and ecosystems of the Quinault River and Lake
Quinault while at the same time stabilizing the river channel in
efforts to protect infrastructure and property loss.
The construction phase of this plan was implemented in the fall of
2008 with the construction of 12 engineered log jams. With full funding
as needed on an annual basis, the basic construction phase of this
project is expected to be completed at the end of fiscal year 2019.
Fertilization, data acquisition, and monitoring will continue for many
years.
$480,000 for Resource Protection and Enforcement (Six Enforcement
Officers)
The QIN operates many natural resource programs that are not funded
to sufficient levels. We particularly are in need of funds to protect
QIN and Indian resources through enforcement of regulations, infraction
and trespass detection, and investigation. With a reservation area in
excess of 200,000 acres coupled with the larger usual and accustomed
area outside the reservation where we exercise fishing, hunting and
gathering treaty rights under our self-regulatory status, we cannot
possibly accomplish the needed level of detection and enforcement with
current funding.
In 2010 dollars, we estimate the cost to support one enforcement
officer at $80,000 per annum. This covers compensation, benefits,
equipment, vehicle, supplies, and training. We are in need of reliable,
continued funding to support an additional six enforcement officers to
provide better protection of our fish, wildlife, and forest resources.
$500,000 substance abuse strategy plan
The Quinault Indian Nation Substance Abuse Strategy seeks to
improve, integrate, and strengthen the overall health and services to
protect the communities on the reservation from the significant risks
related to methamphetamine productions and use by targeting
enforcement, outreach, prevention, stabilization, and harm reduction
services to high risk-populations.
Methamphetamine use within the Quinault Indian Nation is a serious
concern and a significant public health and social challenge. Since its
introduction to the community, the government of the Quinault Indian
Nation has taken a proactive approach to dealing with crystal meth. It
affects a number of different groups; however, it is most prevalent
among youth and young adults.
Some of the major problems contributing to the spread of meth
trafficking is the size and isolation of our communities, and
jurisdictional issues related to law enforcement on tribal lands.
Tribal and local agencies are discovering that cooperation and
collaboration represent a way to leverage resources to attack the
threat of methamphetamine. Cooperative, inter-jurisdictional law
enforcement efforts are the only way that Federal, tribal, and State
law enforcement agencies will be able to effectively combat
methamphetamine.
The Quinault Indian Nation's Substance Abuse Strategic Plan is part
of a broader more comprehensive alcohol and drug strategy being
developed that recognizes the need to plan for the future. The Nation
has encouraged collaborative relationships among government
departments, health authorities, professionals, community members, and
families to create conditions that prevent drug use, treat drug users,
educate the public and hold offenders accountable and control access to
ingredients and supply while helping to ensure safer communities.
Most importantly, we have actively sought the guidance and wisdom
of our elders and with the participation of our youth, community,
churches and school districts we have undertaken a multidisciplinary
approach and strategy, emphasizing prevention, enforcement, treatment
and aftercare. Unfortunately, the best plans prove valuable only when
the funding is available to execute and implement the strategy. We have
found that at every level and in every discipline, funding to support
our strategy is appallingly inadequate.
We stress the urgent need to reclaim our communities to protect our
families, our elders and our next seven generations from this menacing
and deteriorating drug on the Quinault Indian Nation Reservation.
We support all requests and recommendations of the Intertribal
Timber Council, the National Congress of American Indians and the
National Indian Health Board.
Again, thank you for this opportunity on behalf of the people of
the Quinault Indian Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory
Honorable Senators on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I am writing on behalf of the
Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) concerning the need to increase
funding to conserve our Nation's migratory birds. RMBO is a 501(c)3
nonprofit organization incorporated in the State of Colorado with a
mission to conserve native birds and their habitats. Our migratory
birds are a shared biological treasure that benefits all U.S. citizens,
directly or indirectly, in myriad ways. From the cheerful songs that
greet us in our backyards, to the economic engine that birds provide
for outdoor recreation and tourism, birds are an integral part of our
economy and quality of life. Unfortunately, this renewable resource is
in jeopardy and requires increased attention and commitment on behalf
of our society to ensure its sustainability.
We respectfully request that you increase funding for the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) to $6.5 million in
fiscal year 2011. While this level of funding still falls far short of
what is needed to effectively conserve our Nations' bird populations,
it will help slow the decline of some of our most vulnerable species by
providing critical resources to ongoing conservation projects in these
difficult economic times. This relatively modest investment will help
reduce future costs that would likely be incurred if species were to
become federally listed as Threatened or Endangered in the future.
Although we would like to see appropriations for this fund increased to
at least $20 million annually, we respectfully ask that at a minimum,
you do not reduce funding for this important and cost-effective program
that leverages three non-Federal dollars for every Federal dollar
granted.
Birds are an incredibly important part of our environment that
provide invaluable ecosystem services and support our economy both
directly and indirectly. In 2006, more than 48 million Americans
engaged in bird watching and bird feeding, contributing more than $82
billion to the U.S. economy and supporting 671,000 jobs. Birds keep our
ecosystems healthy by controlling pests and disease vectors,
pollinating important agricultural crops, trees and other plants,
dispersing seeds of wide variety of plants, and facilitating nutrient
cycling and decomposition through the consumption of carrion. Birds
also excavate cavities and burrows that are essential to other
wildlife. As birds migrate across the continent, they carry these
ecosystem services with them. In Canada's boreal forest alone, birds
provide an estimated $5.4 billion in pest control services.
Birds are our society's most accessible and sensitive indicator of
environmental health and ecological change. They are ambassadors for
entire ecosystems and our best means for conserving all biodiversity.
NMBCA funding has thus benefited countless other species in addition to
birds, although much more needs to be done. Recent reports, including
the 2009 and 2010 State of the Birds, the Partners in Flight Landbird
Conservation Plan, the Partners in Flight Tri-national Vision, the
Waterbirds for the America's Plan, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation
Plan, highlight the continuing decline of our Nations' birdlife and the
increasing threats they face. These reports also highlight the critical
need to increase funding for programs such as the NMBCA.
Since its creation in 2002, the NMBCA has provided funding for
programs that protect migratory birds in the places where they most
need our help, whether it is on their breeding or wintering grounds, or
places in between. The NMBCA recognizes that a multi-pronged approach
is needed to effectively conserve birds, including habitat protection
and management, education and outreach, research and monitoring, and
law enforcement. By investing in these conservation activities across
the hemisphere, the NMBCA protects our collective investments in
natural resource conservation in the United States. by helping to
ensure that our migratory bird populations return to our backyards,
forests, wetlands, and grasslands each spring.
The RMBO acknowledges all the important work being accomplished in
the U.S. Senate, and recognizes the many competing needs for funding.
We respectfully ask that you consider our request to modestly increase
funding for the NMBCA, a unique, innovative and collaborative program
for migratory bird conservation. Increased support for the NMBCA will
demonstrate the ongoing leadership and commitment by the United States
to biodiversity conservation at this critical point in our history.
______
Prepared Statement of the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization
This statement is being submitted on behalf of the following
representatives of Government agencies, water providers, and
organizations with a stake in Colorado's water future: Nolan Doesken,
Colorado State Climatologist; Eric Kuhn, General Manager, Colorado
River Water Conservation District; David Little, Director of Planning,
Denver Water; Brett Gracely, Water Resource Planning Supervisor,
Colorado Springs Utilities; Brad Udall, Director, CU-NOAA Western Water
Assessment; Stephen Saunders, President, Rocky Mountain Climate
Organization; Joel Smith, Principal, Stratus Consulting; Drew Beckwith,
Water Policy Analyst, Western Resource Advocates; Drew Peternell,
Director, Trout Unlimited's Colorado Water Project.
We respectfully request your consideration of inclusion of
additional fiscal year 2011 funding above the budget request for the
following critical funding needs for climate data monitoring programs:
--Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water
Data Program.--$1,440,000 for the stream gage network, and for
fiscal year 2012 and years beyond, $1,264,000 per year for
recurring operations and maintenance costs;
--Department of the Interior, USGS, Water Data Program.--$272,000 for
reservoir storage monitoring, and for fiscal year 2012 and
years beyond, $95,200 per year for operations and maintenance
costs;
--Department of the Interior, BLM, Remote Automated Weather Stations
(RAWS) Program.--$162,000;
--Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), RAWS
Program.--$258,000.
Since 2007 our organizations, and others in Colorado, have been
collaborating on strategies to prepare for the changes that scientists
have identified as the likely impacts of climate change on the most
critical natural resource in the West--the water resources that enable
our people, commerce, and natural systems to thrive. Key to our ability
in this region to understand and adapt to the effects of climate change
on water supplies will be good information on what changes are
occurring with respect to such key elements as temperatures,
precipitation, snowpack, the timing of snowmelt, streamflows, and soil
moisture. The data collection systems that currently exist to gather
this information were not designed to track changes in climate, and so
are incomplete to meet today's needs. Many of the programs for
collecting and disseminating these data have deteriorated or have been
diverted over the last quarter-century, with the result that many long-
term climate and streamflow records have been interrupted.
The additional climate/water monitoring needs we identify are for
systems in Colorado and the Upper Colorado River Basin, but they are
needed for national reasons. The State of Colorado supplies 70 to 75
percent of the water in the Colorado River. About 30 million Americans,
or about one-tenth of all Americans, living in seven States--Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming--depend on
Colorado River water. The largest city in each of those seven States
depends on Colorado River water. Twenty-two of the 32 largest cities in
those seven States depend on Colorado River water. Fifteen percent of
the Nation's crops and 13 percent of the Nation's livestock depend on
Colorado River water. Some of the Nation's most spectacular natural
resources, including our largest concentration of national parks,
depend on Colorado River water.
Yet scientists consistently tell us that a changed climate is
likely to reduce the flow of the Colorado River. As this is already the
most over-allocated river in the Nation, this presents a challenge of
great national significance.
No less important to those who depend on them are the other rivers
that originate in Colorado, including the Rio Grande, Arkansas, and
North and South Platte rivers, which supply additional millions of
Americans not just in our State but in downstream States. These rivers,
too, may be substantially affected by the hotter and drier conditions
projected to result in the interior West from a changed climate.
To be able to address these challenges, we have a pressing,
critical need to know more than we now do about our water resources and
how they may be affected over time. That is the purpose of our proposal
for relatively modest increases in these key budget accounts:
Department of the Interior, USGS Water Data Program--Stream Gage
Network
Drought information users in the Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB)
would like increased opportunity to compare current stream flow with
historical conditions. They call for the re-establishment of long-term
gaging stations, presently inactive, having at least 20 years of
record. The USGS has identified more than 80 stations meeting these
criteria just in the portion of the basin in the State of Colorado.
This effort would help address the strong desire of UCRB drought
information users to have and maintain gaging stations on ``indicator''
or ``sentinel'' watersheds without storage or diversions, and many
years of long-term native flow. Near real-time reporting of observed
flows, presented in historical context would give users the needed
understanding of present natural conditions and how they compare with
the past.
Our Funding Request.--Costs to establish new gages are on the order
of $18,000 each, while annual O&M costs are $15,800. Our funding
request is for full re-establishment of these 80 stations, totaling
$1.44 million in capital investments. For fiscal year 2012 and beyond,
$1.264 million per year is needed for recurring annual costs for
operations and maintenance of these stations.
Department of the Interior, USGS Water Data Program--Reservoir Storage
Monitoring Network
Knowledge of current reservoir levels and storage volumes is a
vital component of drought monitoring in the UCRB. Only 27 of the 44
reservoirs in the basin that are systematically tracked for their
levels and volumes by USGS and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have
automated monitoring systems. For the remaining 17 reservoirs, a very
labor intensive process of telephone reporting by the Department of
Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service is required, which
can only be accomplished once a month. A major monitoring gap could be
filled by adding automated reservoir level recording to these 17
reservoirs.
Our Funding Request.--The cost will be $16,000 per reservoir
monitoring station, for a total capital investment funding request of
$272,000 for fiscal year 2011. For fiscal year 2012 and beyond, $95,200
per year is needed for recurring annual operations and maintenance
costs for these 17 stations.
Department of the Interior, BLM--RAWS Network
There are about 70 sites of the RAWS network operated by the BLM
(27 stations) and USFS (43 stations). The principal purpose of the
network is to monitor fire danger, though it could provide valuable
drought information at low elevations as well. A shortcoming of the
stations is their measurement of precipitation with tipping bucket
instruments, which unfortunately do not provide useful observations in
the cold season.
Our Funding Request.--Upgrading these stations to provide useful,
year-round precipitation data would cost on the order of $6,000 per
station. Our fiscal year 2011 funding request is for $162,000 to
upgrade the 27 BLM RAWS stations in the Upper Colorado River Basin. For
fiscal year 2012 and beyond, there will be a small increase in annual
maintenance costs.
Department of Agriculture, USFS--RAWS Network
There are about 70 sites of the RAWS network operated by the BLM
(27 stations) and USFS (43 stations). The principal purpose of the
network is to monitor fire danger, though it could provide valuable
drought information at low elevations as well. A shortcoming of the
stations is their measurement of precipitation with tipping bucket
instruments, which unfortunately do not provide useful observations in
the cold season.
Our Funding Request.--The fiscal year 2011 funding request is for
$258,000 to upgrade the 43 USFS RAWS stations in the Upper Colorado
River Basin. For fiscal year 2012 and beyond, there will be a small
increase in annual maintenance costs.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these requests further,
and stand ready to supply additional information as needed.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Nancy
Martine-Alonzo, and I am the president of the Board of Trustees of the
Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. (RNSB), which governs the more than
community programs on the Ramah Navajo Reservation in Cibola County,
New Mexico, at Pine Hill, New Mexico.
RNSB and the Ramah Navajo community people are extremely grateful
for the continuing support and Federal funding we have received for the
past 40 years, which has impacted the 4,000-plus members of the Ramah
Band of Navajo Indians. Without the congressional funding commitment in
a pioneering effort in 1970, the dreams, hopes, and reality of the
RNSB's legacy for taking control of its educational responsibilities,
and thus, our presence here would not have been possible.
My testimony today is on the need for Congress to appropriate
funding to address the infrastructure needs of our Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE) funded school and other Federal community programs in
two categories. Requests ``1 through 4'' are for the operational
funding needs of all BIE Grant Schools throughout the country,
including our own Pine Hill School, and request number ``5'' is for our
increased telemedicine capacity for our own tribal health clinic:
Increase Tribal Grant School Support Costs by $23.2 Million Above
the Budget Request.--This is the account that funds administrative
costs incurred by tribes that have elected to take over operation of
BlE schools on their reservations. But funding for these costs has not
only failed to meet the requirements of the law, it has fallen to such
a low level--only 61 percent of what the law requires--that the
viability of tribally operated schools is in jeopardy. The amount
supplied in the fiscal year 2010 budget--$43.37 million--was even less
than the amount supplied in fiscal year 2003. For the K-12 Pine Hill
School, we have had to subsidize this massive underfunding of school
administrative costs. We should not have to do this, but we have no
choice. Our indirect costs pool presumes that we receive 100 percent of
the administrative costs the law requires. When we do not, which has
been the case for 19 of the last 20 years, RNSB, must make up the
difference. It is clear that the Obama administration recognizes the
importance to Indian self-determination of supplying needed funding for
a tribe's indirect costs--called ``contract support costs.'' For fiscal
year 2010, the President and Congress joined to provide an enormous
$116 million increase for the contract support costs of tribes
performing Indian Health Service (IHS) Contracts. But why has not this
desire to meet its commitment to tribes extended to tribally operated
school programs. There is no justification for this disparate
treatment. The President seeks $46.37 million for Tribal Grant Support
Costs, an increase of $3 million. While we appreciate a request for a
meaningful increase for the first time in 9 years, it is grossly
insufficient to meet our costs and will not even enable BIE to pay 65
percent of the statutorily required amount. We calculate that full
funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs will require $69.6 million.
Thus, we ask the subcommittee to recommend an increase of $23.2 million
above the budget request for Tribal Grant Support Costs.
Increase Indian School Equalization Funds (ISEF) Budget by $39.8
Million to a Total of $431 Million in Order To Fulfill the Federal
Government's Obligation to Indian Children in the BIE School System.--
These funds support our education program, which is, of course, the
core function of our school. In order to pay competitive teacher
salaries and maintain student-teacher ratios required by New Mexico
law, our School Board has annually contributed its ISEF funds to cover
support and auxiliary cost for the past several years. Without an
increase to ISEF, our school could not recruit and retain high-quality
personnel needed for our educational program to succeed. Key support
services also require additional subsidies. For example, our food
service budget, transportation, facilities and maintenance falls short
of the amount needed, and we must also subsidize school security, a
school nursing staff, and after-school programs. All of these costs
should be the responsibility of the BIE. But the agency's budget for
the ISEF chronically fails to supply the level of support needed, and
does not take into account the enhanced costs of operating a small
school such as ours in a sparsely populated reservation community. Over
the past 7 years, the ISEF budget has increased by only 13 percent--
less than 2 percent per year. For fiscal year 2011, the administration
seeks to decrease the ISEF budget by more than $500,000. Instead, we
urge that the ISEF budget be increased by $39.8 million to a total of
$431 million in order to fulfill the Federal Government's obligation to
the 42,000 Indian children in its BIE school system.
Student Transportation for Fiscal Year 2009 (President's Request:
$46,912,000).--Student transportation has a long history of being
underfunded. Since 1975 until now, on the average, 90 percent of
students attending the Pine Hill School travel by school buses on 450
miles of mainly unimproved roads of gravel or dirt. These road
conditions result in much wear and tear on our bus fleet and are
compounded during inclement weather. When fiscal year 2008
transportation funding resulted in only $2.61 per mile, this was only
enough to cover 70 percent of our transportation needs, so we are
forced to reprogram ISEP funds to offset this shortage for our
transportation needs since students must first get to school and back
home before any education can happen. Since the cost of fuel is rising,
as is repair and maintenance, we request an increase in student
transportation to reflect the $3.10 per mile for funding of
$55,256,000. This would be getting us closer to the national average
rate of $3.58 per mile. Until we receive adequate school bus funding,
we will continue to have to reprogram funds from instructional programs
to pay the costs of getting students to school. Also, we do not receive
any funding for extracurricular and cocurricular activities that
augment our school improvement efforts, such as school field trips and
athletic events.
College Scholarships.--Any reduction in appropriations for college
scholarships for American Indian students is an open invitation for
increasing unemployment among our Indian youth. During the past several
budget cycles, scholarship funding has steadily been reduced while the
number of applicants increases. There is absolutely no logical reason
to put programs such as ``No Child Left Behind'' in place with a
Federal mandate when the opportunities for attaining postsecondary
education is being reduced at the same time. If our country is to
sustain benefits from our youth by becoming our future leaders, it
needs to provide scholarship funding that parallels the ever increasing
need for college educated Indians in education, business, health,
natural resources, and all other professions needed by tribes
throughout the country.
RNSB is also requesting $1 million for:
--Telemedicine Capability ($1 million).--The Pine Hill Health Center,
a tribal clinic that is part of the IHS system, has a great
need for telemedicine and associated 21st century capabilities.
Our current computer system was installed when there were only
35 staff members and 1,000 sq. ft. of space. Our health
programs have grown over the past 35 years to meet the needs of
the Navajo people in this rural area to more than 70 employees
and 10,000 sq. ft. to provide medical, emergency ambulance
services, pharmacy, dental, wellness, and behavioral health
services. Recruitment and retention of highly qualified medical
staff and proper maintenance and replacement of equipment are
extremely hard to sustain in our rural isolated community.
The telemedicine needs include replacing and enlarging the computer
system that handles the patient database and financial systems. Such an
overhaul will include such things as installation of equipment for
federally mandated electronic health record requirements, telehealth
(video conferencing for specialist consultation on urgent patient
questions, as well as psychiatric and mental health emergency
consults), installation of a digital dental system, upgrading of
radiology equipment to handle digital radiology and teleradiology
capability, and the associated costs, i.e., routers, servers,
uninterrupted power supplies, replacement of our financial management
system, cabling and installation, and replacement and additional PCs.
Presently, providers rely on a ``wet'' film and no radiologist
interpretation due to remoteness of area. The medical and dental
providers currently have no electronic links to the patient records and
information at other IHS facilities or to the non-IHS hospitals and
doctors' offices where referrals are made to either send or receive
important diagnostic information. We currently rely on telephone, fax
and postal mail communications, which cause delays in making
appropriate medical decisions and delaying patient care. Another
example is a referral of one of our patients for CT exam. Because we
have no connectivity to these institutions we had to rely on the CT
report coming by mail. Our physicians received the report 3 weeks later
with a definitive cancer diagnosis which delayed cancer treatment by
approximately 1 month. Lab information is often not available until the
next day, whereas electronic linkages would give results within 30-60
minutes. Having immediate access to patient care information would
increase the quality of care given as well as the efficiency of
services.
Our request is certainly consistent with the mission and activities
of the IHS, which is expanding its efforts in the area of telemedicine.
IHS has requested a $40 million increase (for a total of $135 million)
in the area of health information technology for fiscal year 2011 in
the Hospitals and Clinics program. We also note that the IHS medical
equipment account, for which the administration requested $23.7 million
(a $1 million increase), could be a source of funding for telemedicine
equipment. We ask Congress to specify that the IHS provide increased
funding to help meet the urgent telemedicine needs of the Ramah Navajo
community.
The Ramah Navajo Community.--The main Navajo Nation Reservation is
spread out over Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, but the Ramah Navajo
reservation area: (1) Is geographically separated from the main
reservation lying 175 miles southeast in Cibola County, New Mexico; (2)
Covers approximately 300 square miles in a rural, isolated high desert
area; (3) Has few paved roads, no business center, and the nearest
towns are more than 60 miles away; (4) Was ignored for most of its
history by Federal, State, and tribal governments; and (5) Began to
realize that it must start exercising more self reliance in the late
1960s when the local public school was condemned, closed, and the State
declined to rebuild it.
Efforts begun in the 1960s by Ramah Navajo grass roots leaders to
obtain funding for their own school by traveling to Washington, DC, to
make direct appeals to congressional leaders. These efforts were
successful and the construction of the community-controlled K-12 Pine
Hill School was soon begun. The new RNSB then acquired other much
needed programs for the community, such as an IHS clinic, a radio
station funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and other
services. All of these efforts by the Ramah Navajo people--as well as a
similar effort by another Navajo community--led to the passage of the
``Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act'' of 1975
(Public Law 93-638), the most important congressional law in modern
American Indian history.
RNSB is celebrating its 40th Anniversary in 2010 in community self-
determination since its founding in 1970. RNSB and the Ramah Navajo
Chapter have established and continue to maintain: (1) Authority from
the Navajo Nation to directly contract programs from Federal and State
governments; (2) Recognition by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to
contract on a government-to-government relationship; and (3) Our own
BIA Ramah Navajo Agency.
Today, RNSB not only operates a K-12 BIA grant school, but also
more than 30 other programs for the Ramah Navajo community, including,
among others, a Health Clinic, Social Services, four preschool programs
(Head Start, FACE, Early Intervention, and Day Care), Behavioral Health
Services, Wellness Center, a Workforce Investment Act program, Adult
Education, GED program, School Farm, Fair Grounds, and a Radio Station.
RNSB, therefore, provides most major services for the community. We
have an annual operating budget of about $17,500,000, of which roughly
80 percent is used for personnel costs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sierra Foothills Audubon Society
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of the
Sierra Foothills Audubon Society in support of acquiring land at Tahoe
and Eldorado National Forests in California. An appropriation of $5.5
million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund in order for the Forest Service (USFS) to acquire an
assemblage of properties totaling 3,187 acres.
The Sierra Foothills Audubon Society is located next to the Tahoe
National Forest and is very concerned about the birds and other
wildlife of the forest. The irrational checkerboard ownership pattern
in the central Sierra Nevada is one of the most significant challenges
facing USFS land management. Incompatible uses on private parcels
interspersed with public lands degrade wildlife habitat, water quality,
recreational access, and scenic views on the public lands and
complicate forest management and fire control. Disruption of north-
south habitat connectivity, essential to wildlife migration in the
Sierra Nevada, will have much more serious effects as climate change
significantly shifts wildlife habitats. For these reasons, the USFS has
made consolidation of public ownership in checkerboard areas an
acquisition priority in California. Acquiring all the private lands in
the checkerboard region with significant wildlife, watershed, scenic,
and recreational values will be a very long-term effort; consistent
progress is essential.
We are asking you to support funding for parcels in six areas, all
but one of which are in the region of checkerboard ownership. These
parcels are the Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests' highest
acquisition priorities in fiscal year 2011. The merits of the parcels
in each area are briefly described below.
Castle Peak Area (Tahoe National Forest, Checkerboard Region)
Our highest priorities for acquisition are parcels in the Castle
Peak area on the Sierra Crest in Tahoe National Forest. Most of the
Castle Peak area is included in the Castle Peak Proposed Wilderness.
The Castle Peak area is highly scenic and is a very popular year-round
recreation area for the large populations of northern California and
western Nevada. Thousands of acres in the Castle Peak area have been
purchased in recent years, thanks in part to your support, but the
acquisitions are not yet complete.
The White Rock Lake parcel, most of which is roadless, is on the
northern edge of the proposed wilderness. Including the roadless
portion of the parcel in the proposed wilderness would make its
boundary more logical and defensible. Acquisition of the parcel would
consolidate public ownership of the White Rock Lake watershed, better
protecting the Lake and its population of Federal endangered mountain
yellow-legged frogs.
Two parcels southwest of Castle Peak and close to the proposed
wilderness have significant recreational values. Acquisition of these
parcels would make possible an improved routing of the popular Hole in
Ground bicycle trail onto public lands. These parcels, which are near
already subdivided lands, are potential locations for second-home
development, which makes their acquisition more urgent.
Sagehen Creek Watershed (Tahoe National Forest, Checkerboard Region)
The University of California's Sagehen Creek Field Station has used
the Sagehen Creek watershed as an outdoor classroom and site for
wildlife, forestry, and hydrology research since 1951. Recognizing this
use, the USFS has designated the public lands in the watershed as the
Sagehen Creek experimental forest.
Consolidated public ownership of the experimental forest would
ensure that incompatible activities on private land in the watershed do
not confound research data and restrict educational activities.
Acquisition of sections 13 and 15 on the southern and western
boundaries of the experimental forest would significantly decrease the
private lands in the Sagehen Creek watershed. Acquisition would also
add to the public lands in the north-south wildlife corridor on and
near the Sierra Crest, in which ownership is significantly fragmented.
Lacey Valley Meadows and Webber Lake (Tahoe National Forest,
Checkerboard Region)
The 1,500 acres of beautiful subalpine meadow in Lacey Valley south
of Webber Lake are an outstanding feature of a 3,000-acre property in
the vicinity of the Lake that will be available for acquisition. Two
sections in the upper end of the Valley are available in fiscal year
2011.
The meadow and riparian areas of Lacey Valley are habitat for
waterfowl and for the willow flycatcher, which is on the State
endangered list. The meadow and the surrounding uplands provide habitat
for deer and numerous species of raptors and predators.
Though meadows are only a small percentage of the lands within
Tahoe National Forest, they contribute disproportionately to the
forest's scenic, wildlife, and recreation values. A large proportion of
meadows within the forest are privately owned; early settlers valued
the resources of meadows and their suitability for settlement. Now
meadows are attractive locations for second-home and resort development
which seriously degrades their ecosystems and denies the general public
access. Promptly responding to opportunities to acquire meadows is
essential because meadows are so attractive to residential and resort
developers. Acquisition of the forested ridges surrounding the Lacey
Valley meadows ensures protection of the meadows and creeks.
English Mountain (Tahoe National Forest, Checkerboard Region)
Purchase of this parcel would help consolidate very fragmented
public ownership immediately northeast of English Mountain by acquiring
the remainder of a checkerboard section. The parcel contains most of
the northeastern slopes of English Mountain and also Secret Lake, a
small alpine tarn, and its outlet stream. Purchase of the section is
the beginning of the highly desirable eventual consolidation of public
ownership of beautiful English Meadow and other meadows along the
Middle Yuba River. The Grouse Lakes Potential Wilderness, which
includes the summit of English Mountain, is immediately to the south of
the parcel. Though part of the section has been logged, some mature
mixed conifer forest remains.
Big Avalanche Cave (Tahoe National Forest, Checkerboard Region)
Public ownership of the parcel would protect and guarantee public
access to this regionally significant limestone cave system with 1,500
to 2,000 feet of passages. In the opinion of northern California
speleologists, Big Avalanche Cave, where extensive exploration of easy
passages with minimal resource impacts is possible, is the most
important recreational cave in the northern Sierra Nevada. A colony of
Townsend's Big-eared Bats, a species of concern in California, occupies
a summer roost a few miles away. The cave is a suitable and likely
winter hibernation site for this colony. Both the Western Cave
Conservancy and the National Speleological Society support this
acquisition.
Martin Meadow (Eldorado National Forest)
The volcanic ridge east of Silver Lake, between Silver Lake and the
Kirkwood Ski Area, is a striking scenic backdrop for Silver Lake. This
parcel is on the west slope of the ridge, within a potential addition
to the Mokelumne Wilderness, surrounded on three sides by Forest
Service land. Public ownership of the parcel will preserve its
wilderness character and the wilderness character of surrounding
national forest lands.
Conclusion
Your past support of appropriations to purchase private lands with
significant wildlife and recreational values in Tahoe and Eldorado
National Forests has been invaluable. Sierra Foothills Audubon Society
urges you to continue your past support by supporting this $5.5 million
appropriation for fiscal year 2011.
______
Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe
On behalf of the tribal leadership and members of the Squaxin
Island Tribe, I am submitting our funding requests and recommendations
for the fiscal year 2011 budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
and the Indian Health Service (IHS). The Squaxin Island Tribe requests
that if a mandatory rescission is applied to all Federal programs, we
ask that Indian programs not be required to absorb a disproportionate
loss of funds with a double rescission on these funds.
tribal-specific requests
$750,000 for Northwest Indian Treatment Center Residential Program
in IHS; $850,000 for public health and safety of the Squaxin Island
Community in the BIA; increase Tribal Historic Preservation Program
funding; $100,000 Squaxin Shellfish Expansion and $750,000 for
Shellfish Enhancement Program; and $5 million to fulfill the final
payment to the Puget Sound Regional Shellfish Settlement.
regional requests and recommendations
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board; Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Indians; and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
self-governance (sg) and national requests and recommendations
BIA
Provide $82.9 million general increase to BIA TPA for inflationary
and fixed costs; provide $64 million increase for BIA CSC, including
Direct CSC; provide $5 million increase in the ISD Fund; increase
Office of Self-Governance (OTSG) budget to fully staff to meet the
needs of the increase in tribes entering SG; and provide 100 percent of
fixed costs (uncontrollable), including tribal pay costs.
IHS
Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory inflation and population
growth increase to maintain existing healthcare services; $330 million
increase for Contract Health Services; $122 million increase for IHS to
fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC), including Direct CSC; and
increase $5 million to the IHS OTSG.
We support the requests of the National Indian Health Board and the
National Congress of American Indians.
squaxin island tribe background
The Squaxin Island Tribe, a signatory of the 1854 Medicine Creek
Treaty, is located in Kamilche, Washington in SE Mason County. The 2009
year-end tribal member enrollment was of 1,015. Squaxin has an
estimated service area population of 2,767, a growth rate of about 10
percent, and an unemployment rate of about 30 percent, according to the
BIA Labor Force Report. According to the Mason County Economic
Development Council, Squaxin is the largest employer in Mason County.
tribal-specific requests justifications
$750,000--``D3WXbi Palil'' meaning ``Returning from the Dark, Deep
Waters to the Light'' Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC) has not
received an adequate increase in its base IHS budget since the original
congressional set-aside in 1993. An increase of $750,000 would restore
lost purchasing power and the need to add mental health and psychiatric
components to treatment. This increase would allow NWITC to continue
its effective treatment of Native Americans.
The Squaxin Island Tribe operates the NWITC located in Elma,
Washington (6th Congressional District). NWITC is a residential
chemical dependency treatment facility nationally recognized as a
``Center of Excellence'' and was developed to serve unmet needs of
rural populations that were not being provided by other urban
residential treatment centers in the Northwest. The facility is
clinically designed to serve American Indians who have chronic relapse
patterns related to unresolved grief and trauma 75 percent of whom have
co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders. Addiction
treatment is supplemented with mental health assessments and treatment,
mental health groups, post-treatment planning, medication management,
resource coordination and cultural and spiritual activities to help
patients re-anchor in their traditions and reclaim their identity.
NWITC is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of
Rehabilitation Facilities, an international accrediting organization
for behavioral health programs. It is also certified and licensed by
the Washington State Department of Health. The NWITC residential
program serves the tribes of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho and
sometimes tribes from the Southwest.
The residential portion of the facility houses 24 patients in a
circa 1900 single-family residence which was converted in the 1930s
into a retirement home. In 2006, a new Counseling and Cultural Center
building was constructed using both the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Indian Community Development Block Grant and tribal funds
that replaced two rented modular buildings that were in extremely poor
condition. In 2009, we received $140,418 in American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding from the IHS for maintenance and
improvement to address urgently needed deficiencies. The project
included design, construction and installation for the Center's life
safety, general safety, ADA compliance, mechanical, roof, structural,
and architectural needs.
Treatment has changed over the years in response to meth addiction
and its effects on the brain and the individual's capacity to recover.
Now NWITC provides evaluations for psychotropic medication, mental
health counseling and treatment oriented to unresolved trauma in
addition to other traditional forms of treatment. There has also been
an expansion of cultural components of treatment. These elements have
been required to maintain effectiveness, but they also increase the
cost of treatment.
$850,000 for the Squaxin Island Department of Public Health and
Safety to hire six additional FTE officers for 24-hour coverage in
order to ensure the safety of the community and a public defender:
public safety is a high priority for the Squaxin Island Tribe. The
Squaxin Island Tribal Public Safety and Justice Department is dedicated
to protecting lives, maintaining peace, and ensuring that the property
and resources of the Squaxin Island Tribe are protected through the
enforcement of the laws and regulations set forth by the Squaxin Island
Tribal Council. Law enforcement officers patrol the reservation, South
Puget waterways and usual and accustomed hunting areas, protecting
human life and natural resources upon which tribal members rely on for
cultural and economic sustenance.
The Squaxin Island Public Safety and Justice Department has
continued to operate on funding levels insufficient to meet the needs
of this Department and our community. This has resulted in operating a
program at minimum capacity, which has placed a negative impact on the
service level provided to the Squaxin Island Community. The process of
protecting the public is hampered by the lack of officers to provide
the 24-hour coverage, which is very critical in life and death
situations.
The Public Safety Department successfully manages the Squaxin
Island Tribal Court, which consists of three divisions: a tribal court,
an appeals court, and an employment court. The Department also manages
a shellfish and geoduck harvesting monitoring program. Officers are
trained in scuba diving and assist with compliance and safety issues.
A public defender is needed for the justice program. Currently the
tribe is under contract to provide legal representation to the
community members. The court caseload and number of police calls
continue to grow at an increasing rate. Current funding is inadequate
to meet the needs of the growing community, protect natural resources,
and to fully participate in regional and homeland security programs and
initiatives.
The tribe is enhancing the shellfish habitat and production
programs, which has increased the demand on the water enforcement
program to address issues of illegal harvesting. With current funding
and staffing levels, it will be almost impossible to adequately protect
the tribe's investment in enhancing natural resources. The Squaxin
Island Tribe is seeking both long-term and immediate assistance.
Increase Tribal Historic Preservation Program Funding.--$12 Million
for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO). In 1992, Congress
adopted amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act (Public
Law 102-575) that allow federally recognized Indian tribes to take on
more formal responsibility for the preservation of significant historic
properties on tribal lands. Specifically, section 101(d)(2) allows
tribes to assume any or all of the functions of a State Historic
Preservation Officer with respect to tribal land. In 2002, funding was
decreased by approximately 50 percent because of insufficient monies in
the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) to support current and additional
THPOs at the earlier funded levels. In 2010, there are 100 THPOs and
the HPF funding is not keeping pace with the expansion.
In 2009, we received approximately 150 requests from agencies
preparing to do land projects that required our THPO to perform
research of the land with only a 30-day window. Funding does not
support a full-time archeologist, as required by the statute or
assistants to perform the paperwork. Tribal resources supplement this
office because it is critical to the Squaxin Island people to protect
our sites and our lands.
The President's proposed level of $8 million in fiscal year 2011
will continue to increase the shortfall that THPOs are experiencing,
yet the program continues to expand. There were 21 new programs in
fiscal year 2009 which keeps the average level of support per THPO
suppressed and underfunded. We support the request of the NTHPO for $12
million in fiscal year 2011. We further recommend that future program
expansion be funded with increased appropriations for the program in
order not to impact the funding of existing THPO programs.
$850,000 squaxin shellfish expansion and enhancement program
The Squaxin Island Tribe fully supports the funding of the
Shellfish Grower's Settlement Agreement Account. These funds will help
assure that, over the long run, the tribes maintain their access to
shellfish resources consistent with the rights they reserved by treaty.
In order to implement the shellfish decisions in the U.S. v.
Washington litigation, the tribe offers the following perspectives and
funding requests for the highest-priority activities needing funding
now. The tribe is committed to working cooperatively with noncommercial
tideland owners in order to access the tribal share of naturally
occurring shellfish on their lands. These are shellfish beds that are
not included in the provisions for the settlement lands. Our program
would identify and locate tidelands, contact their owners, survey
shellfish populations consistent with the Federal court defined
process, and manage harvests of the treaty share by tribal members. The
costs to improve our coverage of this activity will be about $100,000,
primarily for personnel.
Consistent with the implementation of the Shellfish Grower's
Settlement Agreement fund, the tribe needs to improve our
infrastructure for enhancement of shellfish on tidelands acquired with
the settlement funds. As we purchase available tideland properties with
the Shellfish Grower's Settlement Agreement funds, these beaches will
need to be restored and enhanced into full productivity to provide
clams and oysters for tribal harvest. Funding would include beach
substrate restoration, seeding beaches with juvenile shellfish,
maintaining predator protection gear, surveying shellfish age class and
population structure, and coordinating harvest. Funding of $250,000
annually would provide for personnel, purchased clam seed, predator
protection gear and equipment to improve 7 acres of tidelands per year.
The Squaxin Island Tribe also foresees the necessity of initiating
enhancement of geoduck, a large shellfish bivalve found in the waters
of the northwest. This species is long-lived--more than 50 years in
some cases--and regularly grows to between 1 and 2 pounds per
individual. Due to the long recovery time for harvested beds of this
species, enhancement techniques have been developed to replant geoducks
in substrate where they will grow to maturity sooner than through
natural recovery. We propose to enhance 5 acres annually at an expense
of $500,000, which covers personnel, geoduck seed (immature geoduck),
predator protection devices and other equipment. We believe this
expenditure is necessary to supplement the existing harvest of
naturally occurring geoduck and reduce pressure on natural stocks.
On behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribal Council and tribal members
thank you for this opportunity.
______
Prepared Statement of St. Marks Refuge Association, Inc.
Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the St.
Marks Refuge Association, Inc. and its 300+ members, we thank you for
supporting the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). We urge you to
continue carrying the flag for America's wildlife, wild lands, and for
the people who work on the Nation's refuges because every refuge
matters.
We are asking for your positive vote on these four matters that
desperately need funding:
--Fund $578 million for operations and maintenance accounts. The NWRS
needs $900 million annually to adequately manage its 150
million acres; a funding allocation of $578 million in fiscal
year 2011 will put the NWRS on the road towards full funding.
This money will go along way toward making buildings and roads
safe for visitors and refuge employees.
--Fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900
million, including $300 million for strategic land and easement
acquisitions by the NWRS. NWRA urges Congress to pass S. 2747,
legislation to permanently fund the LWCF. There is no better
time than right now, with sinking real estate prices, to make
sure that acreage from willing sellers can be added to refuges.
--Fund the Department of the Interior's Challenge-Cost Share
Program.--The program was created to leverage funding through
strategic partnerships to obtain greater conservation
objectives that would not be achieved by the Federal Government
on its own.
--Restore the $4 Million cut to the Visitor's Services Program.--As a
longtime (26 years and counting) volunteer for St. Marks
National Wildlife Refuge, I know how much refuges depend on
volunteers on a variety of fronts. Our environmental education
program would not reach as many children (more than 7,000). We
would not be able to serve our visitors so well (after a recent
lighthouse challenge event for four lighthouses in our area, we
were cited as the best organized and most knowledgeable of
all). St. Marks, like many refuges, is located in a rural
county. Visitors and volunteers contribute mightily to the
local economy, a boost that is sorely needed at this time.
We know you have a tough job in Washington, and we know you have a
lot of difficult decisions to make. We assure you that increased
funding for refuges is a sure bet investment in America's future.
We appreciate you and thank you for your time.
______
Prepared Statement of the States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming
I am requesting your support for fiscal year 2011 appropriations to
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River
endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program. The President's recommended budget for fiscal
year 2011 included FWS funding at the levels I am requesting for these
programs. The State of Wyoming supports action by the subcommittee to:
--Appropriate $709,000 in ``Recovery'' funds (Resource Management
Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species
Subactivity; Recovery Element; with the $85,611,000 item
entitled ``Recovery'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) for fiscal year 2011 to allow FWS to continue its
essential participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program. The same level of funding was included
in the President's recommended budget for fiscal years 2008
through 2010.
--Appropriate $485,000 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $50,307,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery for endangered fish propagation and hatchery
activities at the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operations
at this facility are integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery
Program's stocking program.
--Allocate $200,000 in ``Recovery'' funds for the San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Program for fiscal year 2011 to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs are highly
successful collaborative conservation partnerships working to recover
the four species of endemic Colorado River fish on the Federal
endangered species list; while at the same time water use and
development has been able to continue in our growing Western
communities. These programs are unique efforts involving the States of
New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies
and water, power and environmental interests. They are achieving
Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for water projects and fully
complying with interstate river compacts and the participating States'
water law.
Since 1988, the two programs, collectively, have provided ESA
section 7 compliance (without litigation) for more than 1,850 Federal,
tribal, State and privately managed water projects depleting more than
3.7 million acre-feet of water per year. The Department of the Interior
recognized these programs with its nationwide Cooperative Conservation
Award in April 2008 as outstanding collaborative partnerships
accomplishing substantial on-the-ground conservation results.
Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding exceeding 50 percent is
embodied in both programs.
We once again request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring
fiscal year 2011 funding to allow the FWS to continue its vitally
important participation and financial support of these two multi-state,
cooperative, recovery programs. We recognize and appreciate that the
past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts.
______
Prepared Statement of Suzanne Roy
Dear members of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee: As a taxpayer, I urge you to critically
evaluate Secretary Salazar's request for an increase in the budget for
the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) highly controversial and troubled
Wild Horse and Burro Program.
Currently, the BLM program relies on mass roundups and removals of
wild horses in numbers that far exceed adoption demand. As a result,
the BLM has now stockpiled more wild horses in Government holding
facilities (33,000+) than are left on the Western range. This
inefficient and inhumane policy costs taxpayers $44 million a year, and
the price tag continues to grow as more and more horses are captured
and removed from their natural habitats. (12,000 wild horses are
targeted for capture and removal in fiscal year 2010 alone.)
Allocating even more funds to this poorly managed program without
serious requirements for reform would be fiscally irresponsible. Please
ensure that any appropriations for BLM's Wild Horse and Burro program
include these requirements:
--A suspension of roundups in all but truly emergency situations;
--A prohibition on the use of any funds to euthanize healthy horses
or sell horses directly or indirectly to slaughter;
--Phasing out long-term holding and shifting BLM resources toward
managing horses on the range in a humane and minimally
intrusive manner as Congress intended; and
--Suspension of any plan for the relocation of wild and free roaming
horses and burros until Congress has a chance to review the
program.
Thank you for your attention to this issue.
______
Prepared Statement of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
On behalf of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, I am pleased to submit
testimony concerning the President's fiscal year 2011 budget for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS). I want
to express my appreciation to this subcommittee, its Chairman and
members for their strong support of Indian tribes.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is situated in North and South
Dakota. The reservation comprises 2.3 million acres, of which 1.4
million acres is tribally owned and tribally owned allotted lands.
About 10,000 tribal members and nonmembers reside on the reservation in
eight communities and in smaller towns. The tribe's primary industry is
cattle ranching and farming.
The tribe is working steadily to expand opportunities for economic
development to provide jobs for our members and improve the standard of
living on our reservation. We operate the Standing Rock Farms, a Parts
on Demand operation, two tribal casinos, and a sand and gravel
operation which help us supplement services and programs for our more
than 14,000 enrolled members. Despite the measures we are undertaking
locally to improve living conditions on our reservation, we have
persistent unemployment above 50 percent, a high drop out rate among
our high school students, and more than 40 percent of Indian families
on our reservation live in poverty.
Living conditions on Standing Rock are difficult. According to
statistics of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in
2009, more than 1,113 member households on Standing Rock had family
incomes between 30-80 percent of median family income in the area. Of
this figure, 464 households, 4 in every 10 homes, earned less than 30
percent median income. Four in every 10 homes are overcrowded. The
majority of our tribal elders suffer from diabetes, heart disease, and
hypertension. Only one-half of 1 percent (0.5 percent) of our members
are above the age of 65. Accidents are the leading cause of death among
our members. We must reverse these harmful trends. All Americans,
including the Nation's first Americans, deserve an opportunity to
compete successfully in today's global economy.
On January 27, 2010, I declared a State of Emergency on the
Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Our reservation was still recovering
from storm and flood damage to our communities and roadways that
occurred in 2008-2009 when our reservation was hit with severe winter
storms beginning on December 23, 2009, January 4, 2010, and January 22,
2010. These storms brought blizzard conditions and strong winds that
knocked down thousands of electrical poles and power lines and brought
heavy snows that stranded our members in their homes without heat and
electricity for days. We have expended nearly 75 percent of our annual
allocation of BIA Road Maintenance Program funds to cover heavy
equipment rentals, fuel, repair costs and overtime labor expenses to
keep our roadways open.
In order to move our community forward, I urge the Congress provide
increased funding for infrastructure and economic development,
healthcare, public safety, and education.
Economic Development and Infrastructure Needs.--More than 20 years
ago, another committee of Congress dedicated to improving the living
conditions on Indian reservations made the following observation:
``The conditions for successful economic development on Indian
lands are essentially the same as for any other predominantly rural
community. There must be community stability, including adequate law
enforcement and judicial systems and basic human services. There must
be adequate infrastructure including roads, safe water and waste
disposal systems, and power and communications utilities. When these
systems and services are in place, tribes are in the best position to
implement economic development plans, taking into account the available
natural resources, labor force, financial resources and markets.''
The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs made this statement in 1988
in their report that accompanied sweeping legislative to the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Public safety and an
efficient judicial system are pre-conditions to building strong, stable
governments. For several years, we have sought funds to plan a
comprehensive police, tribal courts, and detention facility, but the
BIA has inadequate funds for planning, design, NEPA environmental
studies and construction. We should not have to be waitlisted for years
to secure planning and construction funding for such important
governmental programs. Our existing facilities are outdated and
inadequate to modern public safety and criminal justice needs. Our
tribal courts operate with 24 staff working in 17 offices spread out
over 3 buildings.
We are very appreciative of the Recovery Act funding that Congress
made available for Indian tribes. This level of investment in
infrastructure, however, must be continued by Congress for Indian
country. Construction projects create jobs locally and put our members
to work. We object to the inadequate annual funding of $26 million for
the BIA Road Maintenance Program. This program has remained at roughly
the same level for more than 20 years. Road maintenance is a public
safety program. Poor road conditions contribute to the unacceptably
high levels of serious injury and death on Indian reservation roads
each year.
We urge Congress to fund this program at $150 million as
recommended by NCAI. Many tribes and BIA regions need millions of
dollars just to replace outdated and obsolete maintenance equipment,
purchase and store fuel, buy replacement parts for serviceable
equipment, and stockpile maintenance supplies. We are still paying off
a 2004-2006 $26 million community streets project that paved streets,
installed curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street lights throughout our
reservation. In order to protect this multi-million investment, we need
funds to carry out routine road maintenance (crack sealing, pot hole
repairs, etc.) to ensure that we realize the full useful life of these
routes. Maintaining these routes saves us millions.
Congress should also increase appropriations for Office of Indian
Energy and Economic Development programs within the Interior Department
and for the construction budgets of the BIA and the IHS to help tribes
build, rehabilitate and maintain schools, police departments, courts,
hospitals and clinics, and wellness centers. We also urge Congress to
appropriate fiscal year 2011 funding for the Tribal Work Experience
Program to help our members obtain the job skills they require to
compete in a competitive labor market.
Public Safety Needs.--We have far too few public safety officers
patrolling our 8 districts and small communities on our 2.3 million-
acre reservation. In the spring and summer of 2008, following the
deaths of several of our members, the BIA began ``Operation Dakota
Peacekeeper'' as part of the Interior Department's Safe Indian
Communities initiative to reduce crime, target illegal drug activities
and provide much needed investigative support to prosecute domestic
violence and crimes against children. A total of 56 BIA officers were
detailed from their reservations to Standing Rock over a 7-month
period. This more than quadrupled our normal BIA Police force. Before
the surge, we had only ten BIA public safety officer positions filled.
This was enough for only 2 officers per 24-hour shift to patrol a 2.3
million acre reservation encompassing 4 towns, 8 separate communities,
2,500 miles of roads, and a population of 10,000 residents. In the
month of June, police made a total of 541 arrests. Of these, 341
arrests, about two-thirds of all arrests, were made by surge officers.
The public safety surge was a big success. Our members, especially
our tribal elders, felt safe in their homes and began leaving doors
unlocked and windows open at night. It also highlighted the glaring
need for greater numbers of patrol and other public safety personnel on
our reservation. Recently, the tribe volunteered to be one of four
tribes participating in the Interior Department's 24-month Reduction in
Crime Initiative.
We support the President's increases in the fiscal year 2011 budget
to add $19 million above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level for the BIA
to reimburse the Justice Department so that agency may hire 45 FBI
agents to investigate crimes but more public safety officers are
needed.
The Standing Rock Sioux Reservation lies in BIA District 1 which
encompasses the eight State region of the Dakotas, Nebraska, Minnesota,
Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan. A 2006 Gap Analysis performed
for the BIA identified that District 1 had 108 law enforcement
officers, but needed 483 officers, a gap of 375 officers or 78 percent
unmet staffing need. District 1 had 30 detention staff, yet needed 177
corrections officers, a gap of 147 or 83 percent unmet staffing need. A
1997 Justice Department study found that Indian Country had 1.3
officers for every 1,000 inhabitants, versus 2.9 officers in non-Indian
jurisdictions. BIA District 1 is among the areas with the greatest
need. While the BIA has made some improvements in the number of law
enforcement and detention officers, the gap has not been closed. This
places our communities at risk.
BIA equipment and technology is outdated, including police
cruisers, radios and communications infrastructure. We do not even have
access to computerized law enforcement statistics. We have no 9-1-1
service on the Reservation. In emergencies, tribal members residing on
the South Dakota portion of the reservation who dial 9-1-1 reach the
McLaughlin or Mobridge police departments.
To address these shortfalls, we recommend that BIA Criminal
Investigations and Police Services should be funded $25 million above
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. BIA Detention/Corrections should be
increased by $10 million. We recommend the BIA Public Safety and
Justice Facilities Improvement and Repair program be funded above the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level, and we request an additional increase
of $20 million for the Tribal Justice Support Program to improve tribal
courts. Congress must also provide funds for BIA facilities and
construction for short-term and long-term housing for public safety
officers as a recruitment and retention tool. These increases should
continue incrementally each year until the recommendations of the Gap
report are met.
We strongly support the administration's efforts to work with the
United Tribes Technical College in Bismarck, North Dakota to provide a
``bridge program'' to State-certified public safety officers to meet
mandatory minimum training requirements for Federal law enforcement
service. There is still a need, however, for a Northern Plains BIA Law
Enforcement Academy so that more officers can be trained and tribes in
the Great Plains, Rocky Mountain, Midwest and other proximate BIA
Regions can send members to a training academy closer to their home
reservations.
Education Needs.--According to NCAI, Native Americans attain
bachelor and higher education degrees at half the rate of their non-
Indian counterparts. At Standing Rock, our tribe has provided $3
million over 3 years to support a scholarship program to provide more
than 300 students with grants of between $3,000-$3,500/semester which
allow them to pursue degrees from accredited colleges, universities and
vocational schools. BIA financed scholarships total about $500,000 per
year (meeting 25 percent of need). By providing scholarships to our
students, they are able to remain in school and obtain a degree and
education that can open doors to life-time careers. Education is so
critical to the future of our members and can lift them out of poverty.
We cannot do this alone and require increased funding for this vital
program. We are pleased to report that in a joint venture with the BIA
and IHS, the tribe built a new elementary school and our children are
excited to move into the new structure next month.
Healthcare.--According to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs'
Views and Estimates letter concerning the fiscal year 2010 budget, the
need for Contract Health Services (CHS) for Native Americans exceeded
$1 billion. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget proposes an $84
million increase in CHS from $780 million to $864 million. This would
still represent at least a 15 percent shortfall in CHS needs. By any
objective measure, healthcare funding for Native Americans is far too
low. This deprives so many of our members a healthy and long life.
Throughout Indian country and certainly here on Standing Rock, many
members go without needed healthcare services each year because of
inadequate CHS dollars. As Congress enacts sweeping healthcare reforms,
we urge Congress to increase CHS appropriations and increase the IHS'
hospitals and clinics funding generally, so that tribes and the IHS may
more comprehensively address the healthcare needs of our members.
We also supports increased funding to cover the BIA and IHS
contract support cost (CSC) obligations that exist under self-
determination contracts, including our tribe's contracts. Although we
support the President's impressive proposed increase of $45 million for
IHS contracts, that sum will only cover the CSC obligations associated
with the proposed fiscal year 2011 program increases. The increase
therefore will not begin to touch the recurring $105 million shortfall
that currently exists. To the extent budgetary concerns foreclose
tackling this entire shortfall in 1 year, we support added increments
of $35 million for each of the next 3 years to finally get these
contracts paid in full. For similar reasons, we support the President's
proposed increase in CSC funding for the BIA, and hope that by adding
$23 million more in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 the BIA's
shortfall will at long last similarly be resolved.
Thank you for providing our tribe the opportunity to present
testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sawtooth Society
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of
protecting land in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in Central
Idaho. An appropriation of $2 million is needed in fiscal year 2011
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund toward the acquisition by the
Forest Service of a negotiated conservation easement on the 160-acre
Rodeo Grounds Ranch property.
The conservation of the abundant natural resources of the Sawtooth
Mountains in Central Idaho has been a national goal for over a century.
In May 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt designated a nearly 2 million
acre forest reserve that was eventually named the Sawtooth National
Forest. Seven decades later in 1972, Congress passed Public Law 92-400
to prevent subdivision development in the heart of the Sawtooths, ``to
assure the preservation and protection of the natural, scenic,
historic, pastoral, and fish and wildlife values,'' and to enhance
public recreation in a new Sawtooth National Recreation Area (NRA). The
Sawtooth NRA encompasses approximately 775,000 acres that include some
of the most iconic and beautiful high-mountain forests and valleys in
the American West.
These mountains form the headwaters of six important rivers--the
Middle Fork Boise, the North Fork Boise, the South Fork Payette, the
Big Wood, the East Fork Salmon, and the Salmon--that ultimately feed
the Snake River and offer vital habitat for four threatened and
endangered salmonid species. More than 1,000 lakes and glacial tarns
are also found inside the recreation area. The area's clear waters and
the lands that surround them offer some of the finest and most renowned
outdoor recreation in the world including fishing, white-water sports,
hiking, Nordic skiing, rock climbing and backcountry camping. With a
proud ranching tradition stretching back for over a century,
traditional land uses have long been interwoven with the public values
here, and the stewardship of these natural and recreational assets has
been outstanding.
Recognizing the conjoined needs to maintain these historic uses and
to protect this remarkable landscape for public recreation, the
legislation creating the recreation area placed limits on outright
Federal land purchases in the Sawtooth NRA while explicitly encouraging
the use of conservation easements to retain the area's outstanding
rural character, working ranches, and recreation opportunities. The
resulting easement-oriented acquisition program is thereby critical and
has been fueled by congressional appropriations from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund since 1972. To date, this investment has brought
easement protections to some 17,000 acres of private land within the
Sawtooth NRA. However, vitally important parcels remain to be
protected.
Available for acquisition at the Sawtooth NRA in fiscal year 2011
is a conservation easement on the 160-acre Rodeo Grounds Ranch. This
easement is one of the very top priorities for Region 4 of the Forest
Service and is located just 5 miles from the historic town of Stanley.
The property is a key component of the viewshed along Idaho Route 21--
the Ponderosa Pine Scenic Byway--that connects Sawtooth NRA to Boise.
The ranch also has substantial frontage on Valley Creek, a major Salmon
River tributary, which is vital to critical fisheries. Valley Creek
provides habitat for all four fish species listed as threatened or
endangered in Sawtooth NRA: Chinook salmon, sockeye salmon, bull trout,
and steelhead. The Forest Service has identified Valley Creek as one of
the most important tributaries in the Upper Salmon River watershed for
the recovery of Chinook salmon, especially for rearing and spawning
habitat.
The conservation easement on Rodeo Grounds Ranch will allow for
recreational access by anglers to Valley Creek. This access would
likely be lost if the property were to be developed, converted from
existing use, or fragmented into smaller holdings. The easement will
protect the historic ranch structures on the property and the scenic
landscape of the valley. Several surrounding tracts have already been
protected through similar conservation easements.
An appropriation of $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation
is needed in fiscal year 2011 toward this conservation easement
purchase to protect the fisheries, recreational, and scenic resources
of the ranch and enhance the public enjoyment of the Sawtooth National
Recreation Area.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation's premier
Federal programs to acquire and protect lands at national parks,
forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and
recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the
public with substantial social and economic benefits including
promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking
water and watersheds and improving wildfire management. Recognizing the
many demands this subcommittee faces, I want to thank the committee for
impartially considering these requests and your important work to
ensure these limited and much-needed funds are allocated to those
projects which will most leverage Land and Water Conservation Fund
principles. I fully believe an investment in the Rodeo Grounds Ranch
conservation easement is such an investment and one that will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural and historical heritage.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Idaho, and I appreciate your consideration of this
funding request.
The Sawtooth Society, formed in 1997, is a nonprofit and
nonpartisan organization dedicated exclusively to: serving as an
advocate for the SNRA; preserving open space in the SNRA; and enhancing
recreation facilities and services in the SNRA.
______
Prepared Statement of the Skokomish Tribe of Washington State
My name is Joseph Pavel, I am Vice-Chairman of the Skokomish Tribe
of Washington State. I would like to thank the subcommittee for the
opportunity to testify and would like to welcome Chairman Moran to
Indian country. I know that Congressman Dicks would very much welcome a
visit to my reservation and the 6th Congressional District of
Washington State.
The Skokomish Indian Reservation is a rural community located at
the base of the Olympic Peninsula with a population of more than 1,000
people. The 5,300-acre Reservation is a fraction of the 2.2 million
acre of the tribe's Treaty area. The Skokomish Tribe appreciates the
work of the subcommittee and asks that you provide increased funding in
areas that are key to the continuing development of tribal communities.
bureau of indian affairs (bia) programs
Law Enforcement.--The Skokomish Tribe respectfully requests
increased funding for our law enforcement programs within the BIA.
Since 1997, the Skokomish Department of Public Safety has grown
from one untrained officer, to six Washington State certified/
Washington State equivalency trained or BIA-certified law enforcement
officers (this includes our two conservation law enforcement officers).
Our officers provide day-to-day law enforcement services on the
reservation. They are also responsible for patrolling the 2.2 million
acres that make up our treaty protected fishing and hunting areas. To
be fully staffed at a baseline minimum for the area and scope of
service that the Skokomish Department of Public Safety is tasked with,
we need a total of 18 officers. Thus, we are almost 80 percent below
what is needed to safely serve our community.
In a recent report, the Skokomish Reservation was reported as
having a violent crime rate that is five times higher than the national
average. Between 2006-2010, there were 501 ``Part One'' offenses--
manslaughter, rape, domestic violence, child abuse, assault with a
weapon, burglary, and arson. For the same period, there were an
additional 2,210 offenses for lesser crimes, like assault with no
weapon, drug selling or manufacture, and vandalism. This means that at
least 50 percent of the people who live on the Skokomish Reservation
are likely to have been a victim of a crime and in many instances the
victim of a violent crime. As result of this, the Skokomish Tribal
Council has made addressing public safety needs a priority and have
directed staff to find the resources and programs necessary to respond
to this overwhelming law enforcement need.
In light of this significant tribal need, we are deeply concerned
that the BIA has not sought an increase in funding for tribal law
enforcement personnel funding. Instead, the BIA has requested $19
million to fund 45 FBI agents in Indian country. We recognize that
there is a deficit of FBI agents serving Indian country, but we doubt
that using the BIA's limited resources to fund what is a Department of
Justice function is a wise use of these resources. Crime in Indian
country is going to be addressed by having trained law enforcement
personnel living and working in our communities. It will not be
addressed by staffing FBI agents in Seattle, Minneapolis, or Denver.
Moreover, we remain deeply concerned that the BIA continues to
ignore the needs of tribally operated law enforcement agencies and has
directed the increases of the last 2 years to its BIA operated law
enforcement agencies. Specifically, in the 13 years that the tribe has
operated its law enforcement program, we have not received a BIA
programmatic increase in our law enforcement funding. While we do not
doubt that the BIA has serious needs, so do the tribal law enforcement
departments, which make up 78 percent of the law enforcement agencies
in Indian country. We urge that any increase in law enforcement funding
be allocated proportionately among the BIA and tribally operated law
enforcement agencies.
Tribal Courts.--Increased law enforcement creates a commensurate
need for increased funding for tribal courts. Having a fair and
qualified judiciary is the bedrock of any government's justice system.
Skokomish has long understood this. In 1963, the Skokomish Tribe was
the first tribe in the Northwest (and one of the first in the country)
to institute a tribal court to address fishing violations on the
Skokomish River. The first tribal judge was my mother, a 33-year-old
nurse and mother of five (at that time), Anne Pavel. My mother was not
law trained nor had she received any judicial training. She was,
however, a dedicated tribal member, who understood the importance of
regulating fishing on the Skokomish River. She held her first hearing
in a building heated by a coal stove, with her brother as her court
reporter.
While the responsibility and scope of tribal courts have greatly
increased in the nearly 50 years since my mother's first hearing, the
BIA has not provided these important institutions with the commensurate
level of funding. Today, tribal courts handle huge criminal, civil and
juvenile dockets, which could not be handled by the already
overburdened State and Federal courts. At Skokomish alone we have 458
open criminal cases. Unfortunately, even though we participate in the
Northwest Intertribal Court System--an inter-tribal organization that
my mother started, which allows tribes to work cooperatively and a cost
effective manner address our justice systems needs--we can still only
afford for our tribal judge and our prosecutor to work 3 days a month.
Most of our courts cannot afford to provide public defenders and many
do not have law trained prosecutors. Fortunately, through the dedicated
work our tribal leaders most of our judges are now law trained.
While the Department did not propose any cuts in tribal courts, it
did not propose any increases. Moreover, for the tribes in the
Northwest Region, last year's $10 million increase in tribal court
funding did not translate into any increased funding for our tribal
courts systems. We urge the subcommittee to direct the Department to
allocate tribal court funding in a way that is fair and ensures that
all tribal court systems receive an appropriate share of the funding.
environmental protection agency (epa)
The Skokomish Tribe would like to thank the subcommittee for your
commitment to maintaining funding for key environmental programs. In
particular, the subcommittee's funding in fiscal year 2010 of $50
million for Puget Sound Restoration efforts, we urge the subcommittee
to reject the EPA's proposed $30 million cut to this program for fiscal
year 2011. This funding is critical to the collaborative efforts to the
restore the health of the Puget Sound, and in particular the Hood
Canal--the Jewel of the Puget Sound--and to the tribe's efforts to
manage and protect our treaty protected resources in the Hood Canal.
The Hood Canal is threatened by the Low Dissolved Oxygen levels
(LDOL), which means this vital ecosystem is essentially suffocating.
LDOL is caused by many things, but the primary cause is the sewage that
is discharged directly into the Hood Canal. LDOL has caused a number of
fish kills in the Hood Canal and the Hood Canal to be closed to other
seafood harvesting throughout the year. Last summer, the Tribe had to
close our shellfish harvest on one of our beaches, because of fecal
contamination. Through the tribe's work it was learned that this
contamination was primarily the result of the conduct of sports
fishermen, who elected to use our sacred resources as their lavatories.
The impact of this closure on the economy of the Skokomish Tribe
and our members was severe. More than 90 percent of the families on the
Skokomish Reservation are supported by Treaty harvesters, men and women
who exercise their treaty rights to gather resources to provide for
their families. When our beaches are closed, it means that 90 percent
of the families on the reservation do not get a paycheck until they are
open.
Beyond the impacts on the tribe's and the region's economy, the
health of these water resources is at the very heart of the Skokomish
tribe's culture. The Hood Canal is the place where we have for
centuries gathered and prayed. In recent times this has not always been
possible due to necessary closures. This is unconscionable and the
dedicated effort to address this issue must continue.
indian health service (ihs)
The Skokomish Tribe strongly supports the $354 million increase
requested for the IHS. In particular, the Tribe appreciates the $84
million increase for contract health care. However, at Skokomish, like
Indian people throughout the Nation, we face disproportionately higher
rates of diabetes and the complications associated with diabetes. Heart
disease, cancer, obesity, chemical dependency, and mental health
problems are also prevalent among our people. While we have a tribally
operated ambulatory clinic staffed with dedicated professionals, we do
not have access to an IHS hospital. Consequently, anyone needing in-
patient treatment, physical therapy, or diagnostic services must be
referred out. This means that our contract health program is always
taxed and frequently we do not have the resources to refer people out.
The reported shortfall for contact healthcare is $1 billion. Thus,
while we appreciate the $84 million increase it is woefully inadequate.
We commend the IHS for the requested $9 million increase for dental
healthcare. Studies have shown that poor dental care and chronic tooth
decay is related to heart disease, and other serious chronic health
conditions. The IHS reports that only 25 percent of Alaska Native and
Indian people have access to dental care, the lack of access results in
preventable tooth extractions, poor juvenile care, and in some
instances death.
We also commend the IHS for its focus on alcohol and substance
abuse. However, the targeted $4 million increase is not enough. I
suspect every reservation in the country has substance abuse treatment
needs that are not being addressed. In particular, we are experiencing
an increasing dependency on ``prescription drugs.'' Our data shows that
prescription drug use has nearly doubled in the last 2 years; and at
the same time our data is showing that methamphetamine use, which was
on a decline, is now back on the rise. It is important to note that
this data is from individuals who have contact with the tribe. It does
not reflect the many people who are using but with whom the tribe has
no contact.
While the statistics demonstrate the problem in very stark terms,
we are experiencing the problem of substance abuse in heart breaking
losses. In the last two weeks in December, we buried two young men who
lost their lives due to addiction. These young men were sons, brothers,
nephews and cousins, but as a tribal leader these losses represent the
potential loss of my tribe's future. We will not survive as a people if
our young men and women continue to leave this earth sooner than they
should. I implore the subcommittee to provide at least a $19 million
increase for alcohol and substance abuse programs nation wide.
tribal historic preservation programs
In 1995, Congress began encouraging tribes to assume historic
preservation responsibilities as part of self-determination. These
programs conserve fragile places, objects and traditions crucial to
tribal culture, history, and sovereignty. As was envisioned by
Congress, more tribes qualify for funding every year. Paradoxically,
the more successful the program becomes, the less each tribe receives
to maintain professional services, ultimately crippling the programs.
In fiscal year 2001, there were 27 THPOs with an average award of
$154,000. In fiscal year 2011 it is estimated that there will be 95
tribes operating the program, receiving less $50,000. We join the
National Congress of American Indians in seeking a $4 million increase
in funding for this program.
conclusion
I want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present
testimony on these important issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge
Madam chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I, Landy
Luther, am the current president of the supporters of St. Vincent
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Our organization was established to
promote better understanding, appreciation, and conservation of the
natural history and environment of St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR). Our goals are: Increase public awareness of the refuge, provide
financial support to the refuge, and to support refuge projects. We
feel that our mission and goals are consistent with the acquisition of
the property that is the subject of this testimony.
I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support
of acquiring land at St. Vincent NWR in Florida. An appropriation of
$1.25 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) in order for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to acquire the 3.21-acre property to provide the agency
permanent access to the barrier island refuge.
The St. Vincent NWR encompasses a 12,500-acre undeveloped barrier
island lying opposite the mouth of the Apalachicola River, in the Gulf
of Mexico. Located just off the Florida panhandle in western Franklin
and Gulf counties, the island is 4 miles across at its widest point and
9 miles long. This triangular island is larger and wider than most of
the northern Gulf Coast barrier islands. Prior to becoming a refuge,
St. Vincent was used primarily as a private hunting and fishing
preserve. Established in 1968, the refuge was originally intended as a
sanctuary for waterfowl, the majority of which are resident wood ducks
and migrating blue winged teal. Since then, however, the refuge mission
has been broadened to include the protection of habitat for endangered
species and to provide a variety of recreational activities.
St. Vincent NWR provides a sanctuary for a number of threatened,
endangered, and recovering species. Loggerhead sea turtles come ashore
to nest on the island's pristine beaches. Indigo snakes inhabit gopher
tortoise burrows in the dunes. Wood stork and peregrine falcons stop on
the island during their seasonal migrations, and bald eagles nest in
the pines near the island's freshwater lakes and marshes. In 1990, St.
Vincent became one of several Southeastern coastal islands where
endangered red wolves are being bred. Once weaned, the wild pups raised
here are taken to reintroduction sites such as Alligator River NWR in
North Carolina. These solitary animals once roamed the Southeast, but
predator control programs and habitat loss have decimated their
populations.
St. Vincent serves as an important stop-off point in the Gulf of
Mexico region for neotropical migratory bird species. Seaside sparrows
nest in huge numbers and various other neotropical birds stop for food
and shelter during spring and fall migrations. More than 260 bird
species have been logged on the refuge and Christmas bird counts by the
Audubon Society typically include more than 100 species. Wildlife is
attracted to the island's diversity of habitat types. Ten separate
habitat types ranging from tidal marsh to scrub oak and pure stands of
cabbage palm have been identified on the island. Plants on the island
include 15 that are listed as threatened by the State of Florida.
Currently, the refuge staff travels to and from the undeveloped and
uninhabited island using a boat that is docked on a mainland marina at
Indian Pass. The dockage rights are subject to a month-to-month lease
from a private landowner who has recently indicated an intent to sell
and/or develop the property. Faced with the loss of this facility, the
refuge staff must find another location to dock the boat, as it is
critical for the management of the refuge to secure appropriate access
to the island. Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2011 is the
3.21-acres Schoelles tract. Located close to the refuge's
administrative offices in the City of Apalachicola, the site includes a
boat ramp and marina to accommodate the refuge boat. Properties
available for purchase with pre-existing facilities are rare in this
area. It is very difficult to obtain permitting for new marinas and
ramps in Florida, making this property prime for development if it is
not obtained by the refuge. Not only will the property's existing wet-
slip marina and boat ramp provide immediate access for the refuge
staff's motorized boat, it will also allow access to nonmotorized boats
such as canoes and kayaks.
Conserving this property will prevent its development into a
coastal residential subdivision. Limiting coastal development is
critical to reducing the costs associated with storm and hurricane
damage as well as to protecting the quality of adjacent waters. Bounded
to the north by Highway 30A and to the south by St. Vincent Sound, the
inclusion of the parcel within refuge boundaries would provide a small
buffer zone along the sound, designated a Class II Florida Outstanding
Waterway. St. Vincent Sound supports endangered species communities,
important recreational and commercial fisheries, and sea grass beds
that provide significant waterfowl habitat. The significance of these
waters is underscored by the fact that they are protected as part of
the Apalachicola National Estuarine Reserve.
A $1.25 million appropriation from the LWCF in fiscal year 2011
will maintain necessary access to St. Vincent Island for FWS staff;
improve access to St. Vincent Sound for fishermen, oystermen, and
recreational boaters; and protect additional natural resources along
the mainland shore.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to
climate change. For all these reasons, the President has included
meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and
I support the administration's commitment to fully funding the program
in the near future. Recognizing the many demands this committee faces,
I also want to thank the committee for its recent effort to restore
much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise investment in
the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to the American
people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Florida, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Letter From The Mountaineers
March 24, 2010.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Feinstein: The Mountaineers is one of the oldest and
largest conservation organizations in the Pacific Northwest. We have a
long history of involvement with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
the protection of both fish and wildlife species and their habitat,
stretching back to the act's inception. Our involvement has entailed
written comments, oral testimony, lobbying and where necessary,
litigation, at State, regional, and Federal levels. The Mountaineers
would like to thank you for consenting to consider our comments on ESA
funding for fiscal year 2011 after the deadline of Friday March 19,
2010. We respectfully submit the following suggestions.
We are very concerned that this landmark legislation have adequate
funding to realize its objectives, especially as it pertains to the
listing of species. For decades Congress has inadequately funded the
implementation of the ESA. We urge you to move aggressively to redress
this historical shortfall by taking the following measures in the
designated listing-related contexts.
Candidate Conservation.--We recommend a doubling of staff in this
program, which provides interim protection for species while they await
listing. Since the ESA wait list was enacted, 64 species have gone
extinct, seven times the number that have done so under the ESA's full
protection. A candidate species must await listing for almost two full
decades. We consider this prima facie evidence that the act, as
envisioned, is failing, badly and that a funding shortfall is a factor,
if not the major reason why. Today a staggering 249 domestic and 20
species await listing, vulnerably exposed to extirpation.
Recovery.--The primary purpose of the ESA is to recover listed
species, not merely to preclude them from going extinct. Current
estimates of funding levels to recover species approximate $100
million. We urge that the Congress fund recovery of species at a level
of no less than $95 million for fiscal year 2011.
Consultation.--Current estimates of the shortfall for funding in
this context range as high as $122 million. The number of consultations
has increased markedly in recent years simultaneous with a shortfall in
personnel. We urge that funding be provided in amounts adequate to
address these problems. We also request that consultation-dedicated
funding be granted for use in the context of Habitat Conservation Plans
(HCP) only to the extent it advances recovery and facilitates HCP
implementation and the critical monitoring of that implementation over
time. We specifically urge that Congress not permit this consultation
funding to be used for expansion of the use of HCP's and Incidental
Take Permits, as it has been, previously.
additional endangered species protections
Cooperative Endangered Species Fund.--Given that 65 percent of
federally listed species are found on non-Federal lands, it is critical
that State endangered species conservation activities be adequately
funded. A total of at least $160 million is needed. We request a total
appropriation of $100 million in fiscal year 2011 including 20 million
for conservation grants to States, an increment of $15 million more
than prior levels.
Landowner Incentive and Private Stewardship Grants.--We request
that these programs be restored to their fiscal year 2007 levels of
$23.7 million for the private landowner and tribal lands grants and
$7.3 million for the stewardship grants. Recovery of our Nation's
imperiled species is not likely, perhaps even impossible without the
cooperation of private landowners and tribes. These critical programs
should be resurrected, fully, but not at the expense of those items
designated above.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wildlife and Fisheries Management
and Threatened and Endangered Species Management.--We request an
increase of $25 million more than fiscal year 2010 levels to begin
meeting this program's needs, for a total appropriation of $65.4
million in fiscal year 2011 for wildlife and fisheries management and
$32.6 million for threatened and endangered species management. The
role of the BLM in species recovery is critical. In the past, large
sums of money intended for this purpose have been diverted to other BLM
objectives. We urge Congress also to exert much stronger oversight in
the way its funds are expended by BLM. The agency is understaffed in
this context, and woefully underfunded. It is estimated that BLM only
gets ten percent of what they actually need for threatened and
endangered species.
In making these requests The Mountaineers would observe the broad
and deep support the ESA continues to receive among the public at
large. Huge revenues are derived from the enjoyment of watching
wildlife species, that eclipse revenues derived from consumptive uses
like hunting and fishing. The ESA can operate as a powerful tool to
protect species and preserve a priceless heritage--but only if it is
adequately and consistently funded by the Congress.
We again, would like to thank the subcommittee for consideration of
these remarks after the deadline.
Sincerely,
Martinique Grigg,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's recommendations for
fiscal year 2011 appropriations. My name is Thomas J. Cassidy, Jr. and
I am Director of Federal Land Programs.
The Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit conservation
organization working around the world to protect ecologically important
lands and waters for nature and people. Our mission is to preserve the
plants, animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity
of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to
survive. We are best known for our science-based, collaborative
approach to developing creative solutions to conservation challenges.
Our on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in all 50 States and
more than 30 foreign countries and is supported by approximately 1
million individual members. We have helped conserve nearly 15 million
acres of land in the United States and Canada and more than 102 million
acres with local partner organizations globally.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--Thank you for your
leadership in restoring critically important funding for LWCF in recent
years. We are gratified by the President's commitment to fully fund
LWCF and look forward to working to implement and secure funding to
support the President's America Great Outdoors Initiative.
We support the President's funding level of $384 million for
Federal LWCF and $50 million for the stateside. This year, the
Conservancy is specifically recommending 32 biologically rich land
acquisition projects totaling $88.7 million. Priorities include
Oregon's Hells Canyon NRA, California's Smith River NRA (Six Rivers
National Forest), Wisconsin's Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest and
Pennsylvania's Cherry Valley NWR, the Nation's newest refuge. We also
support continued investments in large landscape-scale projects in New
England's Silvio O. Conte NFWR, and Montana's Rocky Mountain Front
Conservation Area and the Montana Legacy Project.
Forest Legacy.--We support the President's request of $100 million
for this program, and are specifically proposing 6 projects totaling
$20.4 million. We hope this year to complete the phased acquisition of
the 127,000-acre Northern Cumberlands project, Tennessee's largest
conservation project since the creation of Great Smoky Mountains
National Park. Other priority projects include Kentucky's Big Rivers
Corridor, Montana's Clearwater Lands and the second phases of both New
York's Follensby Pond and Texas' Longleaf Ridge.
Climate Change.--The Conservancy welcomes the President's
commitment to address the global climate challenge and supports the
administration's fiscal year 2011 proposed increases for climate-
specific programs and activities. We also appreciate this
subcommittee's leadership in highlighting climate change adaptation and
science funding, including the USGS National Climate Change and
Wildlife Science Center. We particularly look forward to working with
the FWS and other Department of the Interior bureaus to support and
implement the work of the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. The
Conservancy is committed to advancing landscape scale conservation
projects, and protect large, interconnected, and ecologically
significant habitat. Coupled with robust funding to complementary
conservation programs, the administration's science-based investments
will help address the critical challenges to people and nature in a
world whose climate is changing.
Wildland Fire Management.--We appreciate the subcommittee's
continued attention to high-cost wildfire and proactive management to
reduce fuels and protect communities from damaging fire. We have three
recommendations for wildland fire. First, increase hazardous fuels
reduction funding by 10 percent more than enacted to $395.3 million for
the Forest Service (USFS) and $208.2 million for DOI as a necessary
investment to reduce threats to communities and abate costs of future
wildlife. Second, increase to $78.2 million funding for National Fire
Plan State Fire Assistance and increase to $7.7 million funds for
Department of the Interior Rural Fire Assistance. These investments are
needed to improve community safety and build local capacity for
controlled burning as fuels reduction treatment. Finally, we support
full funding of fire suppression needs for 2011 through the fire
suppression budget, Federal Land Assistance, Management, and
Enhancement (FLAME) Fund and Contingent Reserve Fund as necessary to
safeguard critical conservation programs from ``fire borrowing.''
Integrated Resource Restoration.--The Conservancy strongly supports
the President's fiscal year 2011 proposal for the U.S. USFS's
integrated resource restoration budget. First, we recommend full
funding of $40 million for the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program, which with the support of the Chairman and many
members of the subcommittee, was authorized last year and funded by
this subcommittee at $10 million. Second, we support creation of the
Priority Watershed and Job Stabilization Initiative to provide $50
million on a competitive basis for projects that improve watershed
conditions and provide employment in restoration, wood energy and
value-added processing. Third, we support creation of the integrated
resource restoration budget with $694 million by combining programs
that were formerly separate functions of wildlife and fisheries habitat
management, vegetation and watershed management, and forest products.
Separate funding for these activities has led to disparate,
uncoordinated activities in wildlife, fisheries, timber, and watershed
improvement that did not necessarily contribute to restoration goals.
The new budget structure will break new ground by measuring activity
accomplishment by ecological outcomes and effects on watershed
condition, rather than acres of habitat or miles of stream restored,
and by promoting increased use of stewardship contracts and timber
sales where they make fiscal sense. We trust that this new budget will
better enable the USFS to provide important ecosystem services such as
clean and abundant water, renewable energy from biomass, restored
wildlife and fish habitat, carbon sequestration and healthy forests and
grasslands.
Forest Health Management.--America's forests are threatened by
existing and a growing number of non-native pests and diseases. The
Conservancy appreciates the subcommittee's leadership in consistently
providing funding above the President's request. The Forest Health
Management program should receive an increase to $145 million to
effectively address economically and ecologically damaging pests,
including the Asian Longhorned Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock
Woolly Adelgid, Sudden Oak Death, thousand-canker disease (threatening
walnut trees), and the gold-spotted oak borer.
USFS Research Program.--We recommend an increase of $3 million
above enacted for the ``Invasives R&D'' line item within the USFS
Research Program. This would permit maintaining at current levels
research to improve detection and control methods for the Emerald Ash
Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid and other non-native forest pests and
diseases.
Endangered Species.--The Conservancy supports an increase for the
FWS's Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) to $100
million. The Conservancy and its partners, including multiple State and
county governments, have used the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and
Recovery Land Acquisition Programs to secure key habitat for numerous
threatened, endangered and at-risk species. In recent years, CESCF
funds have been used to provide permanent habitat protection throughout
California, including recent grants for the San Diego MSCP and the East
Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP. The recent MT Clearwater Lands Project
grant leverages other investments in the Forest Legacy Clearwater Lands
Project and the USFS Montana Legacy Project. The recent planning grant
for an HCP in Tennessee's Cumberlands Region complements the Forest
Legacy North Cumberlands project. Last year's recovery land grant for a
conservation easement on private lands in Northern Idaho's Kootenai
Valley protected a critical link between higher elevation public lands
of the Selkirk Mountains and low-elevation State and private lands. We
also support continued funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program, the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation
Program, and fish hatchery needs associated with the recovery plans in
this region.
State Wildlife Grants.--The Conservancy endorses the Teaming with
Wildlife Coalition's funding recommendation of $100 million. Strong
Federal investments are essential to ensure strategic actions are
undertaken by State and Federal agencies and the conservation community
to conserve wildlife populations and their habitats. We also support a
$5 million competitive grant program as a subset of the State Wildlife
Grant Program.
National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Conservancy applauds the
subcommittees' significant increases in recent years for operations and
maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System, a cornerstone of
our commitment to fish and wildlife resources throughout the Nation. As
a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE)
coalition we are supporting a request for $578 million in fiscal year
2011 for the operations and maintenance of the system.
Migratory Bird Programs.--The subcommittee has consistently
provided vitally important investments for a number of migratory bird
programs. Such investments are essential to reverse declines in bird
populations through direct conservation action, monitoring and science.
We urge the subcommittee to increase funding over the President's
request and fiscal year 2010 enacted for such established and
successful programs as NAWCA and the Joint Ventures, and the Migratory
Bird Management Program.
Partnership Programs.--We recommend funding levels of the
President's request or fiscal year 2010 enacted for the FWS Coastal
Program and Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and request $10
million for the National Fish Habitat Initiative.
International Programs.--The Conservancy, as part of an alliance of
major international conservation groups, supports $15 million to the
FWS' Multinational Species Conservation Funds. We and the alliance also
strongly support $21 million for the FWS office of international
affairs which includes Wildlife Without Borders; $6.5 million for the
FWS' Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund; and $16 million for
the USFS's International Programs.
Bureau of Land Management Climate Change, Ecoregional Assessments &
Resource Management.--The Conservancy supports the administration's
recommended funding for BLM's Climate Change Adaptation Initiative.
This will enable focus upon completing ecoregional assessments, a key
information tool for the agency to respond to the growing challenges of
climate change and energy development. Evaluation of ecoregions and
comparison of assessments across multi-State regions will provide
information to guide future planning and management decisions.
Ecoregional assessments are a critical contribution to the Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives which link science with conservation planning
to address broad-scale challenges of a changing climate to species and
habitats. We also recommend robust funding for BLM resource management
and transportation planning activities. These funds are needed to
complete a significant number of ongoing planning efforts and to
initiate new planning efforts in key places, without which the agency
cannot make informed mitigation and siting decisions for traditional
and renewable energy proposals and take the management actions
necessary to improve priority wildlife and aquatic habitats, ensure
water quality, control invasive species and manage off-road vehicle
use. BLM should also be encouraged to use existing data sets when
available so that funding can be focused on critical data needs instead
of creating duplicitous data sets.
USGS--Water Resources.--We support increased funding levels for the
National Streamflow Information Program and the Cooperative Water
Program. These programs provide scientific data needed by multiple
public and private water managers and their partners. As climate
change, drought and population growth increase the demands on water
resources, it is critical to invest in the integration of State and
Federal water resource data and to better understand water needs of
human communities and the environment.
Environmental Protection Agency.--The EPA Geographic programs
provide critical leadership, technical support and funding for on-the-
ground actions to improve water quality and restore aquatic ecosystems.
We support $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. We
also support $103 million for the implementation of the various
programs and activities defined in the President's Chesapeake Bay
Executive order, including funding EPA's Chesapeake Bay program. We
support $50 million to support implementation of the Puget Sound
Partnership's Action Agenda and $20 million for implementation of the
Long Island Sound program.
Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the Town of Ophir, Colorado
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: We
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of
acquiring land at Uncompahgre National Forest in Colorado. An
appropriation of $4.3 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in order for the Forest Service
(USFS) to complete the acquisition of the 445 acres in Ophir Valley. We
are pleased that the fiscal year 2011 President's budget included $1
million for this project; however, it can be completed this year with
an appropriation of $4.3 million.
Located in the heart of southwestern Colorado's San Juan Mountains,
the Ophir Valley project area in the Uncompahgre National Forest is one
of the San Juans' hidden gems. A short detour of only a mile off of
Highway 145--part of the nationally acclaimed 236-mile San Juan Skyway
Scenic Byway--brings visitors into a compact valley ringed by 13,000
foot peaks and serrated ridge lines.
Against a backdrop of unsurpassed alpine scenery, the Ophir Valley
offers an abundance of recreational opportunities for residents and
visitors. Hiking, camping, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, four-
wheeling, and fishing are all popular pastimes. In addition, the valley
supports habitat for the Canada lynx, a federally listed threatened
species, and provides important habitat for the endangered Uncompahgre
fritillary butterfly and other sensitive species. It also contains the
headwaters of Howard Fork, a key tributary to the San Miguel River,
which The Nature Conservancy has called ``one of the last naturally
functioning rivers in the West.'' The San Miguel sustains a globally
rare narrowleaf cottonwood-Colorado blue spruce/black twinberry plant
community.
While much of the Ophir Valley is in public ownership, the region's
mining heritage also created hundreds of privately owned patented
mining claims scattered across the landscape like matchsticks. These
private inholdings once were vital to sustaining 19th-century efforts
to find and extract mineral wealth. Now, however, at a time when hard
rock mining in southwestern Colorado appears increasingly less viable
economically, many former mining districts, such as Ophir, are seeing
these private inholdings develop into sites for second homes. As a
result, more and more of the Ophir Valley's subalpine and alpine
environments are at risk of being developed, potentially creating
significant management issues for the USFS, fragmenting wildlife
habitat, and spoiling the scenic splendor and recreational
opportunities so important to residents and visitors.
Currently, the USFS has the opportunity to acquire all of the
remaining acres out of a total 1,145 acres of patented mining claims
that had been under one ownership in the Ophir Valley. Prior to this
acquisition effort, these claims represented approximately 90 percent
of the valley's privately owned inholdings. Federal appropriations
provided in previous years have allowed the USFS to begin acquiring
these mining claims, and the requested $4.3 million in fiscal year 2011
will allow the agency to purchase the final 445 acres. This project
resolves many land use and access conflicts that stem from the
development of private inholdings within public lands, while promoting
effective land management practices by the USFS. In particular, the
ongoing acquisition protects critical habitat, maintains high-quality
recreational opportunities on public lands, protects water quality, and
helps maintain the quality of life of the region's residents.
This protection effort is a natural extension of the successful Red
Mountain project, located just to the north and east of the Ophir
Valley along a different portion of the San Juan Skyway. It will also
complement other land protection and recreation enhancement efforts
along and adjacent to the San Juan Skyway, one of only 27 All-American
Roads in the National Scenic Byway program. In recent years, for
example, Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund has pledged $5.7 million
for land protection in the area. In fiscal year 2011, an appropriation
of $4.3 million is needed to enable the USFS to complete the protection
of these critical inholdings.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management
and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate
change. For all these reasons, the President has included meaningful
increases to the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget and we support
the administration's commitment to fully funding the program in the
near future. Recognizing the many demands this subcommittee faces, we
also want to thank the subcommittee for its recent effort to restore
much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise investment in
the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to the American
people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
We want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Colorado, and we appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of 10 Tanker Air Carrier, LLC
10 Tanker Air Carrier (10 Tanker), a privately owned aerial
firefighting company, respectfully requests that this written statement
be added to the record of the hearing before the Senate Committee on
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Concerning Oversight of Fire Policy that was held on May 26,
2010.
We commend the outstanding leadership and public service of
Chairman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and the members of this
subcommittee in holding this hearing. We also commend our professional
fire fighter colleagues at the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of
Land Management, and the many State and local fire fighters who work
tirelessly and with significant personal risk to prevent and to
suppress wildfires.
We have reviewed the written testimony and the video of this
hearing. Significant portions of the hearing focused on the Station
Fire of 2009 in southern California. We are surprised that there was no
mention of the use of the two DC-10 aircraft operated by 10 Tanker in
containing that very large fire.
The fire started on August 26, 2009, and, as has been well
documented in other testimony, it grew rapidly for a variety of
reasons. 10 Tanker was dispatched through the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) contracts (not USFS) from
August 29 through September 7, 2009. 10 Tanker flew a total of 31
missions dispensing approximately 350,000 gallons of line-building
retardant that had a significant impact on fire containment, property
protection, and personnel safety.
The hearing emphasized the necessity for rapid initial attack to
prevent the wide-spread damage caused by the Station Fire. We note
that, while the fire started on August 26, 10 Tanker assets were not
dispatched until August 29. While the majority of 10 Tanker missions on
the Station Fire were to build extended lines to permit ground
personnel to access those areas necessary to contain the fire, through
our experience with more than 340 missions flown over more than 45
named fires, we have proven to ground commanders that we also have
significant potential in direct suppression applications. We have also
proven that the DC-10 tanker can be fully integrated into a suppression
effort without impeding the activities of the other aerial and ground
members of the team. We are over the drop zone for less than 2 minutes;
our gravity feed system is no hazard to ground crews at our 200-300
feet drop altitude; our aircraft performance permits turn radii
commensurate with that of any other fixed-wing aircraft; we can provide
one or more drops in a single mission; we can operate from most of the
airports that the USFS has in its strategic plan plus any other airport
that has 8,000 feet of runway; and we can apply in one air mission the
same amount of suppressant as five or more of the other aircraft
available to any agency's ground commander. 10 Tanker's niche is in any
wildfire contingency where the ground commander determines he needs to
accomplish in one mission at jet speed what might otherwise take six
other aircraft and significantly more time. Due to its capacity, jet
speed, and rapid turn-around capability, there is no other aerial fire-
fighting asset in existence that can provide such massive deliveries in
time-critical situations.
There was also a discussion in the hearing about replacement of
aging firefighting tankers. While the discussions in the hearing
centered on future ``large tankers'' such as the C-130 MAFFS, the DC-10
is classified by the USFS as a ``very large tanker.'' 10 Tanker has
invested tens of millions of dollars in private capital to create a
modern firefighting tanker to address the urgent needs of State and
Federal agencies for innovation, modernization, and availability of air
tankers. We have partnered with the Federal Aviation Administration,
the USFS and the other Federal agencies to demonstrate our safety and
our significant increase in capacity, speed of delivery, and cost
effectiveness in aerial firefighting. They, in turn, have taken all the
prudent steps to assure public safety and utility of our tanker, and
have formally approved its use on wildfires on public lands.
While we recognize the need for a variety of fixed and rotary wing
assets in effective wildfire management, we would urge responsible
legislators and agency personnel to reinforce the need for this proven,
cost-effective asset at the Federal level. Only Cal Fire, not USFS, has
made the commitment with an exclusive use contract with 10 Tanker. With
Federal commitment to traditional exclusive-use contracts in the
future, this world-class firefighting asset can be immediately
available to any ground commander throughout the United States.
Furthermore, there is sufficient private capital to fund additional DC-
10 assets with as little as 6 months' notice. Then the citizens of all
States would be protected by this modern firefighting tanker.
______
Prepared Statement of Trout Unlimited
Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: On behalf
of Trout Unlimited's more than 140,000 members nationwide and more than
1,100 members in the great State of Vermont, I appreciate the
opportunity to present this testimony in support of acquiring land at
Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont. An appropriation of $800,000
is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
in order for the Forest Service to complete the acquisition of the 660-
acre Deerfield River property. This project is part of a larger request
of funds for the national forest.
The Green Mountains of Vermont are one of the northeast region's
most popular and heavily visited areas, which each year draw millions
of tourists attracted to its scenic beauty. The forest is within a
day's drive for Vermont residents and visitors from the surrounding
states of New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut, and
provides easy access to an outstanding recreational area. The Green
Mountains region contains outstanding natural resources such as
wildlife habitat for black bear, deer, and neotropical songbirds, as
well as extensive timber resources. The area boasts excellent trout
streams and encompasses the watersheds that provide drinking water for
many Vermont communities. The acquisition of properties in the Green
Mountain National Forest protects recreational opportunities that have
long been important to residents and visitors alike, such as camping,
hiking, hunting, and cross-country skiing. Federal appropriations in
recent years have allowed the Forest Service to acquire and protect
critical watershed properties in the northern section of the forest as
well as excellent recreation and habitat lands in the Taconics region.
Two properties totaling 660 acres that lie along the Deerfield
River in Readsboro offer substantial aquatic resources and intact
forest contiguous to existing Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF)
lands. The properties' northern hardwood and conifer forest, 95 acres
of wetlands and 1.4 miles of frontage on the Deerfield River provide
excellent opportunities for continued forest management, recreation,
wildlife habitat protection, and watershed conservation--all of which
are U.S. Forest Service strategic goals for land conservation. Due to
the quality of the habitat, ecological and aquatic features, and
connectivity with existing GMNF ownership, the properties are a
conservation priority of the GMNF. These parcels would complement
existing U.S. Forest Service lands and improve access for management
and public recreation, and are part of a larger land acquisition
program underway at the GMNF in fiscal year 2011.
Trout Unlimited's mission is to conserve, protect and restore North
America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds. Our vision is, by
the next generation, to ensure that robust populations of native and
wild coldwater fish once again thrive within their North American
range, so that our children can enjoy healthy fisheries in their home
waters. Due to cool temperatures, excellent water quality, consistent
food supply, and high oxygen content, the West Branch of the Deerfield
River and its tributaries located within the boundaries of these
parcels serve as refugia for wild and native Brook Trout, and have
served as a site for Atlantic salmon restoration efforts. Protecting
the larger ecological context in which the existing populations of
these fish survive is one of the four pillars of the Trout Unlimited
conservation framework. Both Trout Unlimited and the Eastern Brook
Trout Joint Venture have identified the West Branch subwatershed for
highest conservation priority. Against a backdrop of climate change and
increased development pressure in Vermont, the Vermont Council of Trout
Unlimited views the conservation of these parcels as mission critical.
Additional benefits would accrue to the citizens of and visitors to
Vermont. The clean and scenic Deerfield River is a popular recreation
destination, used by kayakers, fishermen, and wildlife watchers. By
connecting previously unconnected tracts of GMNF, there is an
opportunity to link existing hiking and snowmobiling trails and create
new trailheads to provide easier public access. The GMNF plans to
encourage hunting, hiking, skiing, and other nonmotorized recreation,
with snowmobiling on designated trails. Home to moose, deer, turkey,
and other game species, the property will be a valuable resource to
local hunters who have seen access to land decreasing in recent years,
as new owners subdivide and post properties that have traditionally
been open for hunting. Conservation of this forest will encourage and
strengthen the region's forest industries and growing tourism economy
by preserving the rural character of Readsboro and providing increased
public recreational opportunities.
The forested plateaus, ridges, swales, and drainages provide for
diverse ecological assemblages as well as forest structure and
function. Black bear, deer, and moose use the properties as forage
habitat as well as for their connectivity to existing protected forest.
In addition to the dominant birch-beech-maple stands are several
conifer stands which offer wintering areas for deer and moose. The 95
acres of wetlands and two miles of headwater streams located on the
properties provide habitat for beaver, migratory waterfowl, and other
aquatic species.
A Wildlife Habitat Suitability Analysis by Vermont Fish & Wildlife
Department showed these properties as highly valuable for black bear
and rated this section of Route 100 as an important wildlife corridor.
These critically located Deerfield River properties are at risk of
development and fragmentation due to their frontage on Route 100 and
proximity to conserved land. A recent USFS publication (A Sensitivity
Analysis of Forests On The Edge, 2009) shows the Deerfield River
watershed to be among the top 10 percent in the country with the
highest projected rates of change in housing density between 2000 and
2030.
In fiscal year 2011, an appropriation of $800,000 from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund for the Green Mountain National Forest would
allow for the protection of these important natural resource
properties, ensuring wildlife habitat connectivity, water quality
protection, and public recreation opportunities in a threatened
landscape.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation's premier
Federal program to acquire and protect lands at national parks,
forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and
recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the
public with substantial social and economic benefits including
promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking
water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting the
adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these
reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to the program
in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration's
commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing
the many demands this committee faces, I also want to thank the
committee for its recent effort to restore much-needed funding to this
depleted program. This wise investment in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund is one that will permanently pay dividends to the
American people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Vermont, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society
The Wilderness Society (TWS) represents more than 500,000 members
and supporters who share our mission to protect wilderness and inspire
Americans to care for our wild places. We thank the subcommittee for
the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year 2011 Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
We applaud the leadership and members of this subcommittee for
increasing appropriations in fiscal year 2009 and 2010 for essential
public land conservation programs and reversing the near decade-long
pattern of severe funding cuts to numerous conservation programs.
Despite this progress, conservation programs continue to suffer from
underfunding. Additionally, the effects of climate change are impacting
public lands nationwide and have only begun to be addressed by land
management agencies.
Protection and proper stewardship of these lands buffer the effects
of flooding and wildfire, conserve water, support healthy fisheries and
wildlife populations, and sequester carbon. Our forests currently
sequester an estimated 14 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Additional protections for
these important carbon stores should be considered.
Conservation programs are also pivotal to the success of the
outdoor recreation industry, which contributes $730 billion annually to
the economy while supporting nearly 6.5 million jobs across the
country. According to a recent Department of the Interior study,
conservation activities are a driving force to create jobs, as every $1
million taxpayers invest in ecosystem restoration projects creates 30
jobs, and every $1 million invested in recreation projects produces 22
jobs.
We urge bold, immediate action in making additional investments for
fiscal year 2011. TWS recommends:
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Our 682 million acres of Federal land and waterways provide a
critical opportunity to address the unprecedented challenges that
climate change poses to our forests, fish and wildlife, and riparian
resources. The strategic acquisition of key inholdings, buffer areas,
and wildlife migration corridors within and adjacent to existing public
lands enhances adaptation efforts and fosters intact landscapes. These
natural areas also store carbon, buffer flooding, conserve water, and
support healthy fisheries and wildlife populations. Hand-in-hand with
mitigating the deleterious impacts of our environment from burning
fossil fuels is the need to respond to climate change with a
foresighted investment in land protection and natural resource
adaptation across the Federal public lands. President Obama has
indicated that LWCF should be fully funded by 2014, and we support a
significant funding increase that will lead to his goal. TWS' fiscal
year 2011 recommendation for the LWCF is $600 million ($425 million for
Federal and $175 million for State grants).
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Onshore Oil and Gas Policy
The administration proposes the following laudable reforms of the
BLM's oil and gas program:
--A proposed fee on onshore Federal operators designed to bring in
$10 million per year for the I&E program.
--Continuation of the $6,500 APD fee in fiscal year 2011 which was
approved by Congress for fiscal year 2010 (estimated revenues--
$45.5 million).
--A $4 per-acre fee on nonproducing onshore leases (needs authorizing
legislation).
--Repeal of section 365 of EPACT which diverted lease rental revenues
to fund the ``Permit Streamlining Pilot Offices'', and
prohibits the BLM from charging APD fees (the latter provision
in effect overridden by Congress in the fiscal year 2010
appropriations bill).
--Initiation of a new rule to raise royalty rates for Federal onshore
oil and gas leases, with a goal of raising oil and gas revenues
by $1 billion over 10 years (royalty rates under consideration
are not discussed in the budget proposal, however).
TWS supports all of these proposals. The BLM is moving forward with
important management reforms of the onshore program that should, when
fully implemented, lead to a better balance between oil and gas
developed on western public lands, and the protection of the many
natural resource values that have been impaired by the previous
administration's oil and gas policies.
BLM's National Landscape Conservation System (NCLS)
The BLM's NCLS comprises some 26 million acres of congressionally
and presidentially designated lands and waters, such as National
Monuments and National Conservation Areas. Stewardship of the NCLS's
many units provides jobs for thousands of Americans while supporting
vibrant and sustainable economies in surrounding communities. The NCLS
provides immeasurable public values in return for modest investments:
outstanding recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, clean water,
wilderness, and open space near fast-growing cities. The NCLS also
provides a living laboratory where the challenges of climate change can
be studied and landscape level habitat restoration can take place.
Recent changes have improved clarity in the NCLS's budget, but the NCLS
still suffers from a lack of prominence in the BLM's budget structure
and there is a real need for subaccounts that reflect the diversity of
the NCLS's many units.
--TWS' fiscal year 2011 recommendation is full budget clarity for the
NCLS--two new subactivities and funding of $100 million, a
modest increase of approximately $25 million more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
--Restore the Challenge Cost Share Program at full funding of $19
million. This is a cross-cutting program within Department of
the Interior, which provides a 1:1 match for volunteer
activities.
Renewable Energy
TWS is a strong proponent of transitioning our country to a
sustainable energy economy by developing our renewable energy resources
quickly and responsibly. We believe renewable energy is an appropriate
use of the public lands when sited in areas screened for habitat,
resource, or cultural conflicts. As such, we are supportive of the
request for a $14.2 million increase for renewable energy programs
across Department of the Interior, bringing the fiscal year 2011
request to $73.3 million. TWS is pleased that Department of the
Interior's request is consistent with the principle of both protecting
lands and installing energy facilities, as seen in the proposed $3
million increase over the $16.1 million enacted in fiscal year 2010,
for project-level environmental review. With these expanded resources,
TWS hopes the Department of the Interior will see fit to clearly
document policies for thorough and expedient environmental review,
suitability screening, energy zone identification, and fair return for
taxpayers.
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Funding
An analysis compiled by the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement shows that the NWRS needs at least $900 million in annual
operations and maintenance funding to properly administer its 150
million acres, educational nature programs, habitat restoration
projects, and much more. We appreciate the subcommittee's vision and
leadership while providing funding increases in fiscal year 2008-fiscal
year 2010. We urge the Congress to build upon these important steps
toward restoring the NWRS by considering our request in the fiscal year
2011 budget. To reach this goal, TWS recommends providing $578 million
in fiscal year 2011 for the operations and maintenance of America's
NWRS.
National Forest Funding
TWS supports the overall funding levels in the proposed Forest
Service (USFS) budget; however, we recommend adjusting the funding
levels of several programs. For example, important and fundamental
programs like inventory and monitoring and land management and planning
should have funding levels of $180.5 million and $80 million,
respectively, in fiscal year 2011. This is especially important in a
year when the administration is undergoing a national forest planning
rulemaking and when climate change requires that we perform more
research. TWS additionally recommends that the Forest Inventory and
Analysis Program receive $76 million, the Wildlife and Fisheries
Habitat Program be restored and receive $163 million, and Recreation,
Heritage and Wilderness Program receive $408 million.
TWS is pleased that the administration is working on shifting
forest management from timber-based to more restoration-based. However,
we do have concerns about a proposal that would eliminate three
important programs, and thus important measurements of the health of
our national forests. Additionally, the USFS must be provided with
direction from Congress to ``right-size'' its massive and decaying road
system, which is a major threat to the drinking water of more than
3,400 communities and has resulted in ecosystem degradation and a more
than $8 billion road maintenance backlog. The Western Governors'
Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, major sportsmen groups, and
others have also urged the USFS to bring its roads system down to a
sustainable size. To achieve forest restoration goals in fiscal year
2011, TWS recommends:
--The USFS receive congressional direction to develop a restoration
plan that is rooted in the latest science and includes input
from the public;
--The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is fully
funded and moved into the National Forest System budget;
--Congress continues its commitment to reduce fire risk to
communities by funding the two State Fire Assistance programs
at $150 million, collectively; and
--Congress funds the Legacy Roads and Trails program at $120 million,
$30 million of which for the minimum roads system analysis
(pursuant to 36 CFR 212.5(b)).
Acquiring land for conservation purposes is a critical duty for the
USFS. The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) helps to preserve working
forestlands threatened by conversion and development. To date, this
program has protected more than 1.9 million acres in 42 States and
territories. A total of $444 million of Federal funds have been matched
by $484 million in non-Federal funds and donations, making the Federal
share only 44 percent of overall project costs. TWS' fiscal year 2011
recommendation for the FLP is $150 million, an increase of $70.5
million more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $79.5 million.
The Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program,
established in the 2008 Farm Bill, will give communities, tribes and
nonprofits 50/50 matching funds to help purchase economically,
ecologically and culturally important forestlands to create community
forests. The program also ensures technical assistance through state
forestry agencies to help implement outstanding forest management. TWS'
fiscal year 2011 recommendation for Community Forest and Open Space
Program is $10 million, an increase of $9.5 million more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
The Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement (FLAME)
Act of 2009 requires the USFS to complete a Cohesive Wildfire
Management Strategy by the end of fiscal year 2010 to identify the most
cost-effective means for allocating fire management budget resources,
employ the appropriate management response to wildfires, and assess the
level of risk to communities and the impacts of climate change on
wildfire, among several other factors. While the agency has recently
begun this process, we believe they will be able to produce a better
product if given additional time. TWS recommends for fiscal year 2011:
--Congress provide the USFS with an additional year to ensure a more
comprehensive strategy;
--TWS recommends allocating $2 million for the agency to convene a
panel of scientists to inform the development and allow for a
public review process.
Fire Funding--USFS and Department of the Interior
TWS is pleased that the administration proposes funding the USFS
and Department of the Interior FLAME funds. However, it is unclear that
the USFS and the Department of the Interior require four emergency
funds through the additional proposed contingency reserve budgets for
each department. The FLAME fund is intended to fund suppressing high-
cost fires during the fire season and be accessible when annual
suppression funds are nearly exhausted. The FLAME fund also requires
the administration to report to Congress quarterly on the status of the
fund, which would provide appropriators the opportunity to replenish
the fund as needed. The purpose of the fund is to eliminate the need
for the USFS to transfer funds from non-fire programs--a practice that
has too often led to disruptions in program implementation. TWS
recommends that the proposed funding in the USFS and Department of the
Interior contingency reserve accounts be transferred to their
respective FLAME funds. Additionally, Congress must continue to stress
to the USFS the need to replace the 10-year rolling average estimate
with a more predictive statistical modeling approach for calculating
emergency and annual suppression estimates.
Council on Environmental Quality
CEQ serves as the principal environmental policy advisor to the
President. CEQ has broad statutory responsibilities for advising the
President in the development of environmental policies and legislation;
assessing and reporting trends in environmental quality and
recommending appropriate response strategies; and overseeing
implementation of NEPA. CEQ is severely understaffed. CEQ's staff
ranged from 50-70 in the 1970s and 1980s in both Republican and
Democratic Administrations, but it is currently staffed by only 24
FTEs. Additional resources are critical and TWS recommends an increase
to $4,694,093, which would allow for approximately 30 staff.
______
Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society
The Wildlife Society (TWS) appreciates the opportunity to provide
comments on the fiscal year 2011 budget for the Department of Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. TWS was founded in 1937
and is a nonprofit scientific and educational association representing
more than 9,000 professional wildlife biologists and managers,
dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and
education. Our mission is to represent and serve wildlife
professionals--the scientists, technicians, and practitioners actively
working to study, manage, and conserve native and desired non-native
wildlife and their habitats worldwide.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program is the primary program
supporting implementation of comprehensive wildlife conservation
strategies, known as State Wildlife Action Plans, and it is the only
Federal program that supports States in preventing wildlife from
becoming endangered. Each State creates plans which detail conservation
actions including land protection, invasive species management,
research and survey work, and more; these actions create or sustain
thousands of jobs that preserve lands important to all sorts of
wildlife enthusiasts. Funding assistance for these State wildlife
agencies is therefore one of the highest-priority needs for wildlife in
order to prevent further declines in at-risk wildlife populations in
every State. We recommend that $100 million be appropriated for State
Wildlife Grants in fiscal year 2011. We also ask that Congress support
a reduction in the non-Federal match requirement from 50 percent to 30
percent, relieving some of the onus of providing adequate matching
funding from severely cashed-strapped States.
The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) is a diverse
coalition of 22 wildlife, sporting, conservation, and scientific
organizations representing more than 14 million members and supporters.
A comprehensive analysis by CARE determined that our National Wildlife
Refuge System (NWRS) needs $900 million in annual operations to
properly administer its nearly 150 million acres, educational programs,
habitat restoration projects, and much more. Many years of stagnant
budgets have increased the operations and maintenance backlog, and
forced plans for a dramatic 20 percent downsizing of the workforce.
NWRS visitors often show up to find visitor centers closed, hiking
trails in disrepair, and habitat restoration programs eliminated.
Invasive plant species are taking over, requiring $25 million per year
to treat just one-third of its acreage, and illegal activities such as
poaching are on the rise, requiring an additional 209 officers ($31.4
million) to meet law enforcement needs. We request that you provide
$578 million in fiscal year 2011 for the operations and maintenance of
the NWRS.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a cooperative,
nonregulatory, incentive-based program that has shown unprecedented
success in restoring wetlands, waterfowl, and other migratory bird
populations. This program has remained drastically underfunded, despite
its great demonstrated effectiveness. We recommend a $10 million
increase, to $52.6 million in fiscal year 2011 so that act may reach
the goal of full funding of $75 million by fiscal year 2012.
The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) provides a
broad-spectrum approach to bird conservation. TWS recommends that
Congress fund the NMBCA at its full authorization of $6.5 million in
fiscal year 2011.
TWS supports adequate funding levels for all subactivities within
the Endangered Species Program. Endangered species recovery efforts can
ultimately lead to delisting actions that result in significant
benefits to species through State management efforts. Currently, all
subactivities are understaffed while the costs for management of listed
species continue to rapidly escalate. We recommend that Congress match
the President's request for the Endangered Species Program and provide
$181.33 million in funding in fiscal year 2011.
The voluntary Partners for Fish and Wildlife Programs provides
financial and technical assistance to landowners to restore degraded
habitat on their property. With more than two-thirds of our Nation's
lands held as private property, and up to 90 percent of some habitats
lost, private lands play a key role in preserving our ecosystem. We
urge Congress to provide $60 million in support of the Partners for
Fish and Wildlife Program in order to allow landowners to help
contribute to land and wildlife preservation.
Through its international programs, FWS works multilaterally with
many partners and countries in the implementation of international
treaties, conventions, and projects for the conservation of wildlife
species and their habitats. International trade, import, and
transportation of wildlife species can have a huge impact on America's
security, economy, and environment and careful regulation and
implementation of international policies is an important task. We ask
Congress to support FWS in protecting our economy, our environment, and
our national security by providing a necessary $22 million in support
of FWS International Affairs.
Finally, we ask Congress to provide additional funding to fight
White Nose Syndrome (WNS) in bats. The current loss of bats from WNS is
one of the most precipitous wildlife declines in the past century in
North America, and will likely have significant ecological and economic
consequences throughout the United States. Expert scientists have
recommended that $45 million will be needed over the next 5 years to
study and combat WNS, however last year Congress only appropriated $1.9
million for WNS in the Recovery of Listed Species Program. In order to
meet the growing urgency to fight this disease, TWS asks you to provide
an additional $5 million for fighting WNS in fiscal year 2011.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
The diverse habitats managed by BLM support more than 3,000 species
of wildlife, more than 300 federally proposed or listed species, and
more than 1,300 sensitive plant species. However, the BLM has only 1
biologist per 591,000 acres of land and estimated costs for recovery of
threatened and endangered species on BLM lands are $300 million
annually over the next 5 years. In addition, the Wildlife and Fisheries
Management (WFM) and the Threatened and Endangered Species Management
(TESM) programs have been forced to pay for the compliance activities
of BLM's energy, grazing, and other nonwildlife related programs,
eroding their ability to conduct proactive species and habitat
conservation activities and efforts to recover listed species. This
diversion of funding must be stopped, or additional funding provided to
both programs to make up for the deficiency. Therefore, given the
significant underfunding of the BLM's wildlife programs, combined with
the tremendous expansion of energy development across the BLM
landscape, an increase to $65.4 million for the BLM Wildlife and
Fisheries Management Program is warranted. This will allow BLM to
maintain and restore wildlife and habitat by monitoring habitat
conditions, conducting inventories of wildlife resources, and
developing cooperative management plans.
Increased funding is also needed for the Threatened and Endangered
Species Management Program to meet its responsibilities in endangered
species recovery plans. BLM's March 2001 Report to Congress called for
a doubling of the current Threatened and Endangered Species budget to
$48 million and an additional 70 staff positions over 5 years, however,
this goal has yet to be met. In view of this, we strongly encourage
Congress to increase overall funding for the BLM Endangered Species
Program to $33 million in fiscal year 2011.
Finally, TWS applauds the positive action that is being taken to
solve the problems associated with wild horse and burro management, and
supports Secretary Salazar's $75.9 million request for this issue.
However, given that horses and burros have been maintained above the
appropriate level for many years, we believe that additional funding
should be requested to correct the habitat damage that has occurred due
to overpopulation of these animals. We recommend that an additional $3
million be provided ($78.9 million total) in fiscal year 2011 to
remediate habitat degradation from wild horses and burros.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
The basic, objective, interdisciplinary scientific research that is
supported by the USGS is necessary for understanding the complex
environmental issues facing our Nation today. This science will play an
essential role in the decisionmaking processes of wildlife, land, and
other natural resource managers as we adapt to climate change, and it
will help protect our water supply, preserve endangered species, and
strengthen our national defense. More investment is needed to
strengthen USGS partnerships, improve monitoring, produce high-quality
geospatial data, and deliver the best science to address critical
environmental and societal challenges. TWS supports funding of at least
$1.334 billion for USGS in fiscal year 2011.
The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CFWRUs) are a
jointly funded Federal/State partnership that provides the funding for
personnel and establishment of the units at a university. In fiscal
year 2001, Congress fully funded the CFWRUs, allowing unit productivity
to rise to record levels. Since then, budgetary shortfalls have caused
an erosion of available fiscal resources, resulting in a current
staffing vacancy of nearly one quarter of the professional workforce.
In order to fill current scientist vacancies, restore seriously eroded
operational funds for each CFWRU, and enhance national program
coordination, the fiscal year 2011 budget for the CFWRUs should be
increased to $22.5 million. This would restore necessary capacity in
the CFWRU Program and allow it to meet the Nation's research and
training needs. Also, the CFWRUs are crucial to successfully addressing
the natural resource management challenges posed by climate change,
energy development, invasive species, infectious diseases, and fire. We
also ask that you establish a competitive matching fund program within
existing CFWRU legislative authority that would make available $20
million annually in new funds beyond base operational costs, starting
with a $5 million appropriation in fiscal year 2011.
TWS appreciates the funding for the National Climate Change and
Wildlife Science Center in last year's omnibus, and the fiscal year
2010 increase to $11 million for the Center. This center will play a
pivotal role in addressing the impacts of climate change on fish and
wildlife. In order for this role to be fully realized, funding must
increase. TWS recommends that Congress fully fund the President's
request of $23 million in fiscal year 2011.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
Our national forests and grasslands are essential to the
conservation of our Nation's wildlife and habitat, and are home to
about 425 threatened and endangered, and another 3,250 at-risk species.
Many programs within the USFS are essential to protecting these species
and require careful consideration during the appropriations process. In
fiscal year 2011, the USFS is proposing to combine several programs and
their budgets, including vegetation and watershed management, wildlife
and fisheries habitat management, and forest products into a single
integrated resource restoration activity budget. we are concerned with
this merging of resources because it makes accountability to
stakeholders and Congress difficult. However, with these reservations
noted, we urge Congress to support the request of $693.722 million for
the Integrated Resource Restoration Program in fiscal year 2011.
Integral to management of our natural resources is a deep
understanding of the biological and geological forces that shape the
land and its wildlife and plant communities. The research being done by
the USFS works at the forefront of science to improve the health of our
Nation's forests and grasslands and will play a key role in developing
strategies for mitigating the effects of climate change. Research is
the basis for sound policy decisions and sustained and increasing
funding is needed. We urge Congress to fund the President's request of
$312 million for forest and rangelands so we can continue to support
this high-quality research.
Last August, Secretary Vilsack announced his desire to develop
national forest planning regulations that are new, meaningful, and
climate-smart. Along with this need for new regulations, there is also
a tremendous backlog of forest plans that require revision; therefore,
an increase in funding for land management within the USFS is urgently
needed. Based upon funding estimates for sustaining current plans, as
well as additional funds for planning new regulations, we ask Congress
to provide $80 million for land management in fiscal year 2011.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Peninsula Public Access Coalition
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: On behalf of the
Upper Peninsula Public Access Coalition (UPPAC), I appreciate the
opportunity to present this testimony in support of acquiring land at
the Ottawa and Hiawatha National Forests in Michigan. Over the past 4
years we have worked towards protecting these properties and now, our
dream can become a reality. An appropriation of $4.8 million is needed
in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in order
for the Forest Service to acquire three tracts totaling 3,454 acres.
This project was recognized in the President's Budget as a Forest
Service priority at an amount of $1.3 million. However, the full $4.8
million is needed to acquire these critical properties.
UPPAC is a totally volunteer organization comprised of concerned
citizens dedicated to the protection and preservation of the region's
environmental quality and way of life. The common thread that connects
us all is our appreciation for the aesthetic beauty of undisturbed
shorelines as well as our use, enjoyment and deep concern for the
lakes, streams, rivers, and woodlands of Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
With its pristine rivers, winding streams, and vast wilderness
areas, Michigan's Upper Peninsula shapes the rugged character of the
upper Great Lakes region. Ensuring the lasting protection of this
region's diverse ecosystems, preserving sensitive wildlife habitat, and
securing lasting recreational opportunities are important conservation
objectives identified by the U.S. Forest Service that help address the
goals of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, established by
Presidential Executive order in February 2009.
The Great Lakes, Great Lands--Upper Peninsula conservation project
proposed for funding in fiscal year 2011 would greatly advance these
objectives by incorporating more than 3,500 acres of private land in
the Upper Peninsula into the Ottawa and Hiawatha national forests. In
collaboration with regional landowners and nonprofit partners, the
forests are working to protect wetland ecosystems, conserve open space,
and expand public access in the Upper Peninsula--all while promoting
sustainable forest management of the region's timber resources.
Acquisition of these properties will keep a significant portion of
the Upper Peninsula's pristine landscape intact, which in turn supports
efforts to address the threat of global warming, as forested landscapes
play an increasingly important role in sequestering carbon. Successful
implementation of this landscape-scale project will help ensure the
integrity of the wilderness experience and the protection of a truly
unique natural resource area in the Upper Peninsula.
Ottawa National Forest--Prickett Lake Phase II
Prickett Lake, located within the Kenton Ranger District of the
Ottawa National Forest, was the highest-ranked fiscal year 2010
acquisition priority for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service and
received partial funding through the Land and Water Conservation Fund
in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations cycle that will allow for a
portion of the property to be protected.
Upstream and downstream of Prickett Lake are designated sections of
the Wild and Scenic Sturgeon River, which flows directly into Lake
Superior. The Prickett Lake property is immediately adjacent to the
iconic Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness and includes a portion of the
remarkable North County National Scenic Trail, which stretches more
than 4,600 miles from New York to North Dakota and is the Nation's
longest national scenic trail.
The wilderness areas surrounding Prickett Lake host a diverse range
of wildlife habitat for gray wolves, Canada lynx, ruffed grouse, bald
eagles, minks, woodcocks, foxes, black bears, white-tailed deer, and a
variety of fish. Prickett Lake is upstream to one of the last remaining
productive spawning areas for lake sturgeon in the entire Lake Superior
watershed. This area's pristine water quality helps protect the overall
health of the Sturgeon River watershed. In fiscal year 2011, $1.3
million is needed from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to complete
this key priority of the Great Lakes, Great Lands--Upper Peninsula
initiative.
Ottawa National Forest--Victoria Lake
Available for acquisition in the Ottawa NF are the 370-acre
Victoria Lake tracts, which lie along the south and eastern shores of
Victoria Reservoir and the West Branch of the Ontonagon River. These
tracts are part of an intact forested landscape that stretches for
miles both north and south of the reservoir. Acquiring the Victoria
Lake properties would advance the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by
protecting the water quality of the West Branch Ontonagon Wild and
Scenic River--a Congressionally designated recreational wild and scenic
river for nearly a third of a mile within the project area. Like the
Prickett Lake property, the Victoria Lake tracts are also traversed by
a portion of the North County National Scenic Trail.
The Victoria Lake properties also provide significant opportunities
for the conservation, restoration, and improved management of a number
of quality wildlife resource values, including bald eagle and wetland
habitat. These parcels would add to the connectivity of wildlife
habitat already managed as public land in the area. The steep, north-
facing slopes above the reservoir and river are uncommon in the area
and provide ideal surroundings for boreal species to persist in the
face of changing climatic conditions. Should vulnerable species begin
to disappear across much of this landscape as a result of increasing
heat and drought conditions, surviving populations are expected to
endure in the moist north-facing coves of these parcels. Acquisition of
the Victoria Lake parcels will help the Forest Service maintain intact
forest landscapes that are resilient to climate changes and contribute
to ongoing carbon-sequestration efforts. In fiscal year 2011, $1
million is needed to permanently protect the lands around Victoria
Lake.
Hiawatha National Forest--Hiawatha Watershed Health Project Phase I
The Hiawatha Watershed Health Project is a landscape-scale
conservation project focusing on the restoration and maintenance of
watersheds that serve the central and eastern portions of the Upper
Peninsula. As part of the Hiawatha Watershed Health project, the
Hiawatha National Forest proposes to begin the acquisition of important
resource lands from Plum Creek Timber Company, an effort that when
completed will significantly consolidate Federal ownership and help
ensure the protection and conservation of three separate watersheds
that drain into the northern Great Lakes. The conservation of these
watersheds and extensive wetland areas would help support the
objectives of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
Consolidation of Federal lands associated with the Hiawatha
Watershed Health Project would also enhance recreational opportunities
and protect habitat for a number of species facing extinction.
Acquisition of several parcels near the Bay de Noc to Grand Island
Trail would improve management and protection of the visual and scenic
qualities of this popular hiking trail, which is listed on the State
Register of Historic Places. The tracts offer secluded older forest
habitat that favors the recovery of the endangered Eastern gray wolf,
the threatened Canadian lynx, and other sensitive species, including
the northern goshawk and the red-shouldered hawk. Acquisition of these
parcels would preclude further subdivision of the land and the
conversion to alternative uses, such as rural residential development.
The impact of conversion on natural resources and public access would
likely be significant if these lands are subdivided and sold to
multiple landowners. An appropriation of $2,500,000 from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2011 for the purchase of 2,500
acres of these important resource lands will protect critical watershed
areas in the Upper Peninsula and support the objectives of the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative.
The Great Lakes, Great Lands--Upper Peninsula project represents a
substantial step toward achieving landscape-scale conservation that
will provide significant watershed protection, safeguard substantial
wildlife habitat, and address the threat of climate change. A total
appropriation of $4,800,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
is needed in fiscal year 2011 to achieve this extraordinary
conservation goal.
In closing, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation's
premier Federal program to acquire and protect lands at national parks,
forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and
recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the
public with substantial social and economic benefits including
promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking
water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting the
adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these
reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to the program
in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration's
commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing
the many demands this committee faces, I also want to thank the
committee for its recent effort to restore much-needed funding to this
depleted program. This wise investment in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund is one that will permanently pay dividends to the
American people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Michigan, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the United Tribes Technical College
For 41 years, United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has provided
postsecondary career and technical education, job training, and family
services to some of the most impoverished Indian students from
throughout the Nation. Unemployment among the Great Plains tribes,
where 75 percent of our students are from, typically run at about 75
percent. Nearly half who are employed are living under the poverty line
(2005 BIA Labor Force Report). We are governed by the five tribes
located wholly or in part in North Dakota; we are not part of the North
Dakota State college system and do not have a tax base or State-
appropriated funds on which to rely. We have consistently had excellent
retention and placement rates and are a fully accredited institution.
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) funds represent about half of our
operating budget and provide for our core instructional programs. These
funds are authorized under title V of the Tribally Controlled Colleges
and Universities Act.
The requests of the UTTC Board for the fiscal year 2011 BIE/BIA
budget are:
--$6.4 million in BIE funding for UTTC for our Indian Self-
Determination Act contract, which is $2 million more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. This is our base funding.
--$4.375 million toward phase I of a planned Northern Plains Indian
Police Academy located at UTTC.
--$3 million for phase II of our Science and Technology Building.
--$3 million for student housing on our south campus to accommodate
an increasing student population and also for anticipated needs
related to a law enforcement academy.
--$23 million increase over the budget request for Administrative
Cost Grants for BIE-funded elementary and secondary schools for
a total of $69 million; this is not funding for our college,
but rather for tribally operated elementary and secondary
schools.
Base Funding.--UTTC administers its BIE funding under an Indian
Self-Determination Act agreement, and has done so 33 years. Funds
requested above the fiscal year 2010 level are needed to: (1) maintain
100-year-old education buildings and 50-year-old housing stock for
students; (2) upgrade technology capabilities; (3) provide adequate
salaries for faculty and staff (who have not received a cost of living
increase this year and who are in the bottom quartile of salary for
comparable positions elsewhere); and (4) fund program and curriculum
improvements, including at least three 4-year degree programs.
Acquisition of additional base funding is critical as UTTC has more
than tripled its number of students within the past 6 years, but actual
base funding for educational services, including Carl Perkins Act funds
has increased only 25 percent in that period (from approximately $6
million to $8 million). Our BIE funding provides a base level of
support allowing the college to compete for discretionary contracts and
grants leading to additional resources annually for the college's
programs and support services.
Indian Police Academy.--We have been working toward the
establishment of a police training academy on our campus. We have done
this with the encouragement of our congressional delegation and tribes,
especially those in the Northern Plains. To that end we signed a
Memorandum of Understanding in 2008 with the BIA and the American
Indian Higher Education Consortium to provide supplemental in-service
training to BIA and tribal police officers as maybe agreed upon by the
BIA. In fiscal year 2010, $250,000 was appropriated to the BIA and
designated as special initiative of the Indian Police Academy in New
Mexico to work with UTTC on law enforcement training matters. That is a
good first step but we need to move to establishment of a full-fledged
police training academy for BIA and tribal police in the Northern
Plains. The only Indian police academy now is in Artesia, New Mexico
which, while doing excellent work, can train only 3 classes of 50
persons annually. There is an attrition rate of 47 percent, thus
graduating on average 80 officers each year. Of those graduates, one-
half will leave law enforcement as a career or move to an agency
outside of Indian Country. The BIA estimates that tribal police
officers are staffed at only 58 percent of need.
Our specific request for $4.375 million is for phase I of the
police academy facility, which will include the basic building for
instruction of 35,000 sq. ft., enough to train up to 165 law
enforcement officers per year. We have entered into discussions with
Federal, local, and State officials to ensure the facility and the
training we offer will meet all requisite standards, and to coordinate
what part of the facility should be placed at UTTC and which parts may
be placed elsewhere, in order to share the cost.
UTTC testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on
March 18, 2010, regarding law enforcement training, recruitment, and
retention needs in Indian country. We will make available to you our
testimony from that hearing.
Math and Technology Building.--UTTC provides education for more
than 1,000 students in 100-year-old former military buildings (Fort
Abraham Lincoln), along with one 33-year old ``skills center'' which is
inadequate for modern technology and science instruction. We have
completed phase I of the building and now look to complete phase 2. We
have raised $5 million, including $1 million in private funding, $3
million from the Department of Education and $1 million in borrowed
funds, and anticipate an additional $1 million from the Department of
Education title III funds. The total project cost is expected to be
around $12 million. Our current facility lacks laboratories with proper
ventilation and other technologies which are standard in science
education. We lack a modern auditorium/lecture hall with features such
as computer Internet access and electrical outlets and a library with
appropriate computer stations. Our present library has been cited by
the accrediting agency as being inadequate.
Student Housing.--We are constantly in need of more student
housing, including family housing. We want to educate more students but
lack of housing has at times limited the admission of new students.
With the expected completion of a new science and math building on our
South Campus on land acquired with a private grant, we urgently need
housing for up to 150 students, many of whom have families. New housing
on the south campus could also accommodate those persons being trained
in our Northern Plains Police Academy.
While UTTC has constructed three housing facilities using a variety
of sources in the past 20 years, approximately 50 percent of students
are housed in the 100-year-old buildings of the old Fort Abraham
Lincoln, as well as in duplexes and single family dwellings that were
donated to UTTC by the Federal Government along with the land and Fort
buildings in 1973. These buildings require major rehabilitation. New
buildings for housing are actually cheaper than trying to rehabilitate
the old buildings that now house students.
Administrative Costs Grants for Elementary/Secondary Schools.--As
noted above, we recommend a $23 million increase over the
administration's request for ACGs for BIE-funded, tribally operated
elementary and secondary schools. We have such a school on our campus--
the Theodore Jamerson Elementary School. While Congress has,
thankfully, recently increased funding for BIA and IHS Contract Support
Costs for tribal governments, it has not done so for the tribally
controlled BIE-funded elementary and secondary schools. The equivalent
to CSC for these schools is ACGs.
Below are some important things we would like you to know about our
UTTC:
UTTC Performance Indicators.--UTTC has:
--An annual 80-90 percent retention rate.
--A placement rate of 94 percent (job placement and going on to 4-
year institutions).
--A projected return on Federal investment of 20-to-1 (2005 study
comparing the projected earnings generated more than a 28-year
period of UTTC Associate of Applied Science and Bachelor degree
graduates of June 2005 with the cost of educating them).
--The Highest Level of Accreditation.--The North Central Association
of Colleges and Schools has accredited UTTC again in 2001 for
the longest period of time allowable--10 years or until 2011--
and with no stipulations. We are also 1 of only 2 tribal
colleges accredited to offer accredited on-line (Internet
based) associate degrees.
--More than 20 percent of graduates go on to 4-year or advanced
degree institutions.
Our Students.--Our students are from Indian reservations from
throughout the Nation, with a significant portion of them being from
the Great Plains area. Our students have had to make a real effort to
attend college; they come from impoverished backgrounds or broken
families. They may be overcoming extremely difficult personal
circumstances as single parents. They often lack the resources, both
culturally and financially, to go to other mainstream institutions.
Through a variety of sources, including funds from the BIE, UTTC
provides a set of family and culturally based campus services,
including: an elementary school for the children of students, housing,
day care, a health clinic, a wellness center, several on-campus job
programs, student government, counseling, services relating to drug and
alcohol abuse and job placement programs. We are currently serving 168
students in our elementary school and 169 youngsters in our child
development centers.
UTTC course offerings and partnerships with other educational
institutions. We offer accredited vocational/technical programs that
lead to 17 2-year degrees (Associate of Applied Science and 11 1-year
certificates, as well as a 4-year degree in elementary education in
cooperation with Sinte Gleska University in South Dakota. We intend to
expand our 4-year degree programs. While full information may be found
on our Web site (www.uttc.edu), among our course offerings are:
Licensed Practical Nursing.--This program results in great demand
for our graduates; students are able to transfer their UTTC credits to
the North Dakota higher educational system to pursue a 4-year nursing
degree.
Medical Transcription and Coding Certificate Program.--This program
provides training in transcribing medical records into properly coded
digital documents. It is offered through the UTTC's Exact Med Training
program and is supported by Department of Labor funds.
Tribal Environmental Science.--This program is supported by a
National Science Foundation Tribal College and Universities Program
grant. This 5-year project allows students to obtain a 2-year AAS
degree in Tribal Environmental Science.
Community Health/Injury Prevention/Public Health.--Through our
Community Health/Injury Prevention Program we are addressing the injury
death rate among Indians, which is 2.8 times that of the U.S.
population. This program has in the past been supported by the IHS, and
is the only degree-granting Injury Prevention program in the nation.
Given the overwhelming health needs of Native Americans, we continue to
seek resources for training of public health professionals.
Online Education.--Our online education courses provide increased
opportunities for education by providing Web-based courses to American
Indians at remote sites as well as to students on our campus. These
courses provide needed scheduling flexibility, especially for students
with young children. They allow students to access quality, tribally
focused education without leaving home or present employment. We offer
online fully accredited degree programs in the areas of Early Childhood
Education, Community Health/Injury Prevention, Health Information
Technology, Nutrition and Food Service and Elementary Education.
Criminal Justice.--Our criminal justice program leads many students
to a career in law enforcement, and as noted elsewhere in this
testimony, we are working toward establishment of a police training
academy at UTTC.
Computer Information Technology.--This program is at maximum
student capacity because of limitations on resources for computer
instruction. In order to keep up with student demand and the latest
technology, we need more classrooms, equipment and instructors. We
provide all of the Microsoft Systems certifications that translate into
higher income earning potential for graduates.
Nutrition and Food Services.--We help meet the challenge of
fighting diabetes and other health problems in Indian country through
education and research. As a 1994 Tribal Land Grant institution, we
offer a Nutrition and Food Services AAS degree in order to increase the
number of Indians with expertise in nutrition and dietetics. There are
few Indian professionals in the country with training in these areas.
We have also established a Diabetes Education Center that assists local
tribal communities, our students and staff to decrease the prevalence
of diabetes by providing food guides, educational programs, training
and materials.
Our BIE and Perkins funds provide for nearly all of our core
postsecondary educational programs. Very little of the other funds we
receive may be used for core career and technical educational programs;
they are competitive, often one-time supplemental funds which help us
provide the services our students need to be successful. We cannot
continue operating without BIE funds. Thank you for your consideration
of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of Wellington, Florida
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of The
Village of Wellington, Florida, I am pleased to submit this statement
for the record in support of our fiscal year 2011 request of $1.5
million for Wellington's Water and Wastewater Utilities Systems
Expansion and Improvement Project. This vital project is a major
component of the Village's overall environmental infrastructure program
that also includes a Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Mitigation
Program.
project executive summary
Since its incorporation, Wellington has been a leader in
environmental initiatives. Following in the footsteps of its landmark
approach for compliance with the 1994 Everglades Forever Act (EFA),
which established water quality goals for the restoration and
preservation of the Everglades Protection Area, Wellington forged a
partnership with Federal, State, and regional agencies in its effort to
restore and preserve the environment while providing responsive, high-
quality services to its residents. To that end, we are seeking funding
to supplement our current funding commitments for construction and
improvements of 4.75 MGD, $23 million wastewater treatment plant
providing treatment capacity to support our economic development
efforts, 100 percent reuse minimizing water resource impacts/energy use
and 100 percent environmentally friendly Class AA bio-solids as well as
construction of 3.6 MGD, $9 million water treatment plant providing
treatment capacity to support job growth, ultra-efficient treatment
processes to minimize energy use and ensure compliance with water
quality standards.
Specifically, Wellington is seeking $1.5 million in Federal funding
to help support its flagship project to improve and repair the aging
water and wastewater systems to meet Federal regulatory requirements
and public safety levels of service. Two hundred twenty-five new jobs
will be created as a result. The four key projects undertaken by the
Village of Wellington, almost totally at local taxpayers' expense, is
$35.8 million. They include:
--Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project.--This is a $22
million project to install new technology for treatment of
waste effluent for wastewater utility operations. Additional
treatment and reuse capacity and provisions for future bio-
solids processing are required to meet increases in population
and regulatory requirements.
--Water Treatment Plant.--This is a $9.6 million project to replace
out-of-date and inefficient water systems and expand the
reverse osmosis system to provide more effective systems.
Currently this project has been deferred due to lack of
funding. This is a critical component in our overall
responsible environmental stewardship as it provides us the
ability to utilize the Floridian Aquifer as a water supply
source in lieu of the surficial aquifer system currently
utilized.
--Reuse Transmission Lines.--This is a $2.8 million project to
install reuse transmission and distribution piping throughout
major corridors of Wellington.
--Storage and Re-pump Renewal and Replacement.--This is a $1.4
million project to repair, replace, and renew existing storage
and re-pump facilities throughout Wellington. Repairs are
needed to provide a reliable source of potable water service
and fire protection service.
Prior to embarking on our ambitious infrastructure project, we have
invested $20 million public funds in conjunction with the Acme Basin B
Discharge project as part of 1 of 55 projects that comprise the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). The Basin B drainage
area is part of the Acme Improvement District, which was created by the
state of Florida in 1953 to provide drainage for agricultural land in
central Palm Beach County. During the 50 years since its inception,
land uses within the improvement district have changed dramatically.
The Acme Improvement District now serves the Village of Wellington and
more than 60,000 residents. Basin B consists of 8,680 acres of low-
density development located in the southern half of the Improvement
District. The western boundary of Basin B abuts the Loxahatchee Refuge.
Wellington, Florida has 60,000 residents and is a unique mixture of
urban, rural, equine, and agricultural land uses each having varying
impacts on our storm water quality. Through regulations controlling
animal waste, fertilizer use and application and specialized
development standards, Wellington has demonstrated its commitment to
protecting and improving our water resources.
Since 1999, Wellington has played a leadership role in the
development and implementation of storm water quality improvements. To
date, Wellington has invested more than $20 million and has partnered
with regional, State and Federal agencies toward the mutual goal of
improving water quality in south Florida and, ultimately, in the
Everglades. Some of the projects include a complete re-plumbing of its
storm water canal system which eliminated discharges to portions of the
Everglades. In addition, a 320-acre preserve was designed and
constructed to store and treat stormwater runoffs prior to leaving
Wellington. Wellington is also the first community in south Florida to
adopt and enforce comprehensive Best Managements Practices (BMPs) to
reduce nutrient concentrations. By 2006, Wellington met the south
Florida mandate of phosphorus discharge of 50 ppb into the Everglades.
While Wellington has labored for more than a decade developing and
implementing its comprehensive stormwater projects and programs, others
have stood by and watched with great interest. As we now look to the
new rules being promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) designed to create ``numeric water quality standards'' applicable
throughout Florida, Wellington has proactively and independently
proposed new BMP regulations and operational protocols designed to
further reduce nutrients in our storm water systems.
For Wellington to maintain its leadership role, we are also
undertaking a $2.2 million program to refine further our Best
Management Program and continue Wellington's commitment to
environmental protection, including preservation of our water
resources.
The Best Management Practices and Mitigation Program is a $2.2
million project that will develop new Best Management Practices (BMP
Phase II) designed to further enhance flood attenuation, improve water
quality and provide additional storage of surface water. The project's
goal is to further reduce nutrient concentrations and other pollutants
that potentially may enter the regional storm water systems. This goal
is consistent with and complimentary to, other State and Federal
efforts to improve water quality in south Florida and the Florida
Everglades.
Wellington's efforts have been recognized as innovative and
effective. Our experience can serve as a benchmark for others.
funding needs
For fiscal year 2011, Wellington, Florida is seeking $1.5 million
from the EPA through the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies for its Water and Wastewater
Utilities System Expansion and Improvement Project.
On behalf of the Village Council and the citizens of Wellington,
Florida, thank you for your consideration of our request.
______
Letter From the Western Interstate Energy Board
March 17, 2010.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: On behalf of the
coal mine reclamation agencies in the States of Colorado, Montana, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, we are writing to convey our concerns with
the administration's proposed 15 percent ($11 million) reduction in
State regulatory grants in fiscal year 2011 authorized under the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (issued by the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement). More than one-half of the
Nation's coal is mined in our States.
In fiscal year 2010, Congress approved an additional $5.8 million
increase for State title V grants over the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level, for a total of $71.3 million. Congressional action helped avert
serious problems in the funding of Western State regulatory programs as
outlined in a report we prepared in November 2006, ``An Impending
Crisis for Coal Supplies'' (http://www.westgov.org/wieb/reclamation/
2006/12-01-06finalrpt.pdf). Congressional action was essential to
restoring the Federal share of State regulatory programs and reversing
a 12-year period during which OSM costs were adjusted for inflation but
State regulatory grants were not.
The administration's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget threatens to
undo the progress made by Congress. The administration's proposal to
cut State regulatory grants--a proposal that is based on the
unsupported assumption that State permit fees can be quickly raised to
fill the budget hole--is completely unrealistic. The most likely
outcome of the administration's proposal is serious erosion of State
program capabilities as positions go unfilled, personnel are laid off,
and needed equipment purchases are deferred. As State program
capabilities erode, so do our abilities to orderly review and enforce
coal mine permits and to protect the public from any potential health
and environmental impacts of coal mining.
We appreciate the support Congress has provided State regulatory
programs through title V grants and the funding of critical OSM
training and technical assistance programs. We urge you to block the
administration's proposals that would undercut effective regulatory of
coal mining by the States and maintain the constructive course Congress
has been on in the last several years.
Sincerely,
Douglas C. Larson,
Executive Director.
______
Letter From the Wyoming State Engineer's Office
March 15, 2010.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for Funding of $5,900,000 in fiscal year 2011 within the
Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water and Air Account
Management Program for implementing Colorado River Salinity
Control Program measures; Requesting the Specific Designation
of $1,500,000 be spent on identified salinity control and
salinity control-related projects and studies.
Dear Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: This letter
is sent in support of fiscal year 2011 funding for the BLM for
activities directly benefiting the Colorado River Salinity Control
Program. The activities needed to control salts reaching the Colorado
River system from lands managed by the BLM fall within that agency's
Land Resources Subactivity--Soil Water and Air Management Program. We
request $5,900,000 be directed to enhancing Colorado River water
quality and to engage in land management activities that will
accomplish salt loading reduction in the Colorado River Basin.
Wyoming is a member State of the seven State Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum, established in 1973 to coordinate with the
Federal Government to assure maintenance of basin-wide Water Quality
Standards for Salinity that have been in place for more than three
decades. The Forum is composed of gubernatorial representatives who
interact with the involved Federal agencies on the joint Federal/State
efforts to control the salinity of the Colorado River. The Forum
annually makes funding recommendations, including the amount believed
necessary to be expended by the Bureau of Land Management for its
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. Overall, the combined
efforts of the Basin States, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of
Land Management and the Department of Agriculture have resulted in one
of the Nation's most successful nonpoint source control programs.
The basin-wide water quality standards for salinity consist of
numeric water quality criteria established and maintained at three
Lower Colorado River points (Below Hoover Dam, Below Parker Dam and At
Imperial Dam) and a plan of implementation describing the Program's
components, including specific salinity control projects to remove salt
from the River system. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the water
quality standards for salinity are reviewed at least once each three
years. At those intervals, the plan of implementation is jointly
revised by the States and involved Federal agencies, including
representatives of the Bureau of Land Management, to ensure that the
planned actions are sufficient to maintain continuing compliance with
the basin-wide Water Quality Standards for Salinity's numeric criteria.
Successful implementation of land management practices by the
Bureau of Land Management to control soil erosion and the resultant
salt contributions to the Colorado River system is essential to the
continued success of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
The BLM's fiscal year 2010 Budget Justification document reports that
the agency continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate
progress in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Department of Agriculture and report salt-retaining measures in
furtherance of implementing the plan of implementation. As noted in the
testimony of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (as
submitted by Jack A. Barnett, the Forum's Executive Director), the
Forum's member States, including the State of Wyoming, believe that
fiscal year 2011 Soil, Water and Air Management Program funds should be
used, in part, to continue efforts that will directly reduce salt
contributions from BLM-managed lands within the Colorado River Basin,
consistent with BLM's fiscal year 2011 Budget Justification document.
At its recent October 2009 meeting, the Forum, in consultation with BLM
officials, recommended that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management should
expend $5,900,000 in fiscal year 2011 for salinity control.
Accordingly, we request that the BLM be directed to expend from Soil,
Water and Air Management Program funds not less than $5,900,000 for
activities to reduce salt loading from BLM-managed lands in the
Colorado River Basin in fiscal year 2011.
As one of the five principal Soil, Water and Air Program priorities
identified by the BLM, projects directly accomplishing Colorado River
salinity loading reductions should be funded. In the past, the BLM has
used Soil, Water and Air Program funding for specific salinity control
project proposals submitted to BLM's salinity control coordinator by
BLM staff in the seven Colorado River Basin States. Through this
competitive proposal consideration process, funds have been awarded to
those projects having the greatest merit (as measured by their salt
loading reduction and ability to quantify the salinity reduction that
would be accomplished). The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Forum's testimony to this subcommittee requests designation of
$1,500,000 for this purpose. As Wyoming's Forum members, we wish to
advise that the State of Wyoming concurs in that request.
Through studying hundreds of watersheds in the States of Utah,
Colorado and Wyoming, the collaborative efforts of the collective
State/Federal agencies and organizations working through the auspices
of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum have selected
several watersheds where very cost-effective salinity control efforts
can be implemented without additional delay or study. In keeping with
the Congressional mandate to maximize the cost-effectiveness of
salinity control, the State of Wyoming joins with the Forum in
requesting that the Congress appropriate and the administration
allocate adequate funds to support the BLM's portion of the Colorado
River Salinity Control Program as described in the adopted Plan of
Implementation.
The State of Wyoming appreciates the subcommittee's funding support
of the Bureau of Land Management's statutorial responsibility to
participate in the basin wide Colorado River Salinity Control Program
in past years. We continue to believe this important basin-wide water
quality improvement program merits funding and support by your
subcommittee.
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick T. Tyrrell,
Wyoming State Engineer,
Member, Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control
Forum.
Dan S. Budd,
Commissioner, Interstate
Stream Member, Colorado
River Basin Salinity
Control Forum.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 149
Alabama Rivers Alliance, et al., Prepared Statement of the....... 174
Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee:
Questions Submitted by......................................43, 103
Statement of................................................. 111
American:
Association:
Of Petroleum Geologists, Prepared Statement of the....... 143
On Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Prepared
Statement of the....................................... 142
Bird Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.................. 147
Forest:
And Paper Association, Prepared Statement of the......... 158
Foundation, Letter From the.............................. 155
Hiking Society, Prepared Statement of the.................... 196
Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the 162
Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the.. 160
Lung Association, Prepared Statement of the.................. 165
Orchestras, Prepared Statement of the........................ 302
Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 173
Rivers, Prepared Statement of the............................ 196
Society of:
Agronomy, Prepared Statement of the...................... 180
Civil Engineers, Prepared Statement of the............... 183
Mechanical Engineers, Prepared Statement of the.......... 188
Sportfishing Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 177
Americans for the Arts, Prepared Statement of the................ 152
Amigos de la Sevilleta, Prepared Statement of the................ 151
Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 196
Appalachian:
Mountain Club, Prepared Statement of the..................... 168
Trail Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the................. 193
APS Four Corners Power Plant, Prepared Statement of the.......... 196
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 191
Association of:
American Universities, Prepared Statement of the............. 144
Public and Land-Grant Universities, Prepared Statement of the 171
Research Libraries, Prepared Statement of the................ 176
State Drinking Water Administrators, Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 185
Aurora Water, Prepared Statement of.............................. 196
Bat Conservation International, Prepared Statement of............ 203
Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator From Utah, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 50
Bird Conservation:
Alliance, Prepared Statement of the.......................... 199
Funding Coalition, Prepared Statement of the................. 201
Black Mesa Community School, Prepared Statement of the........... 207
Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
Questions Submitted by.........................................36, 96
California:
Forest Pest Council, Letter From the......................... 155
Industry and Government Coalition, Prepared Statement of the. 220
Center for Biological Diversity, Prepared Statement of the....... 196
Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 196
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Prepared Statement of the............. 196
Children's Environmental Health Network, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 211
Chippewa Flowage Area Property Owners Association, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 216
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Prepared Statement of the............ 222
Chugach Regional Resources Commission, Prepared Statement of the. 231
Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Prepared Statement of the. 210
City of Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation, Bureau of
Forestry, Letter From the...................................... 155
Civil War Preservation Trust, Prepared Statement of the.......... 237
Coalition for Healthier Schools, Prepared Statement of the....... 218
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
Question Submitted by.......................................50, 139
Prepared Statement of........................................ 112
Collins, Senator Susan, U.S. Senator From Maine, Questions
Submitted by..................................................51, 106
Colorado:
River:
Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of the.. 226
Board of California, Prepared Statement of the........... 224
Commission of Nevada, Letter From the.................... 228
River Energy Distributers Association, Prepared Statement
of the................................................. 196
Water Conservation District, Prepared Statement of the... 196
Springs Utilitites, Prepared Statement of.................... 196
Water Congress, Prepared Statement of the.................... 196
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 228
Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 208
Crop Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the....... 180
Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 236
Dance/USA, Prepared Statement of the............................. 244
Davey Institute, Letter From the................................. 155
Defenders of Wildlife, Prepared Statements of the..............196, 241
Denver Water, Prepared Statement of.............................. 196
Deschutes Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Prepared Statement of the.. 240
Dolores Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the.... 196
Doris Day Animal League, Prepared Statement of the............... 280
Earthjustice, Prepared Statement of.............................. 196
1854 Treaty Authority, Prepared Statement of the................. 141
Emissions Control Technology Association, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 248
Energy Minerals Reclamation Committee, Prepared Statement of the. 251
Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government, Prepared Statement of the..... 251
Environment America, Prepared Statement of....................... 196
Environmental:
Defense Fund, Prepared Statement of the...................... 196
Council of the States, Prepared Statement of the............. 246
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California:
Opening Statements of....................................1, 53, 109
Questions Submitted by..................................35, 90, 126
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 252
Friends of:
Back Bay, Prepared Statement of the.......................... 256
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 257
Congaree Swamp, Prepared Statement of the.................... 258
Virgin Islands National Park, Prepared Statement of the...... 261
Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement
of the..................................................... 263
The:
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared
Statement of the....................................... 255
Columbia Gorge, Prepared Statement of the................ 260
Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges, Inc., Prepared
Statement of the....................................... 264
Geological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the......... 271
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 265
Grand Valley Water Users Association, Prepared Statement of the.. 196
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 266
Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Prepared Statement of the......... 274
Green Mountain Club, Prepared Statement of the................... 269
Hayes, David J., Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of the Interior..................................... 53
Prepared Statement of........................................ 68
Summary Statement of......................................... 67
Healing Our Waters--Great Lakes Coalition, Prepared Statement of 275
Hoopa:
Tribal Police Department, Prepared Statement of the.......... 282
Valley Tribe, Prepared Statement of the...................... 284
Humane Society:
Legislative Fund, Prepared Statement of the.................. 280
Of the United States, Prepared Statement of the.............. 280
Ice Age Floods Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 286
Idaho Conservation League, Prepared Statement of the............. 288
InterTribal Bison Cooperative, Prepared Statement of the......... 294
International:
Center for Technology Assessment, Prepared Statement of the.. 196
Maple Syrup Institute, Letter From the....................... 155
Interstate Mining Compact Commission, Prepared Statement of the.. 289
Izaak Walton League of America, Prepared Statement of the........ 296
Jackson, Hon. Lisa P., Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 6
Summary Statement of......................................... 4
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Prepared Statement of the............. 298
Jicarilla Apache Nation, Prepared Statement of the............... 196
Johnson, Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota, Questions Submitted
by............................................................. 135
Keep Valley Forge Safe, Prepared Statement of the................ 301
Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin, Question
Submitted by................................................... 135
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 305
Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 315
Lands Council, Prepared Statement of the......................... 196
League of Conservation Voters, Prepared Statement of the......... 196
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Prepared Statement of the............. 307
Ludlow's Island Resort, Prepared Statement of.................... 313
Lummi Indian Business Council, Prepared Statement of the......... 310
Marine:
Conservation Biology Institute, Prepared Statement of the.... 196
Fish Conservation Network, Prepared Statement of the......... 196
Maumelle Water Excellence Project, Prepared Statement of the..... 321
McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 139
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Letter From
the............................................................ 319
Mother Lode Chapter, Sierra Club, Prepared Statement of the...... 317
Mulch & Soil Council, Letter From the............................ 155
National:
Association of:
Abandoned Mine Land Programs, Prepared Statement of the.. 322
Clean Air Agencies, Prepared Statement of the............ 324
Forest Service Retirees:
Letter From the...................................... 327
Prepared Statement of the............................ 331
School Nurses, Prepared Statement of the................. 334
State:
Energy Officials, Prepared Statement of the.......... 330
Foresters, Letter From the........................... 155
Audubon Society, Prepared Statement of the................... 196
Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 336
Cooperators' Coalition, Prepared Statement of the............ 334
Environmental Services Center, Prepared Statement of the..... 338
Estuarine Research Reserve Association, Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 196
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the...... 365
Humanities Alliance, Prepared Statement of the............... 341
Mining Association, Prepared Statement of the................ 350
Plant Board, Letter From the................................. 155
Recreation and Park Association, Prepared Statement of the... 355
Tribal Environmental Council, Prepared Statement of the...... 359
Trust for Historic Preservation, Prepared Statement of the... 362
Wildlife:
Federation, Prepared Statements of the.................196, 363
Refuge Association, Prepared Statement of the............ 368
Natural Resources Defense Council, Prepared Statement of the..... 196
Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.................... 410
Nelson, Senator Ben, U.S. Senator From Nebraska, Question
Submitted by................................................... 43
New:
Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Prepared Statement of the 344
Jersey Audubon Society, Prepared Statement of the............ 349
Mexico:
Interstate Stream Commission, Prepared Statement of the.. 352
Wildlife Federation, Prepared Statement of the........... 353
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Letter
From
the........................................................ 155
North:
American Maple Syrup Council, Inc., Letter From the.......... 155
Shore Sanitary District, Prepared Statement of the........... 358
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 196
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the. 346
Ocean Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the..................... 196
Oceana, Prepared Statement of.................................... 196
OPERA America, Prepared Statement of............................. 372
Orchard Mesa Irrigation District, Prepared Statement of the...... 196
Orleans Audubon Society, Inc., Prepared Statement of the......... 370
Pelican Island Preservation Society, Prepared Statement of the... 381
Performing Arts Alliance, Prepared Statement of the.............. 376
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Letter From the.......... 155
Pew Environment Group, Prepared Statement of the................. 196
PNM Resources, Inc., Prepared Statement of the................... 196
Pocono Heritage Land Trust, Prepared Statement of the............ 380
Preservation Action, Prepared Statement of....................... 374
Public:
Lands Foundation, Prepared Statement of the.................. 382
Trust Environmental Legal Institute of Florida, Inc.,
Prepared Statement of the.................................. 383
Purdue University, Department of Entomology, Letter From the..... 155
Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Prepared Statement of the............. 385
Quinault Indian Nation, Prepared Statement of the................ 388
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the........... 196
Riverkeeper, Prepared Statement of............................... 196
Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., Prepared Statement of the....... 393
Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island, Statement of. 16
Rocky Mountain:
Bird Observatory, Prepared Statement of the.................. 390
Climate Organization, Prepared Statement of the.............. 391
Salazar, Hon. Ken, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department
of the Interior:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 59
Statement of................................................. 53
Summary Statement of......................................... 56
San Juan Water Commission, Prepared Statement of the............. 196
Sawtooth Society, Prepared Statement of the...................... 404
Sierra:
Club, Prepared Statement of the.............................. 196
Foothills Audubon Society, Prepared Statement of the......... 395
Skokomish Tribe of Washington State, Prepared Statement of the... 405
Society of American Florists, Letter From the.................... 155
Soil Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the....... 180
Southern:
Environmental Law Center, Prepared Statement of the.......... 196
Utah Wilderness Alliance, Prepared Statement of the.......... 196
Ute Indian Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.................. 196
Squaxin Island Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.................. 397
St.:
Marks Refuge Association, Inc., Prepared Statement of........ 400
Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of the.. 408
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Prepared Statement of the............. 401
States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 400
Suzanne Roy, Prepared Statement of............................... 401
10 Tanker Air Carrier, LLC, Prepared Statement of................ 414
Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana, Questions
Submitted by.................................................100, 136
The:
Mountaineers, Letter From.................................... 409
Nature Conservancy, Letter From.............................. 155
And Western Resources Advocates, Prepared Statement of
the.................................................... 196
Wilderness Society, Prepared Statements of.................147, 214
Tidwell, Tom, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture:
Statement of................................................. 109
Summary Statement of......................................... 113
Town of Ophir, Colorado, Prepared Statement of the............... 413
Tri County Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the. 196
Trout Unlimited, Prepared Statement of the....................... 415
Uncomahgre Valley Waters Users Association, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 196
Union of Concerned Scientists, Letter From the................... 155
United Tribes Technical College, Prepared Statement of the....... 424
Upper Peninsula Public Access Coalition, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 422
Utah Water Uses Association, Prepared Statement of the........... 196
Wellington, Florida, Prepared Statement of the................... 427
Western Interstate Energy Board, Prepared Statement of the....... 429
Wildlife Society, Prepared Statement of the...................... 420
Wyoming:
State Engineer's Office, Prepared Statement of the........... 429
Water Association, Prepared Statement of the................. 196
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 126
Airtankers.....................................................130, 139
Biomass Utilization............................................127, 130
Black Hills National Forest...................................... 135
Collaboration.................................................... 136
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act................... 128
Energy........................................................... 134
Corridor Siting.............................................. 124
Planning..................................................... 138
Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement (FLAME) Act.. 129
Fire............................................................. 137
Firefighter Retention............................................ 132
Hazardous Fuels.................................................. 129
Integrated Resource Restoration................................126, 127
Line Item--Accountability.................................... 119
Invasive Species................................................. 125
Lake Tahoe Basin--Biomass Infrastructure......................... 119
Fire Hazard From Slash Piles................................. 117
Land Acquisition................................................. 135
Night-time Flying................................................ 131
Planning Rule.................................................... 138
Quincy Library Group...........................................114, 128
Renewable Energy Development on National Forest Systems Lands.... 117
Road Budget...................................................... 137
Station Fire..................................................... 131
Stewardship Contracting........................................121, 127
Sunrise Powerlink..............................................121, 122
Timber:
Sales and Stewardship Contracting............................ 114
Supply....................................................... 126
Travel Management................................................ 139
Wind Energy Development on National Forest System Lands.......... 115
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
Abandoned Mines.................................................. 76
Additional Committee Questions................................... 90
Applications for Permits to Drill Fees........................... 84
Atlantic:
Office....................................................... 82
Wind Energy Potential........................................ 81
Budget.......................................................54, 57, 60
California Water................................................. 54
Categorical Exclusions........................................... 94
Centennial Initiative for the National Park Service (NPS)........ 104
Clean Energy Future.............................................. 68
Climate Change Adaptation........................................ 62
Coastal Restoration.............................................. 81
Cooperative Watershed Management Act/Wolf Kill Bill.............. 102
Department of the Interior Mission............................... 57
Economic:
Diversification.............................................. 99
Impacts...................................................... 57
Empowering:
Native American Communities.................................. 59
Tribal Nations............................................... 63
Energy........................................................... 71
And Climate Change........................................... 57
Development:
Impacts.............................................. 72
In California Deserts................................ 71
Federal Permitting............................................... 77
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).................................. 101
Full Funding for LWCF............................................ 78
Funding for Great Smoky Mountains National Park.................. 104
Hydro Power...................................................... 95
Information Technology and Travel Reductions..................... 57
Lake Memphremagog................................................ 79
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)........................102, 103
Legislative and Administrative Proposals......................... 65
Management Effectiveness......................................... 64
Military Land.................................................... 94
Missouri River Breaks............................................ 75
Monument Memo.................................................... 75
Moving Forward................................................... 69
Natchez Trace Parkway............................................ 80
New Energy Frontier.............................................. 61
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)..... 96
Oil and Gas...................................................... 83
Opportunities.................................................... 68
Overview of the 2011 Budget...................................... 61
Permitting on Private Land.......................................87, 92
Red Willow Creek Dam............................................. 86
Renewable Energy............................................73, 74, 101
Pilot Offices................................................ 76
Projects..................................................... 90
Rural Water...................................................... 102
Sam Hamilton..................................................... 81
Director, FWS................................................ 66
Siting........................................................... 73
Of Renewable Projects on Federal Lands....................... 105
Solar Development................................................ 88
Permitting................................................... 72
Solar Studies.................................................... 89
The First Year................................................... 60
Transmission..................................................... 94
Treasured Landscapes.............................................58, 63
And the Crown................................................ 100
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).................................... 98
University of Nebraska and USGS Collaboration.................... 87
Water............................................................ 58
Watersmart....................................................... 62
White-nose Bat Syndrome.......................................... 79
Yellowtail Dam................................................... 100
Youth in Natural Resources.......................................58, 62
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Additional Committee Questions................................... 34
Assuring the Safety of Chemicals................................. 7
Bisphenol-A (BPA)................................................ 36
Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships.................... 9
Carbon........................................................... 14
Climate Protection Program....................................... 49
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)--Infrastructure in Omaha........... 43
Clark Fork River................................................. 28
Clean:
Air.......................................................... 24
Act:
Ambient Ozone Standards.............................. 24
Ethanhol Blends...................................... 14
Regulations.......................................... 10
Water and Drinking Water Reduction........................... 17
Cleaning up our Communities...................................... 8
Coal Ash......................................................... 12
Department of Energy (DOE) Small Refinery Study.................. 50
Determining Clean-up Activities Planned for Libby................ 26
Economic Diversification......................................... 36
Endangerment Finding............................................. 18
Ethanol Blends................................................... 15
Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for
Environmental Justice.......................................... 9
Extent and Form of Impacts....................................... 40
Great Lakes Funds................................................ 22
Greenhouse:......................................................
Gas (GHG) Regulation......................................... 35
Gases--Market-based System................................... 33
Hydraulic Fracturing and Drinking Water.......................... 23
Improving Air Quality............................................ 7
Inorganic Arsenic Impacts on Drinking Water...................... 50
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Assessment............. 15
Long Creek Watershed............................................. 51
Libby:
Full-time, On-site Risk Assessor............................. 28
Using Epidemiological Data................................... 27
Maintaining a Strong Science Foundation.......................... 10
Mercury.......................................................... 52
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)............................... 43
Perchlorate...................................................... 36
Pesticide Registration Fees...................................... 48
Protecting America's Waters...................................... 8
Public Health Issues............................................. 37
Regulation:
Compliance, Mitigation....................................... 42
Versus Legislation........................................... 31
Regulatory Approach.............................................. 31
Selenium Pollution............................................... 39
Small Source Regulations......................................... 30
Sound Science--Asbestos.......................................... 26
State Grants..................................................... 35
Stationary Source Emitters....................................... 29
Superfund Site:
Libby, Montana............................................... 25
Omaha Lead Site.............................................. 15
Tailoring Rule................................................... 11
Taking Action on Climate Change.................................. 7
Village Safe Water Program....................................... 32
Water Quality:
Funding and Enforcement...................................... 20
Standards.................................................... 19
-